Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

As a lay judge with a background as a history teacher, I prioritize credible sources, thorough research, and a well-structured debate. Make sure to use clear introductory statements, smooth transitions, and frequently connect your arguments to the resolution. If your argument is not clear to me, I won't be able to support it. Assess the significance of your impacts, explain why your evidence is superior, and justify why your argument should prevail. Avoid spreading your arguments too thin, and please refrain from wasting time during evidence calls—it leaves a negative impression. Be respectful towards your opponents, enjoy the process, and present your best work.

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

The best way to my ballot is to weigh. Weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare links/impacts to your opponents'. If both teams have offense left by the end of the round, I need to know why yours matters more. This is also true with weighing mechanisms themselves (I appreciate meta-weighing). The earlier you start weighing, the better.

Run whatever you want. Theory should be used to check abuses. I won't auto-drop the K, but I wouldn't call myself the most qualified in K-debate. I don't see this a whole lot in PF, so the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you need to explain it to me.

Any speed is good, just be clear.

Please don't give me a soliloquy for your "off-time roadmap." Just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on.

Signpost in every speech following the constructive. If I look lost, I probably am.

I don’t pay attention to cross. If something important happens, then bring it up in your next speech.

For the love of god, give me warrants and extend the warranting throughout the round. Literally everything needs warranting (case, responses, weighing, framing, evidence weighing, theory, etc.). I do not understand why more teams do not spend more time at the warrant-level.

Evidence clash is good. Tell me why your evidence is better/more important.

Collapse. The. Flow.

If you don't frontline, it will be incredibly hard to win my ballot. Not impossible, just very difficult.

If you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary. This is true for extensions, weighing, framing, etc. If you drop it, you will be hard pressed to find me evaluating it by the end of the round.

I vote neg on presumption.

If we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. Some speed is okay, but I really value clarity when online.

Add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. I have served as part of the CAP for World Schools Debate at the NSDA National Tournament for the last 3 years, and I have judged, while limited, some Big Questions Debate over the past 6 years. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 throughout the United States.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak" - Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, or other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain nor will I accept an invitation to do so.

6) I do pay attention to CX or Crossfire depending on the type of debate. Six to nine to twelve minutes within a debate are designated to an exchange of questions and answers. While I don't flow this time period, I will write down what I believe might be relevant later in the debate.

• I am a parent judge
• I prefer you not speak very fast / no spreading, make good eye contact and make sure you emphasize your impacts
• Please signpost
• Kindly don't be aggressive in cross-x and personal attacks will be scored automatically at 25 points
• I will not flow cross-x so if you want to argue something said in cross-x, bring it up in a later speech

I’m a Senior at UAB studying genetics, and I was debate captain at my highschool like forever ago.

What I prefer:

Speak loudly and clearly. Emphasize important points and be organized. Please please please sign post. Don’t spread. I appreciate off time road maps. Keep your own time.

Judging

I judge based on my flow and what I can get to “flow” across it. I will use whatever framework get's brought into the round, if not i'll default to cost-benefit.

You'll do great. I've judged PF debate, but never LD or speech. I will try my best to judge fairly. Please don't be mean to your opponents, if you're overly aggressive I'll take that into consideration. Debate should never be a personal attack on your opponents.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

Experience:I did not compete in Debate in high school or college, but I have been assisting with a debate program and judging for the past four years. I usually judge Public Forum, but I have also judged speech events and Big Question Debate. I am currently in my ninth year of teaching social studies. I teach United States History and International Baccalaureate History of the Americas.

Preferences: I can follow relatively fast speaking but please don't spread.

I'm not a very technical judge so I will be basing my decision on the following

• No spreading-- Maintain a good pace, volume, and eye-contact
• No bringing up new information in the final summaries
• I will look at content on the topic-- but not too closely
• Please keep track of your time-- I will also be timing you but please the maintain appropriate times
• I will not be looking too closely at cross-fire unless it is brought up again in your speech
• Please maintain a friendly attitude towards each other
• I will be looking very closely at impacts and how they are carried on throughout the round
• Just relax and have fun!!