Cypress Bay 2020

FIU- current

I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season

I'd like to be on the chain :) garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

Policy note - I'm good for any kind of debate you want to do, but don't judge the event super often, so I'm not going to get most topic jargon.

1 - K/Performance, esp high theory (but I also think T is true)

1-2 - Policy v Policy

2 - Dense idptx positions

3 - Phil you can explain well

4 - Theory heavy positions, besides T

5 - Dense phil you can't explain very well

Public forum stuff is near the bottom

#deBAYbies

Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?

You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.

Non T positions are cool, extra T and fxT are chill absent theory. I promise you can read whatever you want.

If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.

Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high school. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications to me. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.

The above is still true, especially the 1AC theory stuff, but after several months of doing prefs for my Cypress kids... there are a lot of people on the circuit now that are outright hostile towards phil stuff, or even tricks debate and this is kind of disappointing to me. Read the arguments that you want to read in front of me, but you should know that there are certain levels of explanation that you need to hit for me to vote on something - the brightline for voting on a dropped 1AC spike is going to be a lot higher for me than a fully fleshed out 1NC DA + case answers.

Longer version

• Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Claire Rung, Rob Fernandez

• Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else

• Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)

• The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
• - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
• - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
• - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
• - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.

• - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
• - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
• - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
• - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
• - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.

- Misc:

1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you

2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along

3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters

4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r

5. Do your own thing and do it well

6. Don't be afraid to ask questions

7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.

8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.

- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech --X---------------------------------------------Truth

Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard

Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon

A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file

A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors

Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6

I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie

Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up

Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune

The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Please don't dodge questions in cross

Public Forum

I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.

I'm okay with speed.

I'm good with technical arguments.

Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.

This is perpetually going to get longer and longer as I see things that I need to address. I'll shorten it eventually, I promise.

I did Lincoln Douglas and Extemp in high school, so I know my way around a debate round. I do not believe that relying solely on evidence wins you the round, there's a philosophical aspect to debate as well. I am a flow judge, I will flow what you are saying but if you do not respond to arguments I will not pull them through for you. I also do not flow cross ex, it is your responsibility to bring up arguments alluded to in cross ex. I can handle speed and prefer it, as long as what you're saying is understandable. Please be respectful of your opponent, I understand that debate can get heated but it's always important to be respectful of your opponent. Lastly, make it a good round! Respond to as much as you can, defend as much as you can, and take it seriously. Best of luck!

I have been coaching speech and debate since 1999, first in south Florida and now in central Florida.

LD: I am not a fan of Kritiks. In most respected academic realms, students are not rewarded for giving an off-topic response to a prompt. I have found that most Kritiks fall under the "off-topic response" descriptor, thus I do not take them seriously as a response to the resolution (or, as I see it, the prompt). Further, I find these types of arguments counter to the essence of the debate activity, excluding new and small programs and creating an exclusive sub-group (clique, if you will) within the debate community.

So in that respect, I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge than a progressive one. I want to hear a clear debate about the values that are in conflict in the resolution. Your cases should be comprised of arguments that are based in credible, academic sources; they should be built on clear logic, creative and innovative ideas; and they should actively and directly clash with your opponent's arguments. Debaters who can present a strong case with great logic and evidence, effective refutation of their opponent's case, and ultimately prove their Value/Value Criterion will win. If both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I will decide the round on which value holds up. So, make sure everything you argue ties back to your V and VC.

Special Note about progressive LD: While I do not like this style, I will (of course) judge you on your performance in the round, whatever shape each particular round takes. I will not judge anyone solely based on style/type of case. But let me elaborate a bit on why I find progressive style LD so problematic.

First, the speed is antithetical to real communication. Ideas, especially complex, nuanced, layered ideas (the likes of which one would hope to encounter in LD) require momentary breaths, pauses to let them settle. While sharing cases can help, it does not solve the issue fully. Also, the prevalence of JARGON in progressive debate is a distraction from the arguments in the round. Do your best to limit the use of jargon.

My next concern is the facile, reductive treatment given to the philosophical and academic theories often used by students. While I applaud your efforts to engage with these complex, rich, important ideas and texts, debaters are too often punching above their weight. That is understandable. Scholars spend their entire careers unpacking these theories. It is the very rare teenager who can engage with them without reducing them to tag lines and washed-out, oversimplified shadows of the textured ideas they actually are. IF you truly understand the ideas you are using (and you’re not just parroting something written by your team/coaches/camps), then go for it.

Finally, as the coach of a burgeoning team at a Title 1 school, I am very concerned about the fairness of this type of debate for programs like mine. Much has been written about this issue, so I will not belabor the point.

PF: The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during most of the round, but I am still looking for all of the hallmarks of good communication: eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions/voice modulation. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. Strong contentions will include important impacts. Strong cases will provide some sort of framework. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters.

Again, I am not a fan of the changes occurring in PF. Jargon (lots and lots of it) has crept in, and we have left the “public” in Public Forum far behind. (Sigh).

Final note: I value clarity over speed, and I consider civility to be of paramount importance in all rounds. Assertiveness does not require aggression. Assertiveness is applauded; aggression will be penalized.

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

Last updated for the Liberty Bell Classic.

Email for the chain: omar.elsakhawy25@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round.

Tech>Truth

Debate is a game

Olympia High School '22

UPenn '26

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Conflicts: Olympia, Doctor Phillips, Seminole, and Lake Buena Vista.

___

Quick Prefs

I try to be as tab as humanly possible. This is not necessarily based on how much I like these arguments, but how comfortable I feel judging them.

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - T/Theory

3 - K/Light Tricks

4 - Phil

5 - Heavy Tricks/Performance

Go slower than you normally would with a circuit judge, especially on analytics. I'm bad at flowing speedy debaters.

___

About Me

Hi, I'm Omar! I've been doing debate since my freshman year of high school and absolutely love the activity. I was the LD captain of my team since my sophomore year and intend to continue competing at the University of Pennsylvania in policy and APDA. As someone who hails from a small school, I mostly competed locally and specialized in traditional debate, qualifying for NCFL Nationals four years in a row and reaching quarterfinals at FFL Varsity State. However, as national tournaments went online and became more accessible, I took an interest in circuit debate. I reached quarterfinals at Duke and runoffs at Princeton.

As your judge, you can expect me to put in just as much effort analyzing the round and offering in-depth feedback as you do in competing. I view judging as a responsibility, not a privilege. That being said, I think my judging philosophy can be summarized in one phrase: be yourself. Although I may be more skilled at judging certain styles, I certainly prefer you do what makes you comfortable. I enjoy chill, humorous rounds and believe that debate should be an accessible space for all. Any "phobias" or "isms" will not be tolerated and I will take sufficient action if someone is being antagonized. Good luck, try your best, and have fun!

___

LARP:

- My favorite style on the high school circuit.

- I like complex scenarios way more than generic plans/DAs.

- I hate the new trend of just assuming the framework is util/reading 30 secs of "extinction outweighs" at the end of the AC.

- Please tell me when you're kicking something, don't assume. I'm chill with judge kick as long as its warranted.

- Going for the scenario with the most clash will give you brownie points.

- There's no such thing as a bad impact-turn (unless you're turning something like racism of course).

- My threshold for extensions are low since I know the aff has a ton to cover, a short overview will probably suffice.

- Please do a ton of weighing or the round becomes really hard to decide :)

- Please make a clear distinction between each card by saying "AND" or something of the sort.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Unconditional = must go for the CP unless there's a higher layer.

- Conditional = can kick out of the CP it unless it's been turned.

- Perms are a test of competition.

- PICs/severance perms are cheating.

T/Theory:

- There's no such thing as frivolous theory. That being said, please don't run disclosure on trad debaters or novices, it's such a low blow (unless we're in break rounds or the context makes it reasonable).

- I don't know why voters still exist. We get it, fairness and education. Feel free to give unique ones though.

- I like fleshed-out standards and dislike blippy warrants.

- I don't like when big-school debaters tell small-school debaters what's best for them.

- Not sure if "contact me before the round if you need me to meet any interps" is the best norm.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Drop the debater.

- Reasonability.

- Yes RVIs.

- Yes 1AR Theory.

- Theory is the highest layer.

Ks:

- I'm probably not familiar with your author unless it's cap K lit, so go slow and don't assume anything.

- I don't care if you're topical.

- PIKs and K-tricks are sus, but I will still vote for them.

- I will vote off links of omission but just like any other pre-fiat link it's really easy to beat back.

- Going for the linear disad and kicking out of the alt is a strategic move.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE THE ALT COMPREHENSIBLE.

Performance:

- I have no idea how to judge these rounds. If you're going to run this in front of me, please try to make it mirror a traditional K format so I have some sort of reference point.

Phil:

- I'm kind of a noob when it comes to evaluating these arguments.

- I'm familiar with Rawls, Kant, libertarianism, and communitarianism (plus generic FWs like MSV, util, etc.). Explain your framework to me like I don't know anything.

- Syllogisms are preferred over blip storms of independent warrants.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

- I think tricks are fun but I'm bad at evaluating them if they're spammed.

- Please don't be shifty, stuff like "whats an a priori?" will get you docked speaks.

- If you collapse to a tricky argument against a novice or a trad debater, I will be sad.

- As I said before, I flow mostly off the doc. Therefore, I probably won't flow stuff that's hidden/not on the nav pane.

- Brownie points for running unique paradoxes instead of the generic laundry list.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to presumption affirms, permissibility negates.

Trad:

- Check the LARP section above.

- Please give off-time roadmaps and signpost.

- Offense (i.e., reasons why you should win the round) takes precedent over defense (i.e., reasons why your opponent shouldn't win the round).

- Framework is key. If neither side's V/VC is extended, I default to util. Winning on the framework isn't a voting issue unless it's connected to case offense.

- I don't flow cross. If you want me to evaluate something from cross, please bring it up in your next speech.

___

PF

- Check the trad section above.

- Spreading is fine as long as you send the doc and everyone is okay with it.

- Counterplans are fine, I would rather not hear theory though. I'm fine with ev ethics IVIs.

- I don't think the framework debate really matters in PF, but probably have one.

- Everything should be extended by summary. No new evidence after rebuttal please.

- Paraphrasing is fine as long as you have the cut card on hand. I might call for it post-round.

___

Policy

- I'm not very good at judging actual policy, although I am apt at LARP (check the LD section above).

- Open cross is fine.

- Prompting is fine as long as it isn't excessive.

___

Speaks

I consistently float around the 28-28.5 range.

Ways to boost your speaks:

+.1 for memes/pictures of cute animals in the doc.

+.2 for Playboi Carti references.

I appreciate chill, friendly rounds. Any harassment is an auto-drop with minimum possible speaks. Hateful behavior will result in tab being contacted as well as your coach. Have fun and be nice!

___

Misc.

- I disclose whenever I'm allowed to but I don't disclose speaks.

- You can take off your mask when speaking just put it back on afterward. Keep masks on during cross.

- I don't care whether you stand or sit.

- Evidence ethics matter. I default to NSDA rules. I don't think useless indicts like "they bracketed one word in the card" are a big deal though.

- Flex prep is fine.

- I don't count the time it takes to flash the doc as prep time unless it's excessive.

___

Online Concerns

- I would recommend recording yourself in case there is a network issue. If I don't catch a part of your speech and you don't have a recording, I'll just give you some time to redo what was missed.

- I recognize that online debate sucks so don't worry about internet connectivity issues, background noise, etc.

- I don't care about cameras being off. I'll probably keep mine off unless tab tells me otherwise.

- Please put prep time taken in the chat.

The biggest thing I'll be looking for is cordiality. Be nice! Mean-spirited debate has no place in formal debate.

Do not spread. If you are going too fast I will not flow, and I will be fairly clear about it in terms of stopping writing so you have a visual sign to slow down.

I did debate for 4 years and can understand most arguments, just not when they're done so fast I can't understand your words or your points.

Please signpost cards well. I don't flow the names of the authors of your cards, give me some discernible detail or tagline about your card so I can recognize which one you are referencing and flow accordingly.

If possible, I prefer not seeing definition debates, although I understand sometimes they are essential. Try and primarily focus on contentions interacting, with definition debate only when truly necessary.

I will not flow Cross X, meaning anything you want to make it to the flow from cross needs to be mentioned in the following speech.

Have fun!

I mainly decide a winner by who persuades me more to side with them. “Tabla rasa” sounds like Greek to me. I try to consider only the frameworks/arguments that were stated during the round regardless of my personal knowledge/beliefs. However, I may treat some overwhelmingly accepted by our society concepts as implicitly stated until somebody challenges them. I weigh argumentation more than style, yet I consider how convincingly the arguments are delivered including attitude/accentuation/eye contact/gestures/facial expressions. Since this is a verbal activity, I only consider what I comprehend from the speeches. If the speech rate interferes with clarity, I suggest slowing down and choosing what is most important for me to hear. I neither participated nor have any professional experience in debates, so consider addressing a normal intelligent, educated, well-informed member of society, and limit debate jargon to a minimum.

Biases

- I have no preference for a particular order. Instead, I welcome creativity, so use what you think is effective. In my book, the Aff. side has a slightly higher burden of proof but they have the first chance to define framework/terms. Whoever defines something first gets the benefit of the doubt; the opponent must argue why the alternative is better.

- I assume that a dropped argument was considered unimportant; the opponent must show its importance or it is not a big deal. Indirectly addressed arguments are not dropped. Also, I will not consider an argument as conceded if I myself don’t remember that the argument was said, so make your important arguments stand out.

- If one team states contradicting arguments, I consider both arguments disproved. Make a consistent case.

- I value how you respond to the opponent’s statements more than the opening speeches. Do not ignore the arguments.

- In recent rounds, some participants misinterpreted the other side and argued against something that was not said. I counted it against them as understanding the other side is important. The cross-examination is a good time to clarify the opponent’s position.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc.

Since I am here to let you do what you like, I welcome anything. However, if you go off-topic, I assume you are prepared for it and the other side is going impromptu. You must explain your case so that I understand it. I may take into account any flaws I see in your arguments, including those that your opponent did not notice due to lack of preparation. I also don't expect the opponent to have proper references to support every counter-argument. If you think it is unfair, stay on the topic.

Evidence

I don’t see your cards, so I cannot tell which one is more trustworthy. I encourage you to explain why I should trust your source and not the opponent’s. If two sources contradict and I have no way to tell which is more credible, I either doubt both or trust the one that better agrees with the common knowledge. I will recreate missing links in the chains of reasoning only if they are obvious and unambiguous.

Rules

I will not interfere unless absolutely necessary. I expect the participants to take charge and track time by themselves. I usually do not stop speeches when the time is up. Instead, I disregard anything said outside the allowed time (including off-time roadmaps). When possible, I assume that rule violations are not intentional and mitigate them just enough to cancel the advantage the violation could create for the offending party. I appreciate helping me identify violations but don’t spend too much time arguing about it. I will make sure that attempts to embarrass, intimidate, or otherwise treat the other participants poorly are counterproductive.

Most important is to follow decorum (no ad hominem fallacies) and follow the simple flow of argumentation.  We are here to debate so debate and convince me that your position is the stronger argument.  Your personal opinions do not matter once you enter the room.  

1.  Key arguments of quality with sufficient and ideal sources of evidence that provide relevant support.
2. Clarity and organization with proper flow from one argument to another.  If I cannot follow you or you do not counter an argument presented, you have conceded your position.
3. Decorum!  You are here to debate on the argument, NOT the debater.
4. Please do not introduce a new argument, however tempting, in the final rebuttal! 
   
   

Let’s have fun debating!

This is my third year as a parent debate judge. Have two children that have participated in various categories for speech and debate in High School. Additionally, I competed in Public Forum while I was in High School.

Appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. I work in the environmental and engineering field so appreciate facts and logical arguments.

Please add me to the speech doc: annajurlina@gmail.com

Overview

Debate is an activity where two advocacies are weighed against each other. Therefore, each side should try to explain why their method is best, what the world will be like if I vote for them, and why that world would be better than that of the opposition.

Impact Calculus and overviews are a good way to ensure that the impacts are weighed in your favor. You may not like the way I vote if you leave a bunch of impacts on both sides floating around.

Ks:

I am not very familiar with current literature and it would be wise to explain your position clearly to me because if I do not understand it, then I cannot vote on it. The weakest part of a K is generally the Alt. Therefore, even if the alt is not questioned, you should spend some time explaining why your method or advocacy will be best able to solve.

Also when on the neg there should be a direct link to the aff rather than a link of omission. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will be hard for you to win. I am a K debater so take with that what you will.

Topicality/ Framework:

I do believe that topicality is a voting issue if executed properly. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important. It is always a good idea to bring up a TVA on the neg. Overall, It needs to boil down to education. Why is the strategy that the aff is taking distracting from your ability to learn in the round? To me, fairness is almost never a voting issue because life is not fair.

Counterplans:

Counterplans need to feasible. Saying that the 50 states should do the plan instead needs to have some solvency. I will not fiat that all 50 states will do this simultaneously without some plan or solvency mechanism. Do not present three different counterplans that cannot coexist without picking to advocate for one in the end. Make it clear what you end advocacy is, even if that is the SQUO.

Disads:

Disads should not be read in abundance with a bunch of nuclear war scenarios. Not to say I would not vote on those impacts if the other side did not have reasonable impact defense. I prefer to hear reasonable impacts rather than the extinction of humankind because of one policy enacted by the USFG. Consider what impacts of economic decline are rather than nuclear war. This is not to say that you cannot have those impacts, but be ready to explain the probability and timeframe. Do not assume you will win on magnitude alone.

Neg Strategies:

I prefer not to hear the neg read nine off and then try to extend them through the block just to overwhelm the aff. In this case, I may vote on a good perf con or condo bad arg. However, the majority of the time I do believe that conditionality is good.

Evidence:

It is important for both sides to not only read competing evidence, i.e. single payer will/ will not tank the economy, but also to explain why to prefer their evidence. Evidence quality is more important than quantity.

Speaker Points:

In order to get good speaks in front of me it is best to not be rude to someone due to lack of knowledge or experience. Although I do appreciate sarcasm during speeches, there is a line between rude and sarcastic.

Please do not be monotone, especially in the rebuttals, this is a persuasive activity and I am not persuaded when you stare at a computer screen with no emphasis on what is important.

Although CX can get heated, it is important to remember that logic pokes holes in arguments, not volume.

You can spread in front of me.

I am a parent Judge. I have three years judging LD, PF, most speech events and congressional debate. I have judged both locally and at NSDA nationals.

I want to be persuaded by arguments and moved by speeches. Please limit rehash by listening to each other. I will look for creative arguments and strong sources. Did you do your homework on the topic? I will also look at the way you are addressing and using the space. I will look for passion, logic and creativity - but most importantly a lively back and forth debate. Fundamentals of pathos, logos, and ethos are critical. Good sources and linkage should support the argument.

For debate spreading is acceptable, and while I am happy to have materials provided before debate, I will not dock for disclosure.

For dramatic and humorous interpretation, I will be looking at character and use of space. In general there should be a dramatic arc and I look for detail in the characters. I find the better you can stick to Aristotle's unities the more effective you will be - unity of action, time, character, place, etc.

In Congress - these should be shovel ready bills that will make a difference. Is your bill funded properly? Can the government do what the bill is suggesting? - is it within the powers provided by the Constitution? Philosophy matters, but in Congress you are designing bills that could be implemented. Details matter more.

Let me know how you want time indicated and I will be happy to give you the appropriate signals.

Debate is communication and it should hit me in both the head and the heart.

I have 6+ years of debate experience across pretty much every style. I like a very clear, well-tagged, and well organized case. Dropped arguments play a huge part in my decision-making and will likely be included in your RFD in some way. I love arguments that apply theory to evidence and appreciate when arguments are based in stock issues.

I have spent 7 years as a speech & debate coach, and I would say that if you needed to classify me I would likely be considered a "classical style" judge. That being said, this is how I would describe my beliefs for debate...

- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.

- I will not say no to theory or kritik but will say that I've rarely seen it used well enough to convince me, so I would be careful in using these arguments.

- I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading. I flow fairly well, but I would say QUALITY over QUANTITY, and that if I did not hear you say it, then you didn't say it. As this is a "public speaking event" and as both opponents are supposed to receive equal time and consideration from the judge, I see very little value in flashing cases. Make your arguments during the round please, as I can only judge you on the arguments you make.

- At the end of the day I will be looking at your entire debate and want to feel that you are more "right" in the round. Please make certain to weigh your impacts and provide me with solid voters as to why you have won the debate. I will care much more about your arguments being presented and linked believably, authentically, and logically than being 'ahead" on the offensive flow.

I have spent the last 3 years as a coach and primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate.

My debate preferences are as follows:

• On a scale of 1-10, (1 being very slow and clear- 10 being Eminem's Rap God) I prefer a speaking speed of around 7. With that being said, you must not speak faster than you can personally handle and must remain clear and easily understood, even if you are speaking quickly.
• Please make clear links between arguments as I will not assume your reasoning or jumps in logic are valid.
• I value quality of arguments over quantity.
• For LD, framework is very important to me. It should flow clearly and be achieved through your arguments as a whole. In addition, I do not value "plans" and "counter-plans" in LD.
• Stay away from fallacies. In LD/PF, straw man fallacies can be very common. Misrepresenting or over simplifying your opponent's argument and then refuting the misrepresentation that you created does not win you the round. Many concepts are multifaceted and a strong debater recognizes that and refutes appropriately.
• Overall, I judge based on your argumentation as a whole. Your arguments should seek to achieve your framework and all should be well supported with both evidence and impacts.

Congress:

• I value strong speakers AND strong arguments.
• Evidence should be analyzed and purposeful. Once enough speeches have been given on a bill, rehash is undesirable. Congress is a debate, please make sure to respond to others in chamber, weigh, extend, and be sure to maintain clash.
• Engage with the chamber, look up from your legal pad, and use the space provided to you. The floor is yours! Clear organization and signposting is necessary to follow arguments. I'm a fan of compelling language and appropriate use of rhetoric to tie your arguments together.

Background: I am a physician and also the head coach of a Speech and Debate team. I was a former high school policy debater, but that does not mean I like spreading or progressive arguments. I'm a dinosaur. See below.

PF

General: The team that is able to support their offense with strong logic and good evidence while having effective defense against their opponents' case will win the round. Duh.

Speed: I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during the round, but this is a no spread zone.

Cases: I like strong links to your impacts, which is why I usually find stock arguments to be the strongest. However, I also like squirrels, but only if your links are convincing. I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If something doesn't make sense or the link is weak, I will be less likely to vote on it. I am a judge after all and that's what I get paid the big bucks to do. Actually, I don't get paid, but if I did get paid, I'm sure it would be big bucks.

Progressive arguments: Please, for all that is good in the world, do not bring progressive LD nonsense into PF. OK? PF is the last bastion of debate purity left. My ROB is to drop progressive arguments and don't try to RVI me.

Crossfire: Be courteous. If someone is trying to be a time hog, I am okay with polite interruption. I sometimes vote on something that comes up in CF, but you should mention it in your speeches if you want me to not forget. Word to the wise: I've dropped many debaters because CF sometimes reveals their lack of knowledge and/or incoherent warranting. That's why I will flow CF.

2nd Rebuttal: You should probably start frontlining now. Starting frontlines in 2nd Summary is a little late in the round and puts too much of a burden on the 1st FF to backline for the first time. Luckily this is a rarity in PF.

Summary: You should extend all offense and defense. I don't believe in sticky defense. If you don't extend in Summary, don't expect me to vote on it if it suddenly shows up in FF. You should start weighing in Summary. In fact, you could start weighing in rebuttals. Don't wait until FF. For Rebuttal, Summary, and FF, please give me logical warrants beyond just reading the cards. In other words, explain the card with logical analysis. I frown on debaters who rely solely on card reading.

Grand CF: This should have balanced involvement of all debaters.

FF: When rounds are close, I will use the FF to write my RFD, so I hope you are a good writer. Weigh impacts, cases, links, evidence. Metaweigh if needed, although I often find metaweighing too subjective unless you can convince me that you outweigh on prereqs. Make sure to extend at least your most important if not all offense. I'm fine if you drop a contention and collapse on one or two, but be careful. I have dropped debaters because they chose the wrong contention to drop (it was actually their best offense).Offense is what wins rounds. But to make sure your offense is better than your opponent's offense, your defense better be legit. It doesn't matter to me when you weigh and give voters...after each issue or at the end...it's up to you.

Evidence ethics: I HATE power cutting where you pull single words from one sentence and attach to a single word two sentences later and think that is a legit way to cut. If the two sentences are logically linked, then okay. But most power cut cards are atrocious. They often end up being straw arguments or horribly paraphrased. I won't necessarily call for a card myself. This is where I need teams to be proactive. If you suspect bad evidence, call for it in round. Call it out in your speech and request that I look at it at the end of the round.

Calling cards: Yes, include me on an email chain when sharing evidence. When requesting evidence, I will consider prep time to begin once the evidence is received. Please announce when that happens and that you are taking prep. Don't be sneaky.

LD

Although I am a former policy debater, I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells or ROBs. I prefer debate on the substance of the resolution. So in that respect I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge. However, I am okay with plans and CPs because that totally appeals to my policy debate background. However, if you run a plan or CP, make sure you check the boxes on solvency, topicality, uniqueness, and inherency. Even if your opponent doesn't identify all the problems with your plan/CP, I won't be able to weigh your impacts if I don't believe that your plan is going to get you there.

Please don't just read cards. This is a definite problem I've noticed with progressive debaters trying to adapt to a traditional round. You need to give me some solid warranting so I can effectively weigh your arguments and also so I know you know what you are talking about.

In terms of framework, I will go with whoever makes the best case for theirs. But what I've often found is that the contention level debate ends up fitting many frameworks, so it really comes down to your arguments. However, if you go all in on something like util, make sure you have some terminal impacts for me to see exactly how you benefit the majority or maximize pleasure/minimize pain.

Crystallization and more extensive analytics and voters in the 2AR and 2NR is helpful, especially when the round gets muddy. I don't care as much if you drop an opponent's argument as long as that argument is not effective offense.

I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If I did, then we could use computers to determine the winner of a round and we wouldn't need human judges. So I WILL cast my own opinion on an argument if I think it makes zero sense or is not well warranted. After all, I am a judge and that's my job. I am going to judge your arguments on their merits. I will extend a solid argument unless your opponent applies some good defense or turns.

I am not a fan of spreading. I am okay with some speed, but if I can't understand you, then it is not going on the flow. Even if I get your case via email, I'm not going to be reading it while you spread. This is a verbal activity and, therefore, I will only flow things that are verbally communicated and what I can hear and understand.

At the end of the day, I'm going to give the win to whoever I think had the most offense at the end of the round.

World Schools

I will judge based on traditional World Schools debating i.e. proper terminology, appropriate use of POIs, persuasive style and rhetoric, good logic and argumentation, and most importantly examples and statistics from around the world if appropriate. You will not win if you try to debate using PF or LD technical arguments, squirreling, or spreading. Do not try to burden opponents with limiting definitions or frameworks.

I'm a parent

This is my 3rd year judging LD, and I have a little experience judging PF. If I get you in a PF round please explain any jargon, I won't have any topic knowledge

Email: rich785d@gmail.com

Add me to the chain

Quick Prefs

1 - trad, low theory

2 - T, LARP

3 - Phil

4 - Ks

s - high theory, Pomo Ks, trix, identity Ks, friv theory

Defaults

• Presumption negates, Permissibility affirms
• Fairness > education
• No RVIs, Competing interps, drop the argument
• Comparative Worlds
• Condo bad

Thoughts

• Tech > truth, but I probably won't vote on anything absurd and my threshold for response is lower the worse an argument is
• Need claim, warrant, impact for everything you read
• Voters at the end of last two speeches
• Condo's probably bad so honestly just read a condo bad shell and I'm probably likely to vote on it
• I'm probably pretty likely to vote on T as long as its articulated well
• Don't read friv theory pls, if you have to ask yourself whether a shell is friv just don't read it
• If you plan on reading dense phil positions please please please explain everything in it extremely well
• I listen to cross but I won't flow, if anything it'll affect your speaks a little but don't worry too much about it
• Signpost everything, it's just good
• I'm fine with spreading it won't affect speaks or anything, but also send the doc and don't expect me to listen

Ks

• I won't understand anything Pomo or complex like Baudrillard or Psycho
• If you wanna read Ks just make it really simple for me and maybe overexplain, I'd probably be fine with setcol, cap, or security but anything else is kinda pushing it tbh

Theory

• I'm fine with most low theory and shells like Espec, Disclo, rlly anything as long as the interp is good
• I won't understand high theory, please don't try to explain it
• No friv

LARP

• Util trutil
• Extinction o/w
• CPs are usually pretty fun if they're well articulated
• Generic DAs are usually good, but unique is cool too

Phil

• Honestly, just overexplain your position and it'll be fine
• If you can't explain it don't read it because I won't get it either

Speaks

25 - 26: You said something offensive

26.1 - 27: Significantly below average, maybe you didn't cwi anything

27.1 - 28: Probably below average, there's definitely some stuff you need to change

28.1 - 29: Average - good, you could break

29.1 - 29.9: Should definitely break, probably one of the best I've seen

30: I've only given one 30 but honestly I'm probably more likely to give one now that I'm more experienced. Probably best I've ever seen debate and your strategic decisions and such were pretty much perfect

Scroll down for trad/NCFL

I prefer to use speech drop or the tournament file share, but please feel free to email me any questions or concerns at lesliedebate2027@gmail.com. (she/her)

Progressive/Circuit

I will vote on basically anything as long as I can understand it. However, I will not vote on any argument that make the debate space unsafe, which includes but is not limited to racist/sexist/homophobic arguments.

Spreading is fine, just make sure to send out speech docs. If you don't send out speech docs, I probably won't be able to keep up, so I would recommend going at about 75% of your maximum pace. If you skip or don't read more than 1 thing on the doc, please send out a marked doc after your speech is over.

I'm most comfortable with judging policy, then Ks, theory, and phil. I am unlikely to vote for a completely non-topical aff but I just need a few lines tying your case to the topic. I'm fine with ROB and IVIs.

Tricks: I'm not well-versed in tricks but if you explain it in an understandable way, I'm willing to vote on it. I would like to judge a round that comes down to a definitions argument of some kind.

Disclosure: My standard for disclosure is sending out the aff at the request of the opponent 30 minutes before the round starts. This does not apply to trad affs or completely new affs. If you are using most of the same cards even if they are used differently, that is not a new aff. If you will be running disclosure theory, please include all communication between you and your opponent in the doc and any supporting evidence. If you just say they ran this same aff in round 3 but only include a screen shot of the name of the aff from the earlier round, that is not going to be enough for me.

Frivolous Theory: Do not read friv theory. I will not vote on it. Regular theory is fine.

Miscellaneous

I will increase speaker points for interesting arguments I don't commonly hear. I try to be as tab as possible. I have voted against my own political beliefs numerous times and also for somewhat absurd arguments like trees are bad for the environment due to forest fires.

-Evidence ethics: Don't misrepresent evidence or clip cards. It's an automatic loss for me.

-I am impressed by a really good CX. I do not enjoy the Oppression Olympics so please try find another way to counter an identity K.

Traditional/NCFL

I will flow the debate and keep track of arguments, refutations, and dropped arguments. However the debater needs to bring up that the opponent has dropped a contention for me to count it.

Please include voters in your final round/speech. If I feel that round is too close to call, I will default to who won the framework debate.

Please be kind to novices or newer circuit debaters. Win the round but help them to learn something from it.

Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins.

Don't spread and speak as slowly and clearly as you can please

Be nice to each other!

I am a parent judge for LD locally. I love judging because it's all about who presented a good outline of their framework, their contentions (argument points), rebuttals and ultimately who provided you the most convincing arguments in their respective debate.

It is important to let the competitors know that they should not do spreading- this is speaking too fast where you cannot understand.

This is my second year of judging LD. I will write and draw lines on my customized flow sheet. Ignore what I am doing and present your argument and rebuttals. I am comfortable with electronic judging and will endeavor to provide useful comments. I do not disclose at the end of the round so I can judge based on what was presented during the debate and not afterward.

Please note:

I have little charity for anyone who lets their opponent dominate their CX.

Put your pen down unless you are writing.

An abusive argument will be judged accordingly.

Do not use volume as a distractor from a weak or unstructured argument.

Use spreading at your own risk. Do not expect me to accurately follow a high WPM stream. I must understand you. Make your points clear and succinct. LD is a debate not an auction.

Both Lincoln and Douglas were professionals. You be one too.

Have fun!

I'm lay. Speak slow.

-written by the son of James Wayne

I am a parent judge. I have judged speech mostly, and have done some LD rounds. I like to hear novel ideas presented with clear, identifiable facts. I like debaters that speak slower rather than fast. I appreciate when you make eye contact, speak loud and clear and are engaging. I will keep time for myself, but let me know if I have to do it for you as well. Try to use and mention your sources, as this is something that I consider when grading a good debate. I don’t have any bias in regards of affirmative or negative positions, you only need to be convincing with your speech!