Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

Email: hechildress25@gmail.com, please include me in any email chains

A little about me, I am a Neuroscience major at Georgia Tech, I'm double minoring in Physiology and Biochemistry/Chemistry, and I'm very involved in politics and healthcare related subjects on campus. I've competed in almost every event - I debated for 8 years, went to nationals 4 times, and was finalist for national student of the year in 2024 (I'm just flexing, it's not important (it is very important and is a very big deal, I am just so amazing it's insane))

I prefer debaters to stand when speaking(I started debating in 2020 when we had to sit and be uncomfortable with each other, and we all missed standing, so please stand and talk to each other)

I will not accept any disrespectful language towards your opponents or judges. Don't be rude and you'll do just fine.

Don't browbeat less experienced debaters. Make this a learning experience or else you will not succeed in the round <3

LD: Summary: 1. Trad, 2. Larp, 3. K, 4. Theory (no Friv or tricks or minimizations of the resolution). I flow spread, but be clear. FRAMEWORK!!!

Framework is the most important and whoever wins framework tends to win in my experience. Use your contentions to back your framework. I love LD, please don't make me dislike it. I like impact analysis, so do what you want with that. Have some philosophy, I absolutely DESPISE how Ld has become more Policy-Jr, so actually have some philosophical standing and carry your framework throughout the case. I do not care for statistics much because this is Lincoln Douglas Debate, this is a morals and values centric debate and stats are for more policy and implementation centric debates. If it resorts to a stats debate, low speaker points, but better stats win.

- Values - I think the framework of a case is the most important part of a debate for LD. I don't care that much about implementation unless the resolution has it. PROVE HOW YOURS WINS and how it links to your case.

PF: I have never competed in PF, but I have worked with PFers and understand the basics. Use your evidence as impacts and arguments, don't just read it. I prefer traditional PF. Again, this is not Policy Jr so DO NOT ACT LIKE IT!! Stats are important, but do not overlook the importance of examples and implementation. I enjoy PF because it is fun, do not change that. PF is a partner debate, rely on your partner and if they say one thing, extend it. Be civil and have fun!

Policy: I do not enjoy policy, so if I am judging you in policy, I apologize. I do not know the jargon and I despise spreading, so change accordingly <3

Congress: Read a speech and actually know it (or act like you know it). This is supposed to be fun. Don't be rude, and actually get stuff done.

CLASH - this is a debate, not a tea party. I prefer contention impact weighing clash, but please don't resort to a definitions debate. If there is no clash, then speaker points will show that.

I will not do your work for you. If you said something in Cross Ex and don't bring it up, it is not an argument. Explain your links and impacts or else I won't.If you do not bring up any impacts, speaker points and the overall outcome of the debate.

Spreading - If I cannot understand what you're saying because you're speaking so fast, I will take off points even if I have the case. I can flow spread, but please speak clearly, and if you don't, then I will not flow the argument. I do not think spreading is helpful in anyway other than to look like you're a "much better debater." I think speaking slower and adding emphasis and tone is more important but whatever floats your boat

Extinction/Nuke War: I will not vote on Extinction arguments without proper links (minimum of 4 cards to prove linkage).

General Debate: have fun with the round, make unique cases and arguments. By the end of a topic, we’ve all heard the basic arguments, so please find some new ways to run a case. If it’s unique, I’ll give better speaks. Monotone is boring, use your tone and body language to aid in your speaking.

Losses for me: disrespect, sexist/racist/LGBTQ+phobic/literally any discriminatory comments or language, or violence.

Interp/Speech: Only rule for me- SCREAMING DOES NOT EQUAL EMOTION!! If you can show emotion without screaming, you did good. Now if it's a getting louder because the piece needs to show emphasis, sounds good. (Please have some movement, it makes it look better)

I have 4 years of experience in PF, LD, impromptu, HI, duo, and OO. I debated in college for Mercer and did parli and policy. If you have any questions about college debate, I am always happy to answer them.

For PF cross ex: I do not flow cross ex, but I do listen. If something important comes up in cross and you want me to weigh it, bring it up in a speech.

Tech: Framework is very important to me and you need to explain why your framing should be preferred and how you're winning the framework in order to win the round. Generating clear clash is also important, and in the unlikely event that you cannot generate clash, you should clearly explain why you outweigh in terms of impacts. I love clearly articulated links and it makes my job very easy when you give me a weighing mechanism.

Truth: I've seen some k debate happen in LD recently (super interesting, and tbh I'm into it), and should you choose to run one, I'm definitely going to need you to respond to the tech as well as you can. I am totally fine with a kritik on the affirmative, as long as you can articulate a clear link to the topic. I will often give credence to truth over tech arguments, but to win the round, you have to explain to me why your k outweighs everything else in the round (and I'm a human, so who's to say a little ethos won't be effective?).

Speed is fine, but if you're trying to spread and I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" one time, and if I still can't understand you, I'll just put my pen down until I can.

I love debate and I want you to love debate too. So, do what you do, do it well, and have fun!

I used to compete in Congressional debate, HI, DI, Informative, Extemp, Impromptu, and BQD back in high school for four years. I have been judging PF for 5 years now. keep up with prep time

• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

• Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth!

• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card and please actually connect it to the case.

• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.

• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.

• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.

• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind.

• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

• I don’t judge based on the cross

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com