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. Logical argumentative debate is important but will not outweigh preparation and evidence. Passion which will sway my vote to a certain extent (which can earn you high speaker points) and make the debate more lively and engaging.

Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. If you introduce your philosophy at the beginning and then never talk about it again or explain how it ties into your contentions then it will not be preferred in the round.

I will always weigh on solvency and impacts. You should discuss both of these with me before concluding the debate. If you are running extinction, you must have a realistic and viable link chain or it will not be considered convincing and will not help you win.

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 with a certificate in Cellular and Molecular Biosciences, 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). I've judged every single event (PF is my personal favorite) and I've helped in coaching before. My verbal RFD's usually go line-by-line on the ballot; for novice rds, I go more in-depth and explain ways to better the debate.

I will not accept any disrespectful language towards your opponents or judges.

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

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, 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 with me. Use your contentions to back your framework. I absolute HATE how LD has become less Framework-centric and more Policy-like, use the framework and whoever wins frame wins. PROVE HOW YOURS WINS and how it links to your case.

I like impact analysis, so do what you want with that. Have some philosophy, again this is NOT Policy-JR have some philosophical standing and carry your framework throughout the case. 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. Please, please, do not have util v. util and concede frame- its boring and lifeless and dull.

PF: Summary: Evidence (stats, examples, etc) heavy, impact weighing, line-by-line

I have never competed in PF, but I have worked with PFers and judged it several times (my favorite event to judge). Use your evidence as impacts and arguments, don't just read it. PF is a partner debate, rely on your partner and if they say one thing, extend it.

I prefer traditional PF. This is not Policy Jr so DO NOT ACT LIKE IT!! Stats are important, but do not overlook the importance of examples and implementation. Go line-by-line, provide evidence (can apply to multiple arguments) with specific attacks. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I will most likely weigh it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Be respectful, oftentimes in PF it can get heated very quickly, if I notice this, then low speaks. 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, and I apologize for tab.

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. Have some clash. For questions, please make them quicker because there isn't much time. PO's: keep track of time, make sure you allow precedence in speeches and questioning (AKA whoever raises their hand first goes).

ALL DEBATE

CLASH - this is a debate, not a tea party. I prefer contention-level impact weighing clash and line-by-line clash, but please don't resort to a definitions debate. If there is no clash, then speaker points will show that (<28). Simply saying "I have a card for this," "there's no link," or other broad arguments is not something I weigh heavily.

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, it will affect speaker points and the overall outcome of the debate.

Speaks- I judge speaks on organization, purposeful inflection, and clarity. 30-Perfect, 29-Great, 28- Good, 27-Ok, 26- Bad, 25- Disrespect/Anything off the losses for me. 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.

Card-Calling- I count that as off-time after cross examination/cross-fire.

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).

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
• consolini1002@gmail.com

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

Relevant 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 okay with almost any 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 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 who 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 the 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