Hi, I'm Calvin G Adamson (he/him), I'm currently a politics and government major at Northern Arizona University. I debated public forum for Sioux Falls Christian (Rushmore District, SD) during my three years of high school (years 21-22 through 23-24). In addition I competed in non original oratory for one season, and dabbled in extempt (domestic).

YOU GOT THIS! I BELIEVE IN YOU! DO YOUR THING! HAVE FUN!

Quick background knowledge for all events and divisions:

The extent of my experience is stated above. I have never competed or judged any other events, although I do understand the general premises of them. It's important to know that my judging philosophy stems from a traditional style of debate. I understand different philosophies and more progressive styles, but on the South Dakota circuit, Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive and accessible activity that everyone can be a part of and enjoy. I do not appreciate unfair attempts to gain an advantage over other students in a way that detracts from the accessibility of the activity. I will vote you down with low speaks in egregious circumstances.

Bearing that in mind, keep debate fun and enjoyable. You guys know what you're doing, it's your thing, you got this.

TL;DR

Have fun, play fair. Be confident, know what you're doing (or just act like it). (Tech and Truth, see note*)

Specifics:

Public Forum Debate:

This is my event, and what I most enjoyed being a part of. PF is educational and so much fun. PF is the pinnacle of debate, act like it. Be confident, speak strongly, do your thing.

If you want a 30 speaks there's two things I want from you, and one thing to avoid: 1. be confident and clear. Talk at a pace I can understand and flow along with (up to a 6 out of 10). Avoid pauses and ums, make sure you are organised and ready to go. 2. be polite. Aggressive (rude) crossfire gets you nothing. 3. Avoid using jargon and or treating it like a policy round. We're in PF, if it helps think of me as a total lay judge. Generally I'll give you full speaks if you wow me with how clear, confident, polite, and knowledgeable on the topic you are. That, and if there are no problems in the round to doc points.

If you want to win my ballot, you have two avenues by which to do this: 1. Be a better debater. Honestly, I weigh your skill and ability to argue over whether you technically respond to everything in the round. If you've done the things above, and the content of you and your partner's speeches were solid, you'll most likely have my ballot. I appreciate the ability of debaters to argue to a public audience, please try to show me that you can do that. If you do these things, I will want to give you the round and it would take a lot for your opponents to beat that out. 2. Win the flow. I keep a general flow, it's nothing too intense or detailed but I am keeping track of whether you respond to everything or not. If you show my that A. your case stands and your impacts matter, and B. that your opponents are wrong and/or your evidence/impacts outweigh, you have my ballot. I will consider drops whether you tell me it was dropped or not. Make sure you argue the information well and make good points, then I have no reason to vote you down. (for those of you who care I'm a mix of tech and truth)*

I value avenue 1 over avenue 2. If you can do both, bro ur winning with 30 speaks each. But I'm telling you these are the things every debater tries and very few do well. Usually the round comes down to one team made me feel like they were good debaters and one team made me feel like they responded to all the arguments. I default to the team that demonstrated that they were better speakers/debaters or the other team was rude or made comments that caused me to vote them down.

Debaters who are aggressive in cross, make petty remarks, or detract from the educational and enjoyable nature of the event will not be tolerated. You MUST be polite and respectful.

A note**: I am all too aware of the NSDA rules. Not only I has my team called evidence violations, but they have been called on me as well. My philosophy is that violations are incredibly serious and if you lodge a protest you are alleging that your opponent did something so despicable that they should no longer be allowed to debate (seeing as some of the penalties are disqualification). DO NOT allude to violations. Don't gaslight your opponents to thinking that they did something wrong, you and I both know if something really happened or not. Make it incredibly clear if you are making a violation or not. As a judge, it is my job to make sure we have a fair round, and for me to evaluate the round based on debaters' ability, not on whether a source really said what it said. So just be good sports and don't lie about sources.

Please also understand that in South Dakota PF, I will not weigh policy arguments. Theory arguments, and especially kritikal arguments/cases, will not be weighed and I will probably doc you for it. The idea behind theory is to bring to light something unfair in the round, something that makes debate less inclusive/accessible. However, in PF or in SD, it will do the opposite for me. To me theory and Ks only remove accessibility and inclusion in debate.

Overall, I want you to enjoy the activity and be good at what you do.

Policy Debate:

Never done, never judged. I do understand the event to a degree (although I have no experience given CX does not exist in South Dakota).

If I'm judging you in CX buckle up because it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But I assume most of my criteria for speaks stands, and winning a ballot will be judged more heavily on technical argumentation than on your debate skill.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

Never done, never judged. I am rather familiar with this event though and would probably be able to judge semi-reasonably.

Congressional Debate:

Never done, never judged. I sort of know the event, however South Dakota only recently seriously established the event so I didn't get too much exposure.

I will judge you on your ability to present reasonable arguments that are applicable to actual society. If you have a strong argument and it fits with the legislation, your speech will be scored higher. If all of your speeches contributed excellently to the sessions as a whole, you can expect a rank.

Big Questions Debate:

Never done, never judged. I have no experience but I've read up on what it is. South Dakota only runs this event for quals so I can't say I really know what I'm doing with it. But again, my general philosophy stands. Would probably judge ability over argument (truth over tech, however).

World Schools Debate:

Never done, never judged. No experience but I've read up on it. Probably would be a train wreck if I judged, but sounds like a fun event from what I know.

Extemporaneous Debate:

Never done, never judged. I do know this event but I have no experience. I would judge debate skill and preparedness over evidence and argumentation. Tech over truth.

Oratory:

(This is general comments for all speech events if I ever happen to be judging them)

I competed in non original, which is a SD state event, but never original which is the main event. So I read someone else's oratory, whereas in OO you perform your own writing.

I will judge you on several criteria:

• Speaking Confidently
• Speaking Clearly
• Using your space well, do you walk around too much, too little, or just right?
• Hand motions and gestures. Are they repetitive, do they make sense with what you're saying?
• Other body language. I had a weird tendency to pop up off my heals when talking, it looked weird and I got docked for it. These kinds of things should be kept in mind.
• Tone and inflection. Do you use your voice and range well, is it interesting to listen to or monotoned and boring?
• Some don'ts:
• Don't overact, don't go sing-song with your voice (too much up and down), don't pace (too much movement), don't yell (volume control), don't fall asleep or use your phone (be a respectful audience member when others are performing)
• Remember to have fun and enjoy listening to the other speeches!

Informative Speaking:

Never done, never judged. I know the event but my judging criteria may not be all that ironed out. But again, be prepared and confident. (Refer to oratory comments for general)

Extemporaneous Speaking (IX, DX, MX):

I competed, very briefly, in Domestic (United States) extemp. Never did mixed or international, never judged.

Here I want to see that you did effective background research, you know what you're talking about, and you organised your speech well. In extemp it's about getting down to the basics of speech writing and deliverance. Make sure you have your main points identifiable, and follow the general speech criteria above (oratory).

Poetry (POE, SW):

Never done, never judged. If I'm judging you for this, yeah it'll be rough. Poetry is not my speed so I'll do my best but I can't say I know how to judge poetry on content or delivery.

Impromptu:

Never done, never judged. I sort of know the idea of the event and I could probably judge fairly well. I'm not experienced in time signals so bear with me. I know how hard the event is and mad respect if you're competing. Have fun and a big good luck.

Declamation, Expository, Commentary, and PCC:

Never done, never judged. I don't really know much about these other than they exist. I would be taking a shot in the dark to try to say something about them.

Program Oral Interpretation:

Never done, never judged. I don't have any experience, but sounds like a cool event. I would judge based on the general criteria.

Humour Interp:

Never done, never judged. I have quite a bit of experience in watching these rounds however. I will judge on general criteria.

Dramatic Interp:

Never done, never judged. This is often considered the big ticket event in interp. I will judge based on general criteria, and add in emotion and ability to compel the audience to empathise with the story.

Duo Interp:

Never done, never judged. Yeah I couldn't say I'm familiar enough with the rules/standards of the event to judge this at this time.

Storytelling:

Never done, never judged. Would probably judge similar to that of drama.

Prose:

Don't know the event at all.

Reader's Theater:

This is a state event in South Dakota. Never done, never judged. This event is meant to be fun, but competitive. I will judge accordingly.

In round disclosure:

I will not disclose my vote unless directed to by the tournament officials. If you want an RFD you can find it on my ballot online or when you get your packet back from your coach. In novice or JV rounds if you want comments I will talk to the competitors and them only not other spectators. We are not here to debate whether I voted correctly or not, I'm here to help you get better so I can help you understand what I noticed or thought, but my ballot will not change once the round is over.

Comments for speech events will be handed out at the end of the round, or as you leave if you are multi-entered. It will be up to the tournament officials whether ranks are disclosed at any time. I do, however, believe in the philosophy that you should have comments in your hands so you can do better right away in the next round.

Email chains or file sends: calibrate4321@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, don't hesitate to ask. Remember to have fun and you'll do great!

Speech and Debate is the greatest high school activity ever. The people I met because of it are some of the greatest people I know. Everyone I know who did S&D say they are better because of it.

See if you can meet some new people, learn a new skill, meet a new friend, try something that gets you out of your comfort zone, and just have a great time. Your doing a hard thing that many people could never do, make the most of your time here and remember: No matter what happens, YOU GOT THIS

Notes that I'm sure no one cares or wants to read lol:

*Tech vs truth:

I like to think that an ideal judge walks into a round a forgets everything they know and only comes to a decision based on what was said in round. However, that just isn't reasonable. Everyone has basic common knowledge, and, depending on the topic, some judges might know a lot and some very little. My philosophy is that I will try my hardest to only weigh what you said in round and how you debated. But if something comes up that I just can't get over (like you said the earth is flat), I have to vote on truth over tech on that. So in general if your arguments are semi reasonable, or in an area I don't know anything about, you can count on a mostly tech judge.

Lay Judging:

Depending on the event, I will judge as a layperson. I don't carry my beliefs or preconceived notions into a round. PF is my main event and so you can assume I will judge with a PF brain, I like things basic and general. I like things slow and understandable.

I come from the very traditional South Dakota Circuit. And this is where a lot of my judging will occur, however I'm moving to Arizona so I may end up judging there or in surrounding areas. I'm ready to learn what other circuits are like and how debate goes across the country. As always, bear with me.

**NSDA/Rules:

Like I earlier, I've been on a team that has called and been called on rules/evidence violations more than once. My district has developed a poor habit of caring more about the rules and playing the game to the letter than enjoying the activity and doing the thing we all enjoy. In my final season I actually carried around the NSDA manual, and the SD state rulebook to every round. My team had a policy that we printed every source and that we would never get called for lying or misrepresenting our evidence. We also had a policy that we would only consider calling a protest as the "nuclear option." I urge you to do the same.

When debate becomes more about technicalities than actually debating, we've missed something. In public forum especially, we are so not here to debate the debate. We're here to debate the topic and I honestly only care about evidence if you or your opponent blatantly lie. I don't tolerate cheating and I don't tolerate lying (including lack of information and misrepresenting information). But guys, I really just want this to be a fun, educational experience so can we agree to just be good people of integrity?

***Theory and Ks:

Like I said, I debated in South Dakota, home of the traditional style debate (BTW if you don't know Public Forum was invented in SD). On our circuit, we stress accessibility. Debate is supposed to be for everyone. Anyone who takes the time to learn and prepare should be able to compete or judge (obviously being a good competitor takes much more). Because of that, my experience of theory arguments was always in a way that made an attempt to gain some sort of advantage over an opponent. Someone would run Disclosure Theory knowing full well that their opponents didn't even know that was a thing. Or a team would run a K just to confuse the judge into thinking that they had to vote for them. I consider this use of theory and kritik cheating. Gaining an unfair advantage by exploiting something your judge knows and your opponents don't or something your judge doesn't know about.

Because many SD debaters can't afford to travel across the country to big debate camps at universities, policy arguments, theory, and Ks are not common. Thus, Policy debaters were hard to come by and eventually the event died out. I can't say that I know all the ins and outs about policy debate but I've done a lot of reading (because I was curious to why this event is so uncommon in SD but yet the most prestigious debate style).

If you ever find me judging policy, I hope I will have been well trained in the event by then. For all debate events, all I want to warn you about in running these complex arguments is to be careful. If you're running them to gain an advantage over me or your opponents, stop it. But if the argument makes sense and is actually valid in a situation, then flesh it out. Tell me exactly what you mean and why I should consider this. Explain in painful detail, especially if your opponents don't understand what you are saying.

REMEMBER: YOU WANT TO WIN BECAUSE YOU DESERVE IT, NOT BECAUSE YOUR OPPONENT DID'T UNDERSTAND

hi. i’m a public forum debater, orator, and extemper. I’m a pretty extroverted person so if you say something off track, you definitely will see my reaction and know that. At the end of each round, i will give some feedback and critiques on the round, if, of course, you want me to.

Some rules i have:

1. Let’s have fun. that’s all i want. this is a learning experience for us all so just enjoy it

2. I want everyone to have confidence in themselves, and to know that the only way to get better, is to try your hardest no matter the circumstance. never give up, because a round can be won at many different times.

3. DO NOT say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other such things. I will not tolerate it all and will lose you the round

PUBLIC FORUM:

Actual debate-y stuff I like for PF:

1. i want clear and loud case reading. i don’t care how fast, just please be legible otherwise you are going to lose
2. tell me where you are at on the flow. otherwise imma be lost and i won’t even know what you are arguing anymore. clearly tell me in this format (onto their contention 1 sub point A where they argue _____ )
3. rebuttal: if you are the first speaking team, please only attack your opponents case. if you are the second speaker team, please use about 3 ish minutes on your opponents side first, and then use the rest to respond to a few arguments the opponents made against your case.
4. summary: literally the most important speech. this makes or breaks your round if i’m being honest. clear and concise. boil it down to the main points, what is dropped and what isn’t, and use voters (main things that are the reason why you win. can really be anything)
5. final focus: really just explain to me why you won. rounds are usually won at summary, but if you tell me something really good in final focus, you might win. don’t repeat the voters back to me. i already heard them. no new evidence though
6. cross fire: this is my pet peeve. ask relevant questions please. and don’t keep pushing something that they already answered. DO NOT BE RUDE. OMG IF YOU ARE IT MAKES ME MAD PLEASE PLEASE DONT.
7. use off the clock road maps for all speeches except the constructive

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Im not the most familiar with this. I do know structure and stuff kinda of it. You will have to help me with timings and what speech is what. Things I look for in this are similar to PF, so just read above whatever you need.

Niche things:

1. CBA is the worst framework in history
2. ontology makes me wanna die
3. jakob hofer loves K's, run one on him
4. if you run a joke case, i genuinely will listen
5. if you see patrick pope, tell him to run his damn miles

I hope you guys get in the habit of reading paradigm. if you do read this, mention SpongeBob squarepants to me before or after the round and i will give .5 speaker points. whoever does it first gets the extra points

If you are a novice and somehow run a K, you instantly will be given the W

Run a K and get an automatic win, if you have to settle for theory that will doc you speaker points.

couple of quick notes

• I have already decided the round before you walk in
• I weigh only on cross fire
• having less than 3 contention is really weak in my mind, so please read 4+

If you are in novice please run a K I think it’s funny. Intense XC is fine but just don’t be rude. I do not like long rambling in XC, please refrain from doing so.

DEBATE EXPERIENCE:

• 4 years PF (half trad local circuit, half TOC circuit where I did much better)
• 4x NSDA national qualifier in events that had nobody else competing for the slot (2x congress eliminated session 1, 1x worlds with almost breaking, 1x policy lol)
• 1x TOC PF gold competitor where I got obliterated

PF: Most likely format I'll be judging. Most of this paradigm is geared towards it.

CX: I'm doing college policy but am completely new to the format so treat me like a tech judge who doesn't understand anything format specific. Simple topical K's are the only type I might consider. Your alt must be very specific for me to vote for it. If your alt is doing nothing until socialism appears then I'm not voting for. I get the strategy of going for nonsense CP's or Topicalities but it's so mind numbing so please don't do it unless it's actually an interesting difference that you could fill a whole two hour debate with. Please do not make me judge a clash of worlds round, it's gonna be substance every time.

LD/speech/whatever else: lol

I hate evidence misuse. Don’t miscut or misconstrue your evidence. Paraphrasing is fine but the bar for a violation gets much lower - it’s harder to verify proper evidence use if you’re not reading it from the source. If you’re a novice / JV I won’t apply most of this to you, but I might dock your speaks if evidence isn’t complete, so DW if it isn’t perfect - otherwise, I MIGHT BE THE MOST STRICT JUDGE ON EVIDENCE YOU WILL EVER HAVE!

Because of everything above, I’m sympathetic to disclosure at TOC BID TOURNAMENTS. Even then, you still have to win the shell, I’m not an auto vote on it.

I’ll expand this more later, but just know I’ll flow and vote based on the arguments. Weigh your impacts for me or you might not like how I vote. Collapsing is good the vast majority of times! Unless you’re confident you can only outweigh if you access everything, you should narrow it down in the second rebuttal or first summary to a contention (if they have turns answer those, then concede delinks) Speed is ok up to the point that I need a speech doc to keep up (I still want speech doc to scan your evidence as you read)- I know that’s vague so ask for clarification before round if you need. If your opponents say slow down, then you slow down.

My Email for chains (this will be useful in every varsity round) - Vaughn.research@outlook.com

Feel free to email me for whatever else - I was in your position too, I’m not some god. Postrounding is good for education or whatever so don’t hesitate if you think I made the wrong decision. I didn’t, but if you disagree we can talk about it.

experience:

-former pf debater from sf roosevelt in south dakota

-1x qualifier to nietoc (oo and drama)

-2x qualifier to gold toc (won most the toc bids in the state my junior year)

-3x qualifier to nats (worlds, pf, and oo)

general:

-flow judge (tech over truth) also i try to be tabula rasa as best as i can.

-2nd rebuttal has to frontline

-2nd rebuttal/1st summary should collapse on one argument (collapsing does not mean dropping)

-off the clock roadmaps before speeches are really helpful and so is signposting

-weighing is super important for me; tell me why i should prefer your argument over your opponents argument

-pre-reqs, short-circuits, and link-ins are gasssss

-EMPIRICS WIN, OFFENSE WINS, WEIGHING WINS

prog:

theory:

-for context ive debated 9 theory rounds in my 3 years of debating pf and ive won 6 of them (all of them have been disclosure related)

-thus, im really only familiar with disclosure theory so if you want to run any other kinds you will need to explain it very thoroughly

kritiks:

-i have zero experience with ks so you will really have to dumb it down for me (i'm not against you running ks)

cps, plans, trix:

-i have zero clues what these are so explain it again (again im not opposed)

other:

if u have any questions feel free to email me at im540@georgetown.edu

I have been coaching/judging policy debate on and off since I graduated high school in 2009. I was most active in my coaching career from the years of 2010-2016.

I am back now as the assistant debate coach at Harrisburg High School where I primarily deal with LD.

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible, I.E. I am very lazy. If I have to do the work for you, its probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become way more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably wont have flowed everything you've said

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. So if you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are procedural args (vagueness, workability, etc) and any of the stock issues. I used to think I was some huge K hack back in the day but I'm not. I just don't really understand the nuances of the argument. However, that's not to say that I am not down for some well done and insightful K debates but keep in mind I'm definitely not as well versed in the lit as you think I might be and your debating should reflect that. Additionally, a super compelling role of the ballot argument is a must. I also really enjoy good disad and CP debates.

-Disads need to have a clear story to them and have a clear impact. It needs to something quantifiable or articulated well enough to be weighed against the affirmative.

-I really really do not like topicality debates. In all the debates on T I've judged none of them have been super compelling nor warranted my time evaluating. Reasonability is the way to go on this flow for me.

-End of the round impact calculus is really important to me. Please do this.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration. arguments like reject the argument not the team I'm pretty sympathetic towards.

-You should write your ballot for me in the rebuttals.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, debate is a game and you should have fun and learn from it. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

LD Supplement:

This is the event that I primarily judge on my local South Dakota circuit. LD debate here is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go so do whatever, just keep in mind I probably don't understand most of the traditional nuances of the event.

To me, I feel that the criterion should be the framework in which you attain some idea of your value and the way in which I evaluate and weigh you arguments in relation to the other debater.

If I am not told at the end of the round how to frame or evaluate the debate I will default to evaluating the impacts presented in the round and which ones outweigh.

I am absolutely not the judge for Tricks. If this is your strategy going into the round and you do not intend on changing it you will probably lose the round.

PF Supplement:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated at my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in the policy debate section should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your args vs your opponent's. Reference it through out the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read, not paraphrased. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Utilize the summary for impact calculus and the final focus for reasons as to why you win the round.

Hello I am Duer Tap, I did LD debate for 3 years at Jefferson High School and I am now graduated.

General Things

I will not tolerate any discriminatory actions within round, if done I will one vote you down, give lowest speaks, and talk to your coach this is the bare minimum guys don't be a bad person.

I am a Tech > Truth judge in most instances

I am completely fine with progressive arguments in South Dakota, so run a K/DA/CP if you want to.

Disclosing the decision after round is good and I will be practicing that. Argue with me if you want to waste time.

Circuit Debate (LD/PF)

Theory/T- I am fine with T being ran against a K or anything. You just need to prove why its important for me to vote on it. Bad Theory Arguments are infact bad arguments I will probably not weigh these at all in round. Disclosure Theory is fine when its a circuit v circuit debater, you know the norms of circuit before hand. I will have a high tolerance for trad v circuit DT due to the fact that they might not know the norms of said circuit and could push them out of the circuit before they join.

Ks- I am fine with Ks of all forms as long as you explain it well. Ks are not condo whatsoever. You can not treat a K as a tool to win debate rounds and then kick out of it. We shouldn't as debaters commodify structures of oppression in debate.

LARP- LD is not built for LARP but if you want to I won't stop you.

Phil- Explain like I am a child

Tricks- no

Trad/SD Debate

Don't just say cross apply or extend without telling me warrants or impacts. I don't care who wins the framework debate as long as you weigh under the framework that is winning in round. Give me a clear reason why I should vote for your side, write my ballot for me.

Other Events

IDK do what u do ig

i do pf