Hello, my name is Emmitt Antwine. I have done Policy Debate for 3 years and Lincoln-Douglas for a year in High School and I currently on the Louisiana Tech IPDA (International Public Debate Association) Team which is drastically different from policy and LD. I am a semi-lay/experience judge if you wanted to know. Below you will see my paradigms, please read carefully.

IPDA

Read the Link of the IPDA Constitution

HIGH SCHOOL POLICY DEBATE

1. My paradigms are simple: KNOW WHAT YOUR READING!

2. Prep time: If it becomes a problem, then you will either flow by ear instead of computer. Judge has discretion.

3. CX: For Novice, it open.

For Advanced, it up to my discretion.

Don't take over partner CX time.

Be polite and civil, no yelling!

4. Last two speeches, I always need voters.

Affirmative:

I love impact farming in the 1AC. I like being told how to judge a round.

Having 1 strong advantage is better than having 2 or 3 weak advantage. QUALITY NOT QUANTITY

Impact Calculus has to be build up in round not just thrown in.

Negative:

1. DA: Need to develop them, tell it like a story then read your cards to convince me, Impact Calculus needs to be comparable within the 1st negative speech and the last negative speech. This helps shape the narrative of the round. I HATE nuclear war impact they are unrealistic to me, that does not mean I will not vote for it. It takes a lot of effort to persuade any judge.

2. K: If you know the K then read it but if not I will vote you down for arguments you do not fully understand. If it is cap K or any popular K I am fine but you have to explain these arguments like I am in 5th grade. Try to connect Alternative to your round and society.

3. CP: I love CP, but many teams do not prep for perms well. If you read theory arguments make then connect to me personally, if not it is a waste of time.

4. T: I hate T's. I will vote for T but it has to truly be a violation, not a time waster for the other team. The Aff could have never answer the T and win because the Neg did not fully explain the harms of their topicality.

5. Status quo: This is a good argument teams should use. It good pair with a DA. Status Quo is good and explain it.

Lincoln Douglas

1. My paradigms are simple: KNOW WHAT YOUR READING!

2. I don't mind policy in LD but do go too far with it.

3. Always have voters at the end.

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - speech drop/file share/elizabethelliottdebate@gmail.com

Please format the subject of the email with relevant information.

I have Wake Debate stickers on me so feel free to ask for one / ask any questions you have about Wake/college debate in general !!

---

Be a decent human being.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names.

Tech >>> truth, but your speaks are mine. I will do my best to decide the debate to minimize intervention. Judge instruction helps a lot with deciding in your favor.

Post-rounding is good. If I make a decision you disagree with, please ask questions. It makes the activity better and forces judges to pay attention. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else is cc'ed).

You can insert rehighlightings of cards and perm texts.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments, I believe this is true for disadvantages as much as I do for one-line blips

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.

I protect the 2NR more than the average judge, AFF teams should make sure to either justify new arguments they are making or make sure they can vaguely be traced to earlier speeches (minus impact calc/ev comparison).

Unless the affirmative is new*, the chain should be sent before the round starts. Please start speaking at the start time and minimize dead time.

Evidence quality matters a lot. If I need to read the evidence in a debate - I read the evidence in 'invisibility mode' - this means evidence you have entered into the debate is part of the evidence that you have read.

Saying the phrase 'independent voting issue' does not make it an 'independent voting issue.'

---

DA/Plan AFFs: Turns the DA/Case is better with carded evidence. Impact calculus/comparison matters a lot. Explain how arguments interact / what it means to win broad theoretical claims.

CP: Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative. 1AR deficits should be tied to impacts. Counterplan theory as the 'A Strat' never makes much sense to me. I would much rather see theory debates as competition debates.

K: Middle of the road in these debates. Framework debates are a question of models. I will decide the framework debate as a yes/no question and not a middle ground---this makes the framework page (regardless of which side you are on) very important in front of me. I am good for K tricks as long as they are made clear in earlier speeches (LD).

T/Theory: Caselists matter a lot to me. Make sure you extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation. Weighing between standards usually decides these debates in front of me. I am pretty bad for 'reasonability' absent judge instruction, implicating thresholds for what offense matters, etc. I lean negative on most forms of CP theory but given the state of LD, I will happily vote on condo if well-executed/well developed.

Tricks/Frivolity/Phil/Theory debates that do not exist in policy: I would rather not. I will vote on it, but you will not like your speaks. I am horrible at evaluating this debate and I will openly say the quality of my RFDs in these debates is bad. I need a higher level of explanation than most judges. Examples>>> You need to go slower than you think you do...I will vote on presumption if your 1AC is unflowable.

---

Speaks: I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. Ways to boost your speaks: doc organization, judge instruction, clarity, numbering, line by line, and argument innovation.

Debating Novices/People with Less Experience: You should do what you need to do to win the debate, but make the debate as accessible as possible ie. slow down, explain things, be nice, etc. If you are clearly ahead either go for the winning argument and sit down or have a debate your opponent could engage with. I am uninterested in hearing 6 minutes of a K that was dropped.

Online Debate: I have no preference between camera on vs. off. You should locally record speeches in the event you cut out. The less I think you are stealing prep the better.

*"New AFFs" are affirmatives that have not been read by you, a teammate, your prep group, or another school. To be read as 'new,' none of the evidence in the AFF should have been read before. If evidence has been read before, the evidence should be disclosed to your opponent. Changing tags/how a card is cut does not make an affirmative new. If you break 'New' and your affirmative is not new - your speaks are capped at a 25 in prelims and I will have a very low bar for voting against you on disclosure in elims.

I have competed, coached, and judged high school debate over the last 30 years. I consider myself knowledgeable about assorted frameworks in the Debate world. I am now a parent of a debater. I consider myself a blank slate.

I believe it’s the responsibility of the debaters to guide my decision by their analysis and evidence. If your opponent drops an argument, it’s your responsibility to point it out and provide analysis as to why it matters. I really appreciate when in the final speeches of a debate, the debaters provide the concrete reasons to vote for their side. If neither debater provides these details, I will adopt a secondary framework of common sense to determine the winner.

Clarity in speaking whether conversational or spreading is important.

email: kcfruge13@gmail.com

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

email chain: brionarob4576@gmail.com

past experience: i competed in LD for 2 years as well as various speech events. i've dipped into PF before but overall I would consider myself an experienced judge.

as far as LD goes, i judge each round based on how well each debater carries their arguments throughout the round and their impact calc! winning framework does nothing if that is the only argument you are winning. also any new arguments in the last speech will not be accounted for and pls extend ALL arguments throughout each speech.

general info/etiquette: im personally not the biggest fan of spreading BUT if you have a lot to say just email chain me, however for whatever reason you cannot just know you risk me not hearing something important.

speaks are generally 25-30 points, if you get a 25 or below you were probably being very rude in a round. i do love commentary/explanations during constructive speeches so that gets you extra speaks. im cool with cussing as long as its not said in a derogatory manner, i actually think it makes the round more passionate lol

i do like progressive LD, i love different/experimental cases so feel comfortable to run something critical. but play it fair and give me clear reasoning on why i should vote for you

if i ever get stuck judging policy or pf, please treat me as a lay judge