I use they/them pronouns, please feel free to disclose pronouns at the start of rounds and correct me if I mess up, I want to make sure everyone feels respected in round.

I don’t have a preference between truth and tech but be convincing and don’t lie or misconstrue evidence.

If you spread I will stop flowing until you stop spreading. I flow everything (except spreading and anything overtime) so signpost as often as possible or you may lose points. Weighing is extremely important, please weigh and make it clear you are weighing. Tell me how you want this round to be decided and stick with it. I pay attention and take notes during cross but nothing will be used in voting if it’s not brought into the round.

I don’t tolerate yelling, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, or any discriminatory remarks and you will be docked significantly if that happens.

If you're going to read an argument that could be triggering, read trigger warnings for the sake of both the judge and your opponent or you will lose speaker points.

I am not very versed in the complexities that LD can become so while I have debate experience in both PF and LD, treat me more like a lay judge when it comes to LD debates.

Remember, we are here to enjoy ourselves, being rude about wins or losses will not be tolerated.

*If you have any questions or want to disclose your case my email is adams.alastar@gmail.com*

Hey guys! My name is Sanea (suh-nae) and i go to Auburn High School.This is my second year in debate, and i understand this may be hard especially when its your first time, but you got this!! Be confident and stick to your argument!! Heres some ways that you can add additional support to your speaking points/ to help you win:

1. I base the win on my flow. If you are saying something after time, it will not be flowed. I also do not flow cross, so if your opponent says something contradictive to their case, bring it up in your next speech.
2. I take points off if i cannot hear you. Please be confident in your voice (let your voice bounce off the wall). I also take points off if you’re aggressive to your opponent, you will automatically lose speaks.
3. I DO NOT TOLERATE PREJUDICE!! Discrimination of any kind during the round will result to automatic loss.
4. Im very traditional when it comes to cases
5. I want you all to do your best, debate is a game to win and fun to play. Don't be so hard on yourself, this is a learning experience and i hope one day i can debate against you too!!

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

tldr standard flow judge

-INFO-

she/her - vestavia ’26 - sendyouranalytics@gmail.com

1 year pf + 1 year ld

i think like michael fain for theory/silly args and laurel pack for everything else. (alabama judge pool goats. proud to be 4-0 in front of both!)

my favorite free resources for learning circuit debate

-NOVICE-

arg preferences: dogmatism is an increasing problem in this activity, and i will certainly vote off the flow. however, some arguments are just better than others, like extinction o/w (this is bold and underlined for a reason.)

the best way to prevent "judge screws" is to do judge instruction.

pf stuff: defense is not sticky. being a pf debater does not exempt you from the standards for ev ethics. i did pf so don't assume that you can pull a fast one on me.

cx: it's binding. use cx answers in arguments (during actual speeches). i love aggressiveness but not open disrespect.

speaks: the only way to boost these is to make good arguments. the easiest way to tank these is to be annoying.

<25 - you were violent (slurs, excessive and/or intentional misgendering, etc.) and i will intervene to give you the L 25-26.9 - you have not done the bare minimum to be a good citizen of the debate community 27-28.4 - below average 28.5-29.9 - above average 30 - i was feeling super generous

disclosure: (OF MY DECISION:) yes. (OF YOUR ARGUMENTS:) auto 25 speaks, don't make me evaluate disclosure theory in novice.

postrounding: sure, go for it.

ev ethics: stop being lazy and actually cut your cards and cite them correctly. i believe in the W30/L0 stake system and lean towards over-punishing for minor infractions. if i notice it on my own, i'll tank speaks (25-26.9 range) but not intervene on the decision.

-MORE THOUGHTS-

progressive args: i don't think that i have the jurisdiction to draw an arbitrary line of what is and is not "too progressive." i'll evaluate them, but you won't be happy with your speaks if you don't know what you're talking about (and if you're a novice, i assure you that you probably don't).

speed: i'm an average flower. unlike my email might suggest, i don't flow off the doc. be clear, slow down on tags/analytics, and NUMBER STUFF.

pref-like rankings:

1 - policy

1.5 - theory

2 - topic specific T, theory trix

4 - T-subsets, cap, kant

strike - k, dense phil, SOFT LEFT (this doesn't even deserve any comments on it)

policy: not much to say here, anything goes (yes generic process cps, yes ptx da, yes edgy impact turns). i will be impressed with case turns da analysis on multiple levels (i.e. link level, internal link level, impact level). zero risk is real but rare. default no judge kick but lean yes judge kick if warranted in the 2nr.

cp theory: the ld structure favors the aff in terms of speech times, but the neg is probably right on a truth level. unlimited condo is probably good (contra condo is the only place i lean aff), and competitive counterplans are almost definitely good. the hail mary 2ar should answer all weighing and pick true args.

theory: ns > ira, default and lean moderately dtd, default and lean slightly ci, default no rvi and lean slightly yes rvi. no theory is too frivolous to reject on face, but substance crowdout o/w at a certain point. it is your job to figure out and articulate where that line is.

minimum 29.8 speaks for a good rvi 2ar, but an rvi 2nr would be even more devious ;))

T: i lean aff on T in most instances, and a topic specific T arg is infinitely more winnable than T-subsets. i first see if both interpretations are semantically eligible, and i look to debatability second. it is up to you to figure out and articulate what makes something semantically eligible (very similar to theory).

hidden args: i'm fine with these anywhere except hidden in cards. extempted is fine, but slow down a bit, be super clear, and make eye contact to maximize my chances of getting down all the warrants. STOP FLOWING OFF THE DOC!! cw > tt, implicate your args. answer spikes that take out your spikes shell/k.

k: i've never gone for the k, but i really respect good k debaters and read lit at 2am for fun. YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR TOP. i will be unhappy if i know more about your setcol kritik after only reading tuck & yang. i like specific links to the topic that don't solely rely on winning fwk, and k affs should defend something.

phil: i hate phil tricks and affs/ncs that are constructed to hide them. white dude phil is easily my least favorite type of debate, but i'll do my best for real arguments while hoping that someone uplayers to theory. no morally abhorrent args (fbk23 quarters iykyk).

Hi guys! My name is Hope, and I am a senior at Vestavia Hills High School. I am a third year varsity in debate. I have a lot of experience in Big Questions, Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum, and I have competed in World Schools as well. Just a few preferences:

Win on the flow. tech > truth

Keep track of your own time.

I don't mind fast speaking or spreading, but make sure you emphasize major taglines, points, statistics, and author names. If I don't hear the tagline, the argument/card will not flow in the round. If you are going to spread, send your doc.

Make sure to signpost and give an off-time road-map.

I do not flow cross-ex, so if you want something to be incorporated into the ballot from cross, make sure to bring it up in another speech.

I like framework debate, theory debate, and substance debate.

I am not as familiar with Ks and tricks, but I do know what they are. Speak slowly and really explain during more progressive arguments so I know how to evaluate them.

Don't forget to weigh.

My email is hopeajohnson07@gmail.com for evidence and case chains.

Don't be rude and have fun! Good luck!

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

Hey I'm Yash

I am a junior at LAMP High School and I have been doing LD ever since freshman year.

Before round starts, send me your case at my email: yashhparam@gmail.com

If you have any questions about me or my paradigm, feel free to ask me before round.

Debate Preferences

tech > truth

DO NOT be racist, homophobic, sexist, or discriminatory in any terms or else you will be voted down.

If you are going to spread, create an email chain with me and your opp

I don't care what you run (so you can run prog args), just know what you are running and how to deal with them. For instance, if you do not know how to defend your k, I advise you not to run ks. Btw I might just fall asleep if you run heavy Phil.

Weighing mechs are really important. (esp with clashing frameworks)

In order to win a round, you must extend your case.

Speak LOUD AND CLEAR or else I can't flow.

SIGNPOST as you go through your speech. (ex. contention 1 is ....)

Collapse the debate and really focus on the major points that I should vote on.

Explain your warrants.

Hey guys im Monsi Parekh!

Top Level - don't be sexist, racist, homophobic etc. - seriously not cool

-Please respect your opponent - whether it be pronouns, cross x, etc.

-Good with any speed just send the doc if you're going fast

If there's an email chain - add me mjparekh06@gmail.com

For Vestavia Novice

1) this is a novice tournament. DO NOT be exclusionary, novice is not the place for it. Please read inclusionary arguments, even if it means that you have to be super trad when you don't want to.

2) Don't be nervous. It's fine if you stutter, slip up, forget things, stop, or just don't know how to answer something. That's alright because you are all novices. Try to have fun though!! THIS IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE

3) All criticism is constructive, and imo some of the stuff I've ever learned comes in that period of time. It's to make y'all better, NOT MAKE you feel bad.

4) I'll be more than happy to answer any questions as long as it doesn't skew the round

Weigh!!!!!! extend stuff!!!!!! collapse!!!

I am a Senior at Vestavia Hills High School in my fourth year of debate.

Tech > Truth (helps to have quality author credentials for evidence weighing)

my debate prefs:

1. policy,th
2. msv, trix
3. phil, Ks
4. anything else not on this list

Framework- I am familiar with Util, Structural Violence, and Kant in that order. If the framing debate is a wash I will default to cost benefit analysis.

Do NOT be X-phobic, racist, sexist, etc.

If there is an email chain, please add me, my email is 00thomaspatton00@gmail.com

I am fine with speed as long as you send the doc to me and your opponent. Speak clearly, otherwise it will be harder for me to flow your args and harder for me to vote you up.

Please be polite to your fellow debater.

Extend your args, signpost, and weigh in rebuttals.

Give an off time road map before each speech.

For Novice

Don't stress, this is your first LD tournament so just use this as a learning experience and remember, to have fun!

General stuff:

I like K's, LARP, dense frameworks (especially "weirder" ones like meta-ethical ones), and phil v phil debates.

Arguing your K AFF is more important than T is good - especially if you're good at doing it.

I have pretty serious tracking issues so be very obvious when signposting and send the doc if you're spreading. For instance if you do LBL then slow down and look at me -- make it obvious please. Also slow down if you're going over something hyper-important (for example if someone perms your K or CP and you want me to get what you have, slow down and look at me and say "the response to the perm is...").

The last and most important thing is layering. For instance, if you destroy your opponent on phil but lose miserably on theory then GIVE WARRANTS why phil layers above theory and I'll layer phil above theory (if unaddressed -- which normally it is) and vice versa. Otherwise I'll just default to normie stuff (Rotj > RoB > theory > Phil and/or fw > case). If you win the Rotj debate it's an auto-win UNLESS your opponent layers something like theory above the Rotj debate and you lose on the layering debate, athough I've never seen that happen and I'm curious how you would go about layering theory above rotj or rob.
**whether or not Phil layers above theory is contextual — if your opponent does something obv wrong then theory layers above Phil. If it’s truth-testing with Phil then Phil layers above (unless the above thing happens). If either debater layers properly then whoever wins the layer debate will have whatever they’re arguing for be evaluated top-level.

Quick list of my pref's:

Phil - 1

*bonus points if you formalize your arguments in first-order logic (must be valid) - if you do this I will place you above your interlocutor in terms of speaks (due to clarity) — if you do it well enough (i.e. if it’s obv you know a decent degree of logic then I’ll give 30 speaks)

*bonus points if you truth-test by using meta-ethics (e.g. non cognitivism, error theory, meta-ethical relativism, etc) — auto-W if your opponent drops it / loses on clash to it (30 speaks and W if done right)

K's - 1 (I like cap K and anthro K the most)

*bonus points for Cap K if you use LTV to prove how capitalism is exploitative and/or one or more of Marx’s four forms of alienation in 1844 manuscripts (mustn’t be quoted specifically first there but the general idea must be there) (30 speaks for using LTV properly, +2 or +3 speaks for alienation)

*Also bonus points if you directly quote Marx (+2 or +3 speaks)

*bonus points for anthro K if you question your opponent on their non-vegan commitments in cross and make them look INSANE for holding those commitments (e.g. NTT) - I automatically will give 30 speaks for this iff you do it right (I’m very serious)

Larp - 2

Theory - 2

Troll - 3

T - 3 or 4

Trix - 4 or 5

*along with the above ways to get more speaks, speaks will deviate based on how good of a speaker you are, how confident you sound, how aggressive you are in cross w/o crossing the line (more aggression = better), the more background knowledge you have on the topic (e.g. if you’re deep into philosophy it’ll be obvious and I also appreciate empirical knowledge)

Clarifications:

Phil -- the above ranking applies mostly to contemporary, analytic philosophers -- I don't really understand Kant, Hobbes, or contintential phil much but I can probably evaluate it. The sort of thing I'm interested in seeing you do is run meta-ethics for your fw, formal logic warrants (ie modal, predicate, or PL), skep scenarios, etc. You can also do something phil-related like "God is real!" and run modal ontological arguments, kalam args, etc. which is pretty hilarious to see someone do. I know Marx but I’m knowledge-less on the finer details (e.g. historical materialism). Most of what I know of him has to do with the labor theory of value, his critique of capitalism, etc. Which I am sympathetic towards.

My strongest topics are meta-ethics, formal logic, and philosophy of religion. I know some epistemology and metaphysics, the more you stray away from these core fields in analytic philosophy the more unlikely I am to understand what’s going on.

K's — ideally link it in and ideally the K's on neg but I'll evaluate K affs.

LARP — self-explanatory, most judges like policy-style debates and I don't want to detract too far off from the educational value of debate and what debaters have prepped off-hand.

Troll — I like aliens, Santa Claus cases (shoutout to montgomery JA), “proving” God’s existence, and anything super crazy that obv your opponent wouldn’t have prepped out lol (have fun surviving the perm if you run this tho)

*doing any of the above from the set of things I like troll-wise mentioned above gives you 30 speaks automatically

T — I like t-framework and I've ran it before. However, I think really good warrants can be given to justify a non-topical aff. If it's obv the aff debater intends a topical debate but the plan is non-topical on some technicality then that's very good for the neg debater to point out.

Trix — honestly I don't see the hype. It has no educational value whatsoever and ofc your opponent will drop at least one of them. I don’t care if they do and if you’re getting your butt kicked on everything else I won’t vote off it unless you layer why trix prereqs everything else.

Cross — I think that’s super undervalued and cross is important. It’s good for showing you’re way ahead of your opponent and beating them (especially beating them on rhetoric). I’m ok with mean, over the top cross but just don’t cross the line. Asking funny questions means more speaks, destroying ur opponent in cross (w/o being too mean -- just don't insult them) also means more speaks. Over the top cross ex's are always super funny to watch.

Hi I'm Rik (he/him)

I'm a senior at LAMP HS. Share all cards with me at Rikcroy@gmail.com.
Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions.

Any exclusionary practices (hate speech, verbal attacks/threats, intentional steps to make the space uncomfortable or inaccessible) are an automatic drop + minimum speaks. This is at my discretion and distinct from theory voters.

Speaker Points: I try to give high speaks :)

30 - Innovative links and turns, captivating storytelling, persuasive weighing, comfortable and respectful presence, all while maintaining technical prowess on the flow. You thoroughly impressed me.

29.9 - You generally made the right arguments, spoke with confidence while being respectful, and demonstrated an understanding of debate with no major holes in your speeches. Overall good round.

29 - You have the potential to be a powerful debater, but there are some key issues with presentation like very long pauses, disregarding large portions of arguments, not extending, etc.

27 - You were unnecessarily rude or disrespectful and generally did not represent a genuine and constructive learning environment. If you tend to dominate cx but are otherwise not a mean person, you should not worry about this.

Speed: In terms of ethos go as fast as you want, but if you're reading something prewritten that isn't sent to me, slow down a little so I can flow. If it's sent, just speak clearly and you'll be good. I'll say "clear" twice before docking points.

Disclosure:

Nat circuit: I like disclosure but I'll evaluate what's said in the round.
AL circuit: Same but the threshold for reasonability is very low.

Overview:

I'll buy any argument/style. However, don't assume that I'll know the topic lit or weigh for you. Tell me exactly why you win beyond just "my opponent is problematic."

• Tech >> Truth, dropped args are true and you need to extend offense
• An unwarranted argument has no offensive value, but warrants can be analytic - this should frame trix
• Signpostand stick to your off-time roadmaps: it makes it easier for me to evaluate your arguments which will help you
• Don't steal speech/prep time - (unless you explain what you're doing, after 5-6 seconds I'll stop listening and drop your speaks)
• Feel free to ask questions post-round (if time allows), but my decision is final

Take a deep breath, speak confidently, and enjoy the experience: everything is an opportunity to learn and have fun!

Hey guys,

My name is Kayla, I'm a sophomore at Auburn University majoring in Law and Justice and marketing. I did PF debate for about 2 years throughout high school and will be continuing in college.

PF debate:

As for my judging, I like to think I'm not too strict. Just do not spread; speak clearly and loudly, be organized. Please make sure you have a reliable source for your information and make sure to state it when you are speaking. I do not write down anything from cross unless it is mentioned in summary or in rebuttal. Remember not to bring in new information in final focus. I will be timing as well, but just to be safe I would recommend you keep track of your own time. I also like provide feedback at the end of the debate, everything I say will be typed out on the ballots if you would like to refer to some notes. Finally, use all of your time, even if you're just dragging onto what you already said. I look forward to meeting you guys, and goodluck (: !

Hi, I am Nicole I am currently a student at Southern Union. I have never been in debate but I have experienced a debate before.

I will time but I prefer you to keep time. I will not flow cross unless it is mentioned. I appreciate organization so I know where I am flowing. Please no spreading, I will not flow if I cannot understand. Be respectful, use all your time, and have fun!

Good luck guys!