I used to compete in Congressional debate, HI, DI, Informative, Extemp, Impromptu, and BQD back in high school for four years. I have been judging PF for 5 years now. keep up with prep time

• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

• Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth!

• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card and please actually connect it to the case.

• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.

• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.

• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.

• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind.

• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

• I don’t judge based on the cross

My email is jamhou@trojanstudent.net if you want to include me in any email chain. I won't flow cross or any new points after the first summary. Make sure you use evidence for any claim you're making. Don't paraphrase new cards. Extend your impacts through every speech or I won't flow them. Make sure you are constantly reminding me why you win the round.

Hi, my name is Abby Hyken and I’m a varsity debater for the Midtown HS debate team. I've competed in Public Forum for 4 years.

Preferences for PF:

• I like comparative weighing, so tell me what to vote off of. Put your impacts side by side and show me why yours are more significant.
• I can understand pretty fast speaking, but make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I won't flow cross, so if something important comes up make sure to mention it in your next speech.
• Time yourself, but don’t abuse this. I will still be paying attention.
• Excessively calling for cards is one of the most obnoxious things that can happen in a debate round. Call for a card if you really want it, but don't use it as an excuse to steal prep time.
• If your opponents drop something, bring it up, but only if they truly dropped it. I don’t like when teams fib about dropping arguments.
• I don’t really like or understand theory, but I still consider myself a tech>truth judge when it comes to traditional PF tech.

All other events:

• Never judged any other event before, so treat me as you would a lay judge.
• That being said, I obviously understand argumentation more than a parent judge, but I most likely won't be very familiar with your topic.

PF Debate

I'm a 3 year PF debater at Carrollton high school. I can do speed but due to the online format I can't do spreading so to make it easier for all of us don't spread. As far as Theory and K I would prefer you don't run it but I will judge it fairly, however I don't mind a well done Theory Shell. Whether I time or not is typically based on my mood (I always time prep so you don't have to trip about it), but you should always time yourself, however I feel that timing your opponent is rude and encourage you to avoid it. I don't flow Crossfire but I think its an extremely important speech so I definitely consider it in speaks and I HEAVILY encourage you to bring it up in main speeches. (yes I call Cross a speech but don't just restate your whole contention). Oh and on speaks, I do the highest 4 the tournament allows for so that may be 30,29.9,29.8,29.7 or it may sadly end up in 30,29,28,27. don't blame me, blame the tourney lol. Thank you, and have a great round.

Other Debate Formats

I am relatively Lay but I know and understand the voters such as LD's value premises but I may not know your terms or times off the dome, but I should ask for clarification if I need it. Consult my PF Paradigm for the following topics: My Experience, Speed, Theory/K, Timing, Cross X, and Speaker Score.

Impromptu Speech

I'm a pretty chill judge since this event is relatively chill. I'd prefer if you take your time and if your not a novice try your best to follow a Structure. The most important things for me is if your calm/not frantic and sound clear I don't think the speech itself should stress out a good speaker (but I'm obviously still gonna judge your speech). All in all just have fun and try your best.

Other Speech Formats

I don't really trip about a lot I expect some kind of structure but really my vote comes down to speaking skill and yeah thats mostly it. sorry for the short paradigm but idk much All in all just have fun and try your best. especially in novice divisions.

Intro:

Hi, I’m Drew, a first-year student at Georgia Tech. I debated 4 years PF at Carrollton High School on the GFCA and TOC circuits. I qualed for TOC my senior year.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: andrewbjohnson06@gmail.com

Preferably send both Constructive and Rebuttal docs, but at the minimum, Constructive.

__________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR: Tech Judge, I will evaluate everything. Vote off the flow. Please weigh. Don't make me intervene.

Lay x--------------------------------------------O-----x Tech

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

General:

• I am a tech judge. 100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is developed well.
• Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful.
• I will not flow off speech docs. I only look at evidence if a team calls it out.
• I think speaks should be based on a 28.5-30 scale with .1 increments. I will only drop below that if you say something offensive or give up in round. I am not afraid of low-point wins.
• Go as fast as you want, but don’t sacrifice clarity. I debate quickly and can handle speed, just don’t spread. If I can’t understand, I will say clear up to three times and then drop my pen.
• I don’t flow cross, but I do listen. A large portion of your speaks will be determined based on how you handle the pressure of cross-fire.
• Time yourselves, please.
• PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer going down the flow line-by-line in rebuttal and summary.
• Paraphrasing is acceptable. It is cool to say the card name and then paraphrase what the card says. Just have a cut card ready when called for.
• I like analysis arguments as much as evidence-based ones, so if you use logical responses that make sense to me, I will not value them less than evidence unless the other team has a card disproving your analysis.
• Weighing is essential. You should do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be “we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me.” Give me analyses as to why you’re winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered as you want it to be.
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary.
• Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a significant educational opportunity; I believe that learning is why this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I think the punishment is warranted.

Theory:

• If you run theory, ensure that it is not abused in and of itself. I don’t think a formal counter-inter is necessary to respond to a shell; give responses like you would a standard argument. If it’s frivolous and the opposing team says that, I will drop you and give the lowest speaks possible.
• Do not run disclosure on the Georgia Circuit (Talking to a specific school here. You know who you are.). That is not the norm and is abusive.
• Feel free to run it at TOC bid tournaments, though. I disclosed and probably prefer it as the norm (Doesn't mean I'll auto-vote on it, though).

K's:

• I will evaluate K's, but don't expect me to vote on it just because you run it. I think K debaters are either lazy or smart so you need to prove why you are the latter.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Post-Round Info:

• I disclose. Usually, I will give my RFD in rounds with a few main things posted on Tab.
• If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me using the above email.
• Post-round me, please. I love good discussions about the round. Don't expect it to change my ballot, though. I've already submitted it before I give my RFD.
• Please ask for my flow if you would like. I flow on excel and will be happy to email it to you. :)

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit. I won several GA tournaments and broke at quite a few national tournaments so I'm familiar with lingo and norms.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts. If you don't give me a framework I default to util. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies though about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit. This is not the norm and extremely abusive. The Georgia circuit should be a space for anyone to feel welcome and disclosure only rewards teams who have the resources to run it.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't get judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I know it's a somewhat long paradigm but reading it will help you in round, I promise.

My Experience/Preferences: I'm a fourth-year PF debater at Midtown High School so I'm very knowledgeable about debate in general. If I'm judging you in LD or Policy, I'm fine with most theory and Ks, but less experienced with very progressive debate, so you may need to explain things to me in your speeches. Also, explain the basics of your topic to me if you're not in PF because I won't have done much research on it. Also, plz give an offtime roadmap, it just helps me flow.

Speaking: Do not spread, if you do I will give you low speaks and will tell you to slow down. Otherwise, I can understand pretty fast speaking as long as you're clear. Make sure you're speaking loud enough and showing passion in what you're debating.

Evidence: I don't need to be on an evidence-sharing doc or email chain and usually won't ask to see evidence unless I really need to accurately judge to round. Also, do not excessively call for cards. No one should ever ask for 8 cards at the end of a speech, because they'll only end up actually evaluating two or three them. Doing this to try to gain prep time is very obnoxious and will lose you speaks. Only ask for cards if you are actually going to evaluate them well or need to examine the credibility of the source.

Time: Time yourselves, I will try to time as well but I may forget. I will be keeping track of your prep so don't try to steal any, doing so will result in a loss of speaker points. Also, be sure to use up all of your speech time.

How I Judge: I'm definitely prioritize tech over truth so if you point out your opponent's nontopicality, their running of a plan (PF), their failure to respond to something, or that they're bringing up new evidence or arguments when they're not supposed to, I will flow that argument to you. If you don't respond to your opponent's framework or alternative situation, I will go with whatever they say.

This does not mean, however, that you will get away with any type of response you want. If you have a bad turn, your opponent's impact will flow through. The same goes with your case, if your impact isn't true, terminal, and specific, I will only weigh as however important as I see it is. Your link chain also has to be clear and make sense for me to consider the impact.

I don't flow CSX but how you speak and respond will influence your speaker points. If you bring up a good point in cross, bring it up in your next speech. The same goes with other speeches, if you read it in one speech, you need to keep running that point, try not to drop arguments unless you intentionally drop it to collapse on one argument or save time and focus on more important things.

Another thing thats very important to me is giving a good explanation. Explain why the points you make impact the round and always link the points you make to your value criterion (LD) and your impacts.

I will vote on impacts, so GIVE COMPARATIVE VOTERS, tell me why you win the round and why your impacts are better in Magnitude, Risk, and/or Timeframe than your opponents.

Most importantly, have fun!! Debate is all just a game so try not to get too frustrated with anything your opponents say. Also, Ill give you 0.5 extra speaker points if you make a joke during one of your speeches, but only if it makes me laugh.

I was an avid debater/speaker for the second half of my high school career. I had interest in furthering my experience so I enlist my help to my old coach and judge for the Valdosta Wildcats. Please ask me in person about my preferences. I will not share personal preference for the topics I judge on. Whether it's speech or debate events, I take great pride in seeing young debaters/speakers grow and develop their craft.

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com