I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please articulate your claims, warrants and impacts. Please also articulate which claims, warrants and impacts of your opponent's arguments you are challenging. The more I understand your arguments and challenges, the more likely I am to vote for you. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Please include me in the email: doshibnd@gmail.com

Good luck to everyone!

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

I am a lay judge, I have limited experience as judge. I am a Dentist by profession.

Though I might have my personal opinions about any given topic, I will make sure my personal bias will not influence my decisions in the tournament. I will make sure my decisions will totally depend on the contestants knowledge, ability, competency and technical details of the topic given. I expect mutual expect between participants. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite when you speak and do not interrupt the other speaker. I like the participants share their case to my email ravikanth23@gmail.com so that i can go over and will make sure i am not missing anything.

For Speaker Points:

1. Please be loud and clear.
2. Conversational speed talking.
3. Eye contact.

First and foremost I am a lay judge.

Couple of things...

Speed is fine as long as I can understand what you are saying, make sure to speak clearly and concisely.

I'll flow but I can't guarantee that I'll catch everything.

Time yourselves and keep track of your own prep time.

Please signpost in your speech.

Please weigh :)

Be respectful to each other.

Most importantly, have fun!

New judge. Please speak clearly and slowly as much as possible.

Really appreciated your patience and passion to make a joyful journey together!

Good luck!

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.

Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...

Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.

Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.

Worlds Schools - Do not spread.

Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.

If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.

mrobinson43@gmail.com

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

If you are reading this shortly before the round or otherwise in a hurry, the most important points to read for the round will be those in larger font.

Experience/Background:

I competed in high school debate for three years at Archer High School. I have competed in PF, LD, BQD, and World Schools, though most of my experience is with PF, and was for my senior year the president of the Speech and Debate team at my high school. I have competed at the local and national levels.

Judging Preferences:

Tech/Truth:

I of course base my decisions on what is presented in the round, but I am not favorable to sophistry. Here's what I mean by that:

I am not favorable to sophistry, i.e. trying to 'sneak by' a win or 'gaming' the way the debate works. For instance, trying to disguise an argument to confuse the opponent, or exaggerating evidence, trying to hide the weak points in an argument by complexity, any deliberate subtle fallacies, sneaking arguments by through technicalities, making stuff up when caught off guard by a rebuttal or question, throwing out so many arguments the opponent doesn't have time to tackle them all, defining things in an unrealistic way to favor your side, making elaborate link chains for an evidently absurd impact (e.g. pharmaceutical policy leads to nuclear war), etc. This kind of sophistic approach is contrary to the point of the debate, which is to help train us to find, and not fabricate, the truth.

Practically, this means:

-Feel free to simply call out an argument as being manifestly absurd if you really think it is so. If I concur I will flow this as a rebuttal.

If your opponent says something which is evidently absurd, e.g. arguing that X pharmaceutical company policy will lead to nuclear war based on an extremely elaborate and sketchy link chain, feel free to dismiss the argument in rebuttal as being manifestly preposterous. If the argument is truly such, I will flow your rebuttal. You don't need to waste two minutes of your speech explaining why their argument won't play out if it's manifestly absurd, especially since this only plays into the hand of and encourages certain sophisitic strategies which thrive off of bizarre link chains, and try intentionally to force opponents to spend their time on arguments intended only as distractions. But you do have to actually call out their argument as ridiculous for me to flow this rebuttal. Otherwise it looks like you just concede it.

-If you think your opponent is using sophistic tactics or arguments, calling them out on it will make their arguments loose credibility and, therefore, make me more likely to vote for yours.

If your opponent is arguing in a sophistic, deceptive, or subtly fallacious way, pointing this out will make me very favorable to your rebuttals. If you can show me that your opponent is being sophistic with a certain argument, the rest of their arguments will also begin to loose credibility. In other words, in diminishes the force of their arguments.

-If I spot sophistry or deceptive tactics in one's argumentation, even if they were not pointed out in-round, I might penalize speaker points.

-In reality, things are hardly ever black-and-white and are rather nuanced. If, instead of trying to make something up, you concede or qualify part of your argument because you genuinely realize your opponent is right, I will not only boost your speaker points, but will your argumentation will gain a lot in credibility.

-Use common sense.

Speed:

-I have no issue with speed in itself, and even encourage it. Time is limited, and the more information everyone can get in, the more developed and nuanced the debate can be. I think a speed well-above conversational is necessary to get across a satisfactory amount of points.

-However, I am not a fan of 'spreading' strictly so called (if you know, you know): i.e. to the point where one just mumbles syllables with no inflection and with the constant interruption of short, quick breaths. If I can understand you it won't hurt your ballot, but it may affect speaker points.

-I will not dock speaker points for your speed— however if your speaking pace obstructs your ability to speak well, e.g. if you speak with no inflection or emphasis, I will take away speaker points because of your e.g. lack of emphasis. It is possible to speak both fast and well.

-I will consider abusing speed to just throw out a bunch of half-baked arguments which one hopes the opponent won't have time to respond to as a sophistic. Depending on how egregious it is, I may even not flow arguments presented in this fashion.

N.B. Because I have been out of debate for a while, I may struggle in the beginning to flow things well which surpass the 300wpm mark — I will try my best. If you are worried, pay attention and it should be obvious if I need you to slow down.

Evidence

I have a high-standard for evidence. Just because you have a card does not make the argument unassailable, even if it is a very good card. Evidence is extremely important, especially for PF debate. Nevertheless evidence must be truly understood and analyzed. It's not about just snipping stuff from articles indiscriminately so you can check the evidence checkbox. One should actually understand what their card is saying, why it's authoritative, etc. If someone can't convince me that a card is authoritative, I won't consider it such.

Of course, you are not necessarily expected to explain in detail every single card in your case. This is simply impossible given the time limits of debate. Though I would encourage including in your case some sort of explanation of the value of at least the more important cards, insofar as this is not really custom right now it will not hurt your case if you don't do this. However if you do do this it will lend your arguments more force. However, if your opponent challenges one of your cards, you need to be able to explain. If when challenged you either cannot explain what the card even says (i.e. it's clear you don't really understand it yourself), or if you cannot explain why the card is authoritative, the card will carry no weight for me as judge. It will be as if your claim was uncarded. Further, if it becomes clear that you have misunderstood a card, your credibility will be hurt.

If it emerges that one has clearly falsified their evidence or in some obviously wrong way misrepresented their evidence, all of their cards will lose much if not all credibility and value for me. I will be unable to trust any of their other evidence and it will be difficult to find their argumentation convincing.

Because evidence is not uncommonly misrepresented (usually, I would like to hope, by mistake), I will be very favorable to allowing you to view the opponent's evidence without running prep time. Especially for cards of major import to the debate. However, there is simply not time for this to go on ad infinitum, and so at a certain point I may ask you to start running prep time. If the opponent has a card which you think is sketchy, but which is extremely long and which you cannot possibly examine in the time allotted, you may request that I examine the card after the round. If the card is of major import to the debate I will be very favorable to granting this request. If I find that the card was indeed misrepresented, and even more so if this was blatant, I will not only flow the point to your side, but understanding that you were arguing the whole time against the weight of pseudo-evidence I will be much more favorable to your case. I will be very sympathetic here, because there's really nothing else you could've done. But please do not abuse this to just grasp for straws. But in general, do not hesitate to check your opponent's evidence, or request that I do so.

I am not closed to the possibility of preferring the weight of your analysis and reasoning over their card, if you can convince me why I should do so. In general I will give more weight to the expert, but this all depends on various factors, e.g. whether or not their expert is truly an expert, or just simply a journalist with no expertise in the subject in question, whether or not there are likely other experts who disagree, how well the opponent can support their card, etc. Use common sense here (and everywhere else, too).

Not all cards are equal. Cards citing experts in a field have much more weight than for instance just citing journalists. If you cite a blog or something else absurd as an authority without explaining further I will consider the source more likely to be wrong than right.

Extension

Please extend your arguments. Don't be legalistic about it, but it needs to be clear that you're still actively making this argument. Non-extended arguments are of course considered to be dropped.

Aggression

Politeness, civility, and considerateness are important. I am fine with aggressive argumentation, as long as it is directed to the arguments and respect is positively shown and maintained towards the opponent. Be merciless to the arguments; but showing respect to the other competitor will help your speaker points.

Cross-Fire

I do not flow cross-fire, but you are encouraged to bring up points from cross-fire in later speeches, which I will flow.

"Theory"

Please don't. See tech/truth.

Values (LD)

I won't penalize you for just doing what is customary. Nevertheless, please do not be legalistic about values: use common sense. See tech/truth

speak clearly and not too fast