Hello, I’m Geanell Adams! I'm a college professor with a varied life experience including military service. I have educational backgrounds in political science, business, accounting, government, economic and workforce development, career technical education, and higher education. My work experiences correlate to those educational attributes. A fun fact is that I am also a stenographer and can write machine shorthand up to 260 wpm. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (geanelladams@aol.com) and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am usually okay with some speed, but make sure you articulate and are coherent. If you want to speed up as the round goes on, we can try it out. I will be more forgiving when it comes to clarity and will say clear as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution; however, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I tend not to give verbal or non-verbal cues. I tend to be stoic and don't show or exhibit expression. This is intended to keep the presenter from being distracted by me as the judge. So don't take this an an indication that I agree or disagree with you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

trad circuit debate is preferred :) please use all of your prep time! i really like cross-ex and crossfires. be nice and civil, ignorant behavior = instant loss. if you're neg please actually have impacts, don't just attack aff. feel free to ask questions (aanderson4560@gmail.com)

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Hi everyone, I am a college student studying Engineering. I do college debate and I did speech as well as debate events in high school, with a focus on PF and Extemp. I also did Congress and Big Questions, and have a little familiarity with LD and Policy.

General Stuff - Debate

Be clear and comprehensible - quality > quantity. Don't spread unless you disclose.

Be courteous in cross and don't like yell or anything.

Don't go over time limit, I won't flow anything said over time.

Don't falsify/misrepresent evidence.

If you have any questions just email me: seanbreton7@gmail.com

Specifics - Debate

For PF,

Explain your case like I am a normal, everyday citizen with little knowledge on current political topics or issues.

Clear line-by-line rebuttals are nice. Be sure to respond to impacts; tell me why your opponents can't access impacts. If you're speaking second, be sure to address your opponent's responses. When reading out data, you really need to understand what it says, why does this data matter in today's round? What helps is being able to talk me through your data, rather than just reading verbatim what a card says. Make sure to explain your logic.

Collapse in summary, you don't have to go for everything on the flow, condense the arguments to the major issues in the round. Tie up any loose ends and begin to weigh. Tell me why your opponents can't access their impacts or why your impacts are bigger and better. Make sure that summary and final focus are cohesive with each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on. Extend everything you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

Weighing is really important. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent. Also, tell me where I should be voting for you and why I should be voting for you. Be clear and sign-post all the way through.

Don't bring up anything new in final focus or second summary unless it's in response to defense in first summary.

For LD,

I've never done LD but I am familiar with the format and how it works.

Same as PF, I'm just gonna base everything on the flow.

Be sure to talk about impacts explicitly and how they align with your value and criterion. Spend time developing clear answers to values and impacts that your opponent brings up and counter any arguments brought up against your case. Take time to be clear so I have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

For Policy,

It's the debate I'm least familiar with, probably won't judge it, but I generally know how it works. Again, just gonna base everything on the flow, make sure to stay organized. Not really familiar with anything progressive.

Specifics - Speech

Be comfortable with your speech! Have confidence and clarity.

Kimberlycrawford2015@gmail.com
I am a mom judge btw
Be nice.
Don't clip. Don't steal prep. Be organized. Be prepared.
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
Tech over truth but if something is dropped and neither
side brings it up in the rebuttals I will not vote on it.
Make sure to give road maps and signpost. I usually give the win to the team that conveyed their arguments the clearest and properly affirmed or negated the resolution.
(Impact calc goes a long way)

Glhf

Hey Everyone!

I’m an inexperienced judge, so bear with me!

When it comes to Speech speak clearly and with passion! And in debate my vote will go to whoever has the best case, strongest evidence, and convinces me to vote for them more! Please try to keep debate as civil as possible!

I can give time signals to anyone who needs it!

See y’all in round, good luck!!

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.

I am a first-time judge.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

Debate: I am a pretty lay judge.

PF: I am an ex-pfer so I am pretty familiar with the structure of public forum. My pet peeve for this event are spreading and yelling. Please do not spread. I WILL stop flowing if you spread. Also this is debate so it should be civil, please do not devolve into arguing during cross.

LD: I slightly familiar with LD so I apologize in advance if I give a bad ballot. However some key points that I would vote on is the argumentation that utilizes value and criterion and expands throughout the round.

IES: Speech

Please have a clear speaking voice, if I cannot hear you properly I won't be able to weigh that in to my judgement. Also have a concise walking pattern (please do not just wander every 15 seconds).

Debate- I am not familiar with a lot of debate terms, so try to keep the abbreviations to a minimum. I would also prefer if the speed of speaking during the round was not too fast(No spreading).

Interp- Please ask for time signals if needed. I do not appreciate any type of hateful content, please be respectful to anyone and everyone within your pieces.

Hey, I'm noa (they/them), a college freshman with 4 yrs of national debate experience under my belt.

Generally, if I'm judging you, I'm not gonna take your outfit into consideration. The norm of wearing suits kinda excludes those without an expendable income? So just look professional, but I'm never gonna dock you points for something out of your control. This also goes for a sore throat, stuffy nose, or lost voice. It does help to let me know before the round though. Also, if you need to leave after your speech, you don't need to ask me!! Trust me, I've been there, so I understand needing to leave for whatever reason.

Here's what u need to know (for debate):

• Above all else, be respectful, please. I will drop you (and your speaks) instantly if I hear anything hateful in your case, rebuttal, or any of your other speeches. Debate needs to be a space for people to express themselves, and if you take that away from those people, you won't be getting my ballot.

• With that out of the way, I'll buy any traditional argument (that isn't hateful, obviously) that is well-supported with evidence and plenty of warranting. I don't really understand progressive debate arguments, but I won't drop you for running them. Just read them slowly and make them make sense, because, despite four years in LD, I never fully grasped progressive args.

• Have all your sources ready in case they're challenged, just because it saves time.

• Cross-Ex isn't binding unless you make an argument that it is. IE - if your opponent concedes something in cross-ex, you need to point that out to me in a speech for me to weigh it in my decision.

• IF UR IN A RUSH READ THIS: To win, you're gonna want to write my ballot for me in your last speech. I'm a huge fan of line-by-line rebuttals, as I keep a pretty detailed flow, so if you point out everything your opponent drops, and that matches with my flow, that's all the more reason to vote for you. If you're going to collapse, convince me why I should buy it. In your final speech, please provide either a comparative worlds analysis and go deep into the impact calc, or at the very least give me some solid voter reasons.

• Also?? have fun. You're spending your weekend here, why not have fun with it? Be personable in your speeches, keep me interested, and make me care about what you say. Just don't yell at me (please). lol.

• Speaks are usually pretty ableist so I'll start at a 28 and will try and keep it in the range of 26-30. That being said, if you throw in a League joke or make a clever movie/anime reference, and I laugh at it, I'll bump your speaks up a point.

IF IM JUDGING POLICY, IM SORRY :(

send email chain to noaburnerlol@gmail.com

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.