Intro:

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

General:

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

Theory:

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

K's:

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

Post-Round Info:

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

I debated in both PF and LD in high school and I'm an incoming freshman at Emory University

Add me to the email chain!! izzy.morris@emory.edu

General:

- tech > truth

- speed is fine, however, clarity>>wpm. I'll say clear if I can't understand you

- don't be mean/offensive. bad vibes = bad speaks

Some things I like to see:

- signpost because we both want that argument on my flow!

- weigh. the earlier the better, and warrant your weighing (also consider indulging in some metaweighing!)

- if you want something in my RFD, then it needs to be in summary and ff

- warranted evidence > warranted analytics > anything else

Some things I don't like to see:

- don't lie about evidence

- the blippier the argument, the less impact it'll have on my decision

- paraphrasing (and improperly cut cards in general) :(

- defense is lowk not sticky. extend or it didn't happen

Progressive args:

- I'm definitely not the most qualified person to judge a K/theory round, however, I'm not anti prog args and sometimes quite enjoy them! Run at your own risk haha

- don't run friv theory (pls?)

Pembroke Pines Charter ‘24 | Emory '28

TLDR

I debated in PF for 3 years in high school, qualled to Nats, TOC, FFL, etc. i also did some worlds

Average flow judge, Tech > Truth, debate is a game - play to win

Speed is fine just send docs. Add me to the chain: pooregavin@gmail.com

im quite a big fan of impact defense and impact turns. make the round fun

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs:

LARP/Policy - 1

Theory - 3

Topical K- 3

Non T K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

Trix - S

Longer General Stuff:

*** Most importantly, I care a lot about warrants. Pls extend key warrants, esp impact scenarios. I think warrants can break the clash pretty easily for me, so I'd focus a lot here -- call out your opponents if they're lacking in this.

• I'll vote on basically anyone arg that has a warrant and isn't inherently exclusionary/problematic.
• I can probs flow most speed but dont be incomprehensible. Clarity is key.
• ****** NOTE FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: I'd slow down a bit. Emory wifi is buggy asf sometimes and the last thing I want to do is not flow something. Just be mindful

• Pre flow before the round pls

• Signposting is amazing

• Go for whatever strategy/arg you want, feel free to experiment. I read lots of squirrelly args in high school, so id be happy to hear them.
• Collapse pls and thanks
• Slowwwww down on analytics and weighing.

• Extend every part of the arg that ur going for (extensions of warrants matter a lot esp for impacts). offense should be explicitly extended in summary and ff, no new things in ff though. Yet, 1st ff can respond to 2nd summary weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing. defense isn't sticky
• Be a nice person in round

• Frontline in second rebuttal

• Real clash is appreciated

• Pls weigh, the arg that wins the weighing is what ill evaluate first, but pls give me a reason to prefer your weighing (link-ins and meta weighing are great)

• u dont need to extend opponents' link for an impact turn

• i presume neg

Prog:

I never ran prog in high school but do have a lil experience responding to it. With that being said, I don't think prog is run the right way in PF, and because of that, I have a very high threshold for how I evaluate said arguments. Pls treat me lay with these. So I do would rather judge a substance round. Please! But here...

• for theory: i default to competing interps and no rvi's. i wont hack for any shell, but i do think it's significantly harder to win certain interps (disclo bad, paraphrasing good, etc). weigh the voters pls

• for Ks: pls make sure to explain the lit. most comfortable with cap, security, and baudrillard.

• Im probably not the best judge if you want to run a plan

Check out some masterful basketball gameplay from my bestie & partner Aakash Suresh below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLHZ9-I_j6w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5yDNiihg4

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation. I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

I am not impressed by debaters repeating the same data points constantly until the allotted time is exhausted or reading a computer screen at 200 miles an hour; rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

If you want to win, persuade me into viewing the argument from your point of view; you may do this by demonstrating knowledge breadth and depth about the topic you are defending. It is not only about stating your position on the resolution, but you must also be able to defend it and prove to me why your position is the best position during the crossfires.

Cards may be sent to ntillero@comcast.net