I am a PF debater but have coached/taught LD. My suggestions:

be nice, be clear and make the judges’ lives easy.

I will mainly be judging over the value/criterion debate. However, competitors must not neglect the contention level debate.

Be sure to speak clearly and concisely. If I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments.

Most importantly, be respectful and be kind :)

Good luck competitors!!!

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I am not a big paraphrase guy and feel it can be ripe for abuse. If you must, please include the paragraph before and after your cut card and a link to the argument. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

Classic LD: Value, Criterion, Contentions

Rounds are evaluated with emphasis on the strongest logical arguments, sometimes supported with evidence.

I appreciate frameworks and burdens arguments that lay out the parameters of the debate - especially when you follow through with it, and it’s not just a 1x statement at the beginning of a speech never to be referenced again.

I enjoy well-thought out arguments, clash, organization, and arguments that continue to evolve throughout the round, not just repeated.

Spread and high speed are not tolerated. I will flow only what I can understand.

And while all of that might come off as a little grumpy, I assure you I am not. This is an enjoyable event, there are things that we can all learn from each other, and respect for your opponents, teammates and judges is a great starting point to have a good time, no matter the outcome. Have fun and learn something

Work in progress :)

Hello, I’ve done speech and debate through all four years of high school, and I now compete in college. I competed in Public Forum, International Extemp and Oratory. I’ve competed at the nationals circuit in both public forum and International Extemp as well. I think Speech and Debate is a great tool to initiate meaningful civil discourse, for that reason, it’s imperative that you are respectful during rounds. If you are being unkind to your opponents, your partner or to me, you will get low speaks, and possibly the down in the round.

Speed

I truly believe in the idea that anyone should be able to walk into a round and understand what is happening (especially in PF). I can handle rapid conversational speed, but if you speak too fast, I will not be able to flow what is being said, and therefore will not be weighed in the round. I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. If your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, remember that the debate is meant to be educational, and spreading does lead to that. I don't believe that talking faster equates to being a good debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the rebuttal, if you are second speaker or during summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.

Public Forum

I appreciate well-organized debaters who use effective signposting. I've noticed that debaters tend to be more successful when they can skillfully apply their own evidence and arguments to counter the opposing side's case, resulting in a more streamlined debate that centers on the quality of argumentation. I'm a flow judge, so keep a good flow.I really like contention level debate, but I also think I also weigh the framework debate heavily. In public forum, I've observed that summary speeches often neglect their own case by addressing too many arguments. To increase your chances of winning, defend your case and respond to the opposing team's previous arguments. I love line by line, but make sure you crystallize your points effectively, so I know what I am voting for. Likewise, if the opposing team overlooks critical arguments or drops, these are clear wins in my eyes, so please highlight them, unless you point it out, I can’t vote for it. For the final focus, I think it's best to focus on two or three primary voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of your speech should be spent talking about impact calc, and why your arguments are better. Closing speeches need to be weighed if you run framework I expect you to pull it through throughout round and not just in the final focus to why you win the round. Also if you drop any of your contentions, and bring it up during final focus, don't expect me to vote for it, because it was dropped.

Flashing evidence: I won't take prep, but be quick with it.

LD

I have never debated it before. Most likely, I will not familiar with the topic. I have judged it before and I understand the value, criterion, and the works of LD, but I’m definitely not extremely well versed in it.

CX

I have never debated it before. Most likely, I will not be familiar with the topic. I have not judged it before but the debate forum I do in college closely lines up with it, I understand plans and advantages and DA's, stock issues etc. But bare with me because it is a very unknown/new type of debate for me.

Speech

Extemp: Please be sure to not abuse sources, I would much rather hear your analysis than you make up sources or numbers.

All of the other speech events: Do your thing, you’ll be great. Let me know if you want time signals when you get to 9/10 minutes.

Theories/ Kritiks

Once again, debate should promote education, and it’s best done when both teams have an equal opportunity to research a resolution. It is my inherent belief that intentionally debating issues outside of the realm of the resolution affects the fairness of the round. That being said, I am open to listening to any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the win.

You all are incredibly talented, and I’m so excited to watch you. Good Luck and you’ll be great. If you have any questions feel free to ask me during the round or feel free to email me at abiahsg@gmail.com if you have questions after the round.

(she/they) Email: lauren.gilli03@gmail.com

(Pre-Round Skimming=Bold)

I have 4-years' debating experience in VPF (mainly trad/lay), various IEs, and 3 years at NSDA Nats for PF/Extemp (once somehow). If you have any questions before/after the round, ask! I like giving help and will give critiques when I can.

~Decorum~

- Don't be an [expletive] in round. If bad enough, give you the lowest speaks possible or the L :)

- I will not stand for prejudiced arguments/rhetoric. I will give opposing team the opportunity to continue, otherwise I will end the round with a fun chat and an L for the offending team, along with lowest possible speaks and a talk with coaches.

- Use trigger/content warnings please. If you have enough foresight to do that, I expect an alt prepared.

- Please no descriptions of sexual assault/in-depth anecdotes of such.

Basics

- Your job is to make my job easy.

- Keep a clear narrative throughout the round- overviews are nice and I love them done well.

- Speak clearly :)- stumbling is fine, I feel you. It doesn't mean you're any less confident.

- In PF, it's not policy- and in LD, stay understandable. No spreading please. If y'all are going way too fast, I will raise my hand.

- For Congress, spreading is absolutely contradictory to the point of the event. Please don't <3

- If, for some god-forsaken reason, you decide to spread against my warning, please send me a case doc. Email above.

- Debate is a competition, yes, but also respect the origins. The point of debate is to persuade, and you can't perform if you are spreading. If you are going too fast, I signal, and you don't slow down... I will flow what I can understand. You have been warned.

- - - I have four points about spreading. That is a sign.

- EVERYONE: SIGNPOST PLEASE <3

- Weigh for me, otherwise I'll do it myself (and that is a threat...mwahaha).

- I generally don't vote on obviously false args. Opposition, at least tell me it's clearly false, give a quick reason before moving on.

- As long as an argument is warranted, have fun with it! I like wacky args if the links are there.

First Speakers (PF)

- Please don't state Cost-Benefit Analysis (a la common sense) as FW in your case. It is useless unless it is used as a response to your opponent's FW.

- Give me (preferably only) voters in summary (collapsing/crystallizing) - again, makes my job easier - line-by-line is rarely summarizing and I will die on this hill. At least throw in voters at the end if you decide to not summarize in your summary

Second Speakers (PF)

- Your success in rebuttal rests on signposting. Tell me where you are! Please!

- For your partner's sake (and your own), start weighing in rebuttal

- Have fun with final focus because it doesn't matter much- The round is won in Rebuttal and Summary! Be sassy but stick to your guns- keep your narrative cohesive w summary

Crossfire/Ex

- It doesn't matter. Keep it clean, no punching. I don't flow during this time unless there is a mic-drop moment. If there is said mic-drop moment, bring it through in later speeches.

- I'm only here for the quotable moments

- finish answer if timer beeps, but not question

Evidence

- I have absolutely no tolerance when it comes to evidence violations. I have had bad experiences in round and will not let an abusive team win. If you want me to call for your/the opp's evi at end of round, tell me. Don't be afraid to stop the round and call a violation if they continue insisting on their evidence being something it's not.

Theory

Very limited experience, outside of a few rounds re: disclosure in LD and one in PF. If you run theory, be clear about your narrative and make it obvious why it should be preferred over substance.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am sorry, I have limited experience in LD judging. I'm teaching myself as much as I can starting '21. but please treat me as a lay judge. Spell it out please. I know next to nothing about LD, so be clear and explain thoroughly. Limit jargon- I competed a lot, but in a very traditional circuit. Glean what you can from the PF paradigm <3

_________________________________

This is debate! The point is to learn and meet people! In the words of my former debate coach, "Do your best. Have fun."

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I am a former Democrat turned Republican by life experience - 4 kids, Catholic and married to a small business owner. Work full time and dabble with ranching/farming. Rural America has my heart. We all add value in different ways and different times in life. The lens which we see our value will shift depending on our calling and phase of life we are in.

TL;DR - Tech>Truth. Make good arguments. Offense and clash will always win my ballot. Speak well.

BACKGROUND

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and International Extemp for three years and also have a year of experience in PF. I’ve also competed in Student Congress here and there, have competed in Extemp Debate, and have judged many Interp pieces.

TECH vs. TRUTH

I lean more towards tech than truth. I strongly believe in evaluating everything on the flow and I write a lot on the flow. Often when writing ballots I find myself writing that even if something isn’t true I will evaluate it based on the context of the round. Or if something is conceded and one of the debaters points it out I will treat it as fact in the context of the round.

I see truth as judge intervention since they evaluate the round based on their own perception of arguments made in the round. As a judge, I cannot be bothered to try to think about my own opinion on the argument when my job is to evaluate the round based on arguments the debaters make. The only time I learn truth is when the round is either super super close or vice versa.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am very traditionalist when it comes to LD debate. I am not a fan of kritiks or theories at all. I think they're very tacky and slimy methods of debate. However, with that being said if I am in a district that is not my own and these are the norm I will listen to them and accept them. Just make sure your links and argumentations with them actually make sense and you carry it through.

I want framework (value/criterion) debate upfront. I believe LD is a value debate so I want a lot of clash on the framework. Explain why your value is most important and how your criterion best upholds it. Also, make sure to carry this throughout the entire round and use your contentions and their impacts to support all of this. I'm also picky with weighing impacts. Since LD is a moral debate I believe weighing impacts is extremely important so I can decide which one is morally better. I'm also open to all types of philosophy and can follow pretty much anything. I like it when you pick an interesting or "out of the blue" type of philosophy.

PUBLIC FORUM

With PF all you really need to worry about is having clear, concise, and logical arguments. Carry through your impacts and links and explain why they're important and pertain to the round. Also please weigh your impacts throughout the round :). Throughout the round if you weigh your impacts it makes my job as a judge a lot easier to really evaluate which course of action or side is better.

SPEAKING/SPEED

I believe speaking to be more important than others may think. At the end of the day, even if you don't adhere to what I like, as long as you speak well and convey your points properly you'll be in great shape. For me, speaking well includes being clear and concise, going at a natural pace, and being consistent in your speed. You do those things and you'll be golden.

While I can relatively handle speed I would greatly prefer it if you didn't speak really fast or even spread. However, if you do tend to speak a little faster I won't dock you for it unless you get to a point where I can't understand you.

EVIDENCE

I do not believe that every single argument needs a piece of evidence as long as it's rational, makes sense, and has a warrant. But don't expect you can make every argument without evidence because there are plenty of arguments where you will need evidence to back it up. Please for the love of god DO NOT misconstrue evidence. If I find out you are blatantly misconstruing evidence I'll either give you low points or drop you.

If you tell me to call evidence because your opponents are fudging then I will call for it to make the best decision I can as a judge.

VOTERS/SIGNPOSTING

I love voters. I greatly appreciate those who include voters in their final speeches I think they're great at crystalizing the round. Basically, they are reasons why you win and I usually accept 2-4. Explain why they're important to the round and why these issues flow to your side.

Please signpost. It makes my job as a judge so much easier to flow the round and make sure I do the best job I can as a judge in making a decision.

At the end of the day be respectful and have fun!

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

[Personal Info]

Pronouns: She/Her

I do Lincoln Douglas debate, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon for me.

Email: savannah.j.kloster@gmail.com

My ballots tend to be mainly evaluation specific to how you did in the round and I get very hyper-focused on personal comments that I usually forget to write RFDs, unless they are online ballots, then as soon as I leave the school I fill them out; If you didn’t get an RFD or need clarifications from me just email me and I will give you an RFD or the clarifications you need to the best of my abilities.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

If you know Martin Kloster, yes I am the communist’s sister

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus because that means you dropped it so I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them, if you say no and you have access to it it’ll be very sketchy (plus bad debate etiquette) and I’ll drop the card from the flow and I might ask to see the card after round

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading because it’s hard to understand what the person is saying but also don’t go too slow because it’s just as bad as spreading. My preferred speed is a moderate pace. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer. I recommend having a timer up with you so you can see how much time you have left, it makes giving speeches much easier in my opinion.

/Speaks/

Speaks for me is not only how well your speeches were but if you were actually trying and showing interest/know what you're talking about; in other words not just speaking pretty but being confident. Just for a bonus for reading my paradigm if you tie Mike Wazowski into your speech I'll give you an additional .5 speaker points.

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

*** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for three years and I keep a decent flow. Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcome and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

If there's an email chain my email is Smarkley020904@gmail.com

^ I will not evaluate anything not highlighted in your case unless your opponent brings it up to say you're misconstruing evidence.

——> Tl;dr <——

Flow judge. Good for the K but explain it well. Huge on framework. Extend more than author name

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". Don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I dislike hyper-specific advocacies in LD. I don't think solely focusing on one country is doing enough for me to affirm "as a general principle" without some really good explanation. If you're running a hyper-specific framework that is super interesting, then that's a different story! but don't focus on one case study.

If you're going to engage in topicality debates about what "a right" means or "democracy" go for it but please be clear about it. I think oftentimes these are important and strategic debates that need to be had, but are just done very poorly.

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

- Lincoln Douglas -

Slow - - - - - - - I - - Fast

Case - - - - - - - I - - Framework

Tech - - I - - - - - - - Truth

Deont. - -I - - - - - - - Conseq.

Winning the Framework Debate doesn't necessarily win you the ballot, but I will weigh the contention level through the lens of the winning framework.

LD-

I am an LD-er and I think it’s pretty kool. So make sure it is LD and not PF. Unfortunately topics recently have been degrading into the PF side so as LD-ers we have a moral obligation to keep it within the realms of LD. Basically make sure you have a solid value and criterion and make sure it’s well connected to your case. I love a good Value and criterion debate so make sure to hit on that as in LD they are the entire backbone of all your contentions. Otherwise I’m pretty relaxed, I also wont flow drops or attacks that arent pulled through unless it gets really close, so just as a tip make sure to pull attacks and drops through.

PF-

I dont really know much about PF, but make sure to have strong connections. I think impacts should be stressed, but also the links so if you do not provide a plausible link I probably wont flow it.

About me-

I judge novices. My name is Elijah Shirley and I go by Ely. I’ve done a year of PF, currently debate LD, and have some very limited experience In the national circuit. I’m a gen z, so if for some reason you want to know that going into your round, there you go. If it looks like I’m not paying attention to your speech I’m probably multitasking (flowing or writing comments); just keep talking. And on an average Wednesday you can expect to find me pondering new responses to John Rawls conception of Justice.

In general-

I’m very flow oriented. If it’s not on the flow it won’t influence me. This also means that you must CONSISTENTLY MENTION ARGUMENTS IN EVERY SPEECH POSSIBLE, other wise I will not take it into account (unless it’s an extremely rare circumstance). During cross, ANSWER YOUR OPPONENTS QUESTIONS. If you are unable to explain your contention in cross when your opponents specifically ask about it, it is your fault when they can’t make an adequate attack on it. That being said, I don’t pay too much attention to cross. This time is mainly for the debaters to get/clarify information. I believe in QUALITY OVER PRESENTATION. If you’re not a great speaker that’s perfectly ok, just make sure you SIGNPOST (I should know which contention you are addressing) and TELL ME WHY YOUR ATTACKS MATTER. Similarly, I prefer it if you NUMBER YOUR RESPONSES. It makes it really easy for me if you say, “first response to contention 1: yada yada. Second response to contention 1: yada yada.” Finally, USE VOTERS. In the final speech, if you say “I should win because X, Y, and Z,” if it makes sense to me and the opponent fail to do the same, then I will just hand over the win to you (usually).

LD-

Value and criterion- this is usually the most important thing in the round. If you drop your value and criterion you will usually lose my ballot on the spot. I know some judges have a bias against deontological frameworks, but if you tell me something is inherently immoral regardless of the circumstances, I will hear you out.In fact, it will probably make me ten times more interested in your argument because I don’t see that sort of thing in novice rounds.

Pacing- Do what you do best. I’ll be following.

Philosophy- If you want to get into the details of philosophy and want to have a really abstract, philosophical round then I’m your guy. Your opponent will probably hate you, but as long as they’re at least somewhat following the round it’ll be okay. I don’t expect to see this in any of my rounds, but if you’re reading my paradigm this closely then maybe there’s hope: You could make my day by pulling up to a round with a case around supererogation or Kant or something.

Attacks- you should extend all of your attacks to the opponents value, criterion, or impacts. If the attack doesn’t relate to any of these, it’s probably not worth saying.

PF-

Be patient with me- I’m more accustomed to the LD format.

Pacing- The faster you are, the clearer you have to be. If you’re talking fast I can keep up as long as you number your responses and sign post. If you’re going crazy fast I’ll probably end up writing down the responses, but not really understanding them.

Complexity- I don’t debate these topics. If we’re farther into the topic this shouldn’t be a problem, but sometimes I get confused by the complexity. If you have leftover time in a speech just break something down for me.

First rebuttal- If you are giving the very first rebuttal of the round, don’t waste time going over your own case. I’ve already heard it. Spend four minutes on the opponents unless there’s some complicated stuff on your side that you really need to explain.

Impacts- If you want to say that debt forgiveness will cause nuclear fallout and destroy the entire world, go for it because I love far-fetched cases. Admittedly, they are hard to defend. If your opponent adequately attacks any of the links I won’t flow through your impacts, but at face value I’m all for a spicy link chain.

Other-

I am open to Ks, Ts, theory, etc. but I will probably vote it down. (If you’re confused, don’t worry about it). Considering I only judge novices, you would have to dumb down everything extremely well to the point where both I and the opponent understand what you’re proposing and how it relates to the round in length. Like I said, I will probably vote it down simply because I don’t expect a novice to be able to utilize any of these debate methods in a way that is clear and un-abusive.

Good luck!

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.