I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

In Moore's judging paradigm, the emphasis is on creating a debate environment that values clarity, fairness, and innovative thinking. The guidelines are as follows:

1. **No Spreading:**
- Avoid rapid-fire delivery or excessive speed. Prioritize clear and deliberate communication over speed.

2. **No New Arguments in the 3rd/Reply Worlds:**
- Maintain fairness by refraining from introducing new arguments in the final speeches or replies. Focus on developing existing points and responding to opponent positions... You will automatically lose.

4. **No Debate Jargon: In WORLDS!**
- Communicate in a manner accessible to everyone. Minimize the use of specialized debate terminology to ensure clarity for all participants and judges.

5. **Lower Speaks for Lack of Clarity:**
- Clear and articulate communication is paramount. If a speech lacks clarity or is difficult to understand, it may result in lower speaker points.

6. **Talk Clearly, Enunciate:**
- Emphasize the importance of clear and articulate speech. Enunciate your words to enhance comprehension and ensure that your arguments are conveyed effectively.

7. **Do Not Call for Cards:**
- Avoid explicitly requesting evidence cards during the debate. Focus on the substance of arguments and analysis without relying on external sources.

8. Tired of Ism's as Arguments (Uniqueness Gets You Points): Yes racism is bad, we all agree, these arguments are no longer unique. they are dull and boring and you will lose me.
- Move beyond generic ism arguments. Emphasize uniqueness and provide nuanced analysis to strengthen your case.

9. **New Ideas:**
- Encourage participants to bring innovative and unique ideas to the debate. Foster creativity and originality in argumentation to enrich the discussion.

10. **No Political/Religious Polarization:**
- Maintain a balanced and respectful discussion. Refrain from engaging in extreme political or religious polarization, and focus on presenting well-reasoned and moderate perspectives.

By adhering to these guidelines, Moore aims to create a debate space that values clarity, fairness, and the exploration of fresh and unique ideas while discouraging practices such as spreading, excessive use of debate jargon, and political or religious polarization.

Current Coach at University HS Charter, former competitor at George Washington High School. NSDA national finalist, semifinalist, top speaker.

General:

Flow Judge. Will do flow judge things. Add me to the email chain, willryan@g.ucla.edu (or preferably, use speechdrop.net)

Generally tech>truth, but I have my limits. I will vote on truth before voting on presumption unless a team explicitly goes for a presumption warrant.

Keep it relatively reasonable on speed. This is an oral communication activity, understanding what you are saying is still very important. I accept speech docs for evidence, but won't flow off of them. I'll call clear if you are too fast.

I presume to whoever doesn't have the burden of proof. Explain why that's you if you want to win on presumption.

Debate is good and fairness is an intrinsic impact, and I am incredibly unlikely to pick up K teams that argue otherwise. These are views which I am highly unlikely to change.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say a debate is messy if it wasn't actually messy. I find it irrationally annoying.

Don't use cross to make arguments that you should be making in your speeches.

LD:

Consider me a moderately prog judge. I vastly prefer a smaller number of well warranted positions to a high number of blippy positions, so I'm much more likely to vote for 1NC strategies that focus on 1-2 offs max if you are going for the K or theory, or 3-4 offs if you factor in DAs. That's not a hard limit or anything, but be aware of the risks of me missing something for going for more than that.

T is a part of the game, be prepared to hit it. I'd prefer it is reserved for instances of genuinely unfair 1ACs, but given that I am about 40 years behind the curve of T being read as a time suck I doubt that will ever happen.

I'm fine with K positions as long as they are reasonably accessible and well warranted. I have a pretty decent knowledge of postmodern and critical political philosophy and metaphysics (especially queer and feminist studies, I'm slightly less familiar with afropessimism and postcolonial studies). I'm less well versed with a lot of critical disciplines in IR and environmental studies in particular, so please be extra clear on a lot of these arguments if you are reading them. If you are reading some kind of K argument it needs to be absolutely crystal clear what exactly me voting does to your method or how it enacts any kind of change in the debate space. Lastly, I am incredibly skeptical of "K outweighs fairness" arguments, since presumably if the other team concedes the kritik, you expect me to vote for you-but if I don't value fairness I don't see why it should matter if I just arbitrarily decide to vote you down. That is to say that fairness is obviously maximally important to the debate space, so minimally be prepared to explain why your argument is fair.

Trichotomy is a voting issue that I am shocked more teams don't go for. If you run policy arguments on a value topic I'm highly sympathetic to T/Trichot responses.

PF:

Weigh.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

See LD for opinions on Kritiks and Theory. TLDR: Sure, why not.

IVI's seem very silly to me. Read a full theory shell if you want me to vote on some kind of procedural issue.

Please share speech docs before or after a speech so that we don't have to go through the burdensome process of calling for a dozen specific cards. If more than a single piece of evidence is called for please just share an entire doc of all of the cards you read in your speech.

WSD:

WSD is my favorite format so I will hold debaters to a high standard of performance. I will be very happy if I can see a nuanced debate and will likely award high points.

My stance on number of POIs is that 1st Prop sets the tone for the debate. So if 1st Prop takes 2 POIs, all other speeches should follow that trend. Same if 1st Prop only takes 1. I expect Opp teams to reciprocate at whatever level 1st Prop sets.

I marginally prefer all speeches to take 2 POIs, as I feel it makes the round more interactive and gives more clash during the Opp Bloc Speeches, but I will accommodate whatever the competitors set.

The prop should defend a reasonable interpretation of the motion and the opp should defend a reasonable inverse. Countermodels that are just "the model plus" are abusive and I will vote them down. Conversely, prop models that are just "we fiat the most perfect version of this policy ever because we said so" are very silly and I will likely not buy them.

Huge points for creative and unique argumentation. I hate when debates are stale and predictable, so unique stances can definitely give you a strategic edge. If you are willing to commit from 1st speeches to a creative position, you are likely to get major credit.

A good laugh is never unappreciated, and will bump style. Even a cringe worthy joke is likely going to be endearing, we are all nerds doing politics for fun, after all, so why not go for it :). (That said obviously know context, a super serious motion may not be the best time to crack a joke. All I'm saying is when applicable, try to have fun.)

Parent judge