Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it.

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "speed" if you are going too fast. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am very open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. I do not like operating in multiple worlds as I believe that is abusive to the affirmative, especially given the speech times in NFA-LD. I am easily persuaded to vote against a debater that does this if their opposition makes it a voting issue.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

I debated for 3 years in high school and 1 year in college and have been a coach for 4 years.

I almost always am a policymaker with some exceptions when it comes to kritiks.

I prefer any impact other than nuclear war. I'll listen to nuclear war impacts on DAs, and I've voted for them but I have to be able to see a clear connection on why the voting for the aff would cause a war, the links need to be very strong. As a policymaker I want to be able to evaluate how the plan would hypothetically affect people which is why I tend to prefer smaller magnitude impacts that let me weigh the benefits of the aff with the potential harm to individuals. Also on DAs, I highly value uniqueness. If you're going to run a generic link, at the very least have super recent evidence. Same goes for specific links as well; recency will almost never hurt you, but old evidence will.

As for topicality, I don't mind it and have voted on it before but to win on T alone with me you'd have to do significant work on the voters. I will not vote on T because the neg thinks the aff might be abusive, you have to be committed to this strategy all the way to persuade me to move away from a policymaker framework to examine topicality.

I don't enjoy counterplans but I'm not opposed to them. If you think that a CP is your best strategy in that round then by all means go for it, just know that I almost always will think that there are better arguments to have made. On the aff, I don't want you to read every perm in the book. Do some solid work on theory and I will likely buy it.

Kritiks are important and have some place in debate. That said I don't want to hear a K every round, but I am familiar with most literature and as I said above value arguments that allow me to weigh the aff with the impacts on individual people. The role of the ballot is very important to me, along with being able to do the analysis on your own without just reading a block at me. You will need to do a significant amount of work to get to move me from policymaking to kritiks, however if you think this is your best strategy I trust your judgement, just show me it is your strongest argument.

As for the aff, I don't like K affs, and I prefer a lot of advantages (scenarios). I believe affs should read a plan text. Don't get too overwhelmed by the neg and forget about your case. Far too frequently I see affs that have totally lost track of their advantages by the 1AR. I will not weigh your advantages against the neg if you left them untouched after the 1AC.

In general, I'm not picky on your speed, I'll flow the round so please be very clear on what arguments you are making and where on the flow you want them. I will flow however you want as long as you tell me what argument/card goes where. I like a strong impact calc throughout the round. Anyone can read cards, I value the analysis of if the proposed policy is good or bad and why. There's more to that than just reading the evidence.

If you have questions about specific arguments or want more information about something you can ask me before the round or email me at lglingenfelter@gmail.com

As a judge, I strive for fairness, clarity, and adherence to debate rules. I value logical arguments supported by evidence, respectful conduct, and effective communication. I expect debaters to engage with each other's arguments, stay on topic, and avoid personal attacks. I prioritize substance over style and look for well-structured cases with clear impacts. I'm open to different debate formats and arguments but prefer quality over quantity. Overall, I aim to make informed, impartial decisions based on the merits of the arguments presented.

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

-------------

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak

Hello!

Thank you for competing today!

For debate, do NOT spread. I'm pretty inexperienced and if I can't flow your debate, it's gonna be pretty hard to judge it.

For IE events, I love story-telling. Even if it's extemp, bring in your personal experience, tell me why the situation matters to your character in an acting event, etc. Your piece should matter to you - if your heart is in it that goes a long way with me. If you are doing a dramatic piece, please be dramatic, not traumatic. Nobody likes being yelled at. Thank you! Best of luck to you!

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed was my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

I did policy debate in highschool, Parli and IPDA in college and I teach MS LD and PF. However, with that said, I mainly coach speech so I'm definitely not as proficient in flow as I was years ago. I am familiar with circuit rules. In terms of debate, I like sign posting, clear turns and impact calc. Basically, don't make me do your work for you. In terms of solvency presses, mmm its LD so not really. Kritiks, I'm really not a fan of them (unless its legitimate) but if dropped or not addressed I'll take it into voters. Finally watch cp language I'm using CHSA rules this tournament so no go. Also not a fan of evidence battles but will hear out framework debates. Basically, run it more trad and all will be well.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

TheoryI love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.