she/her

Hey, I'm Audrey! I'm a junior at Carrollton High School and a VPF debater on the Georgia and national circuits.

If you plan on calling for cards, please create an email chain and add me. My email is audbro1@trojanstudent.net.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions before or after the round, either through email or in person.

On to judging (general, more specifically PF?)

- I'm a tech judge. It all comes down to the evidence. I will listen to any argument as long as it's extended, defended well, and not totally stupid. Debate's a game.

- Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. Do not spread without sending everyone a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross but use it to determine speaker points. Also, note that while what's said isn't being physically written on my paper, it can shed light on holes in arguments.

- Please time yourselves to ensure that you aren't egregiously abusing time. To me, this means 7-10 seconds over. I'll be timing speeches, cross, and prep.

- I don't enjoy hearing theory but have some competitive experience. If you run theory, ensure that it is not an abuse in and of itself. If it's frivolous and the opposing team calls you out, I will drop you, and it won't weigh on me. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit; that's abusive.

- Paraphrasing is acceptable (after the card has been introduced), but if the evidence obviously doesn't say what you frame it as and the opposing team calls you out, it will be considered for my decision. When an opponent asks for evidence, roughly a minute will be given to provide the card before I discount it. (Of course, this doesn't apply to any technological difficulties!)

- Signposting is phenomenal; please do it! Line-by-line rebuttals and summaries are much appreciated. Frontline in second rebuttal/first summary.

- Weighing is essential; do it as soon as possible. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered how you would like. When weighing, I'm not looking for a simple "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope." Instead, warrant these weighing mechanisms or provide analysis that isn't just throwing debate jargon at a wall in hopes that something will stick.

- Be respectful in a round, or I will tank your speaker points. There is absolutely no reason to be rude.

As for other events,

- I've only had experience judging PF, LD, and Impromptu. That being said, I feel decently competent in most events. I understand how arguments flow through and the necessary aspects of speeches; this will be the reasoning behind my decision. Regarding policy and LD, treat me more like a flay judge.

A few extras,

- I'm generally pretty generous with speaker points. The quality of speeches is taken into account. Unless you did something terrible, your speaks won't be lower than 27.5.

- I disclose. Usually, I will give a few points as to why I cast my ballot and a more detailed view of the round on Tabroom (totally open to questioning after my ballot is submitted). If it's a time crunch at the tournament, I'd rather just disclose my decision and an RFD on Tab.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me.

Have a stellar round!

Hey, I am Zooey!

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation. I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please, let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

Rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

I am a lay judge.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

Hey! I am Olivia Guerrero and a junior at Sequoyah High School. I am in my third year of PF debate.

I like clear and concise constructive speech, in other words keep a good pace when reading. I want the round to have passion behind it but, I do not tolerate disrespect towards your opponents. Have a fun round and keep the round clean. I do not flow crossfires; however, I will flow if you bring up something from cross in your speech. Also, before your speeches I would like an off-time road map for rebuttals and summaries. Last thing please keep track of your own time.

Be confident and have a good round!

I was a three-year varsity PF debater at Marist School.

There are two main things I vote off the most in rounds:

• PLEASE extend the contentions you are going for (ideally at the start of your speech) and frontline. most rounds I vote on come down to which team extended better. Tell me where you think you're winning and I'll focus my vote there.
• Signposting. Make it painfully clear where you are in the flow. After all, if I misplace something, it only stands to hurt your chance of getting the vote.

Some other points about my judging:

• I will not flow crossfires, but I will pay attention and it may influence my vote.
• I expect anything in final focus to have been brought up during the summary.
• I expect second-speaking teams to respond to the first rebuttal in rebuttal.
• I expect defense to be extended if the contention isn't dropped.
• Teams are responsible for time intervals for each speech, crossfire, and any prep time used. I will be keeping time if anything is too far off.
• If you use an email chain, please include my email in the chain (amanhaileyesus23@gmail.com)

Former PF debater, but have been out of the circuit for a few years. Look to Jeff Miller's paradigm for more specifics on how I view rounds.

For policy, not big into k's unless they are extremely compelling.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

he/him

If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. You can email me, message me through any social media platform, or talk to me.

Please produce an email chain and add me to it: zimmerlukew@gmail.com

My Philosophy:

Do as you please and I will try my best to meet both teams where they are at. I'm happy with debates fast/slow, K or theory/traditional, quoted/paraphrased, and appreciate most styles of PF.

Strategic Praxis in Front of Me:

• Less is more. Please collapse. You can win almost any debate in front of me by going for like, two arguments; maybe 3.
• Probability weighing is mid. If an argument isn't probable, you should simply answer the link. Probability is derived from the link debate, not your new defense in second summary or innate disbelief in something.
• Lemme hear some warrants.
• Your weighing should reflect an intimate understanding of your arguments. You should thoroughly research and ponder the relative importance of the arguments you're preparing; your resulting weighing in the debate should be evidence-based and meet the same rigor as any other argument.
• I politely request that someone -- anyone -- simply answer their opponents' weighing.