hi. i’m a public forum debater, orator, and extemper. I’m a pretty extroverted person so if you say something off track, you definitely will see my reaction and know that. At the end of each round, i will give some feedback and critiques on the round, if, of course, you want me to.

Some rules i have:

1. Let’s have fun. that’s all i want. this is a learning experience for us all so just enjoy it

2. I want everyone to have confidence in themselves, and to know that the only way to get better, is to try your hardest no matter the circumstance. never give up, because a round can be won at many different times.

3. DO NOT say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other such things. I will not tolerate it all and will lose you the round

PUBLIC FORUM:

Actual debate-y stuff I like for PF:

1. i want clear and loud case reading. i don’t care how fast, just please be legible otherwise you are going to lose
2. tell me where you are at on the flow. otherwise imma be lost and i won’t even know what you are arguing anymore. clearly tell me in this format (onto their contention 1 sub point A where they argue _____ )
3. rebuttal: if you are the first speaking team, please only attack your opponents case. if you are the second speaker team, please use about 3 ish minutes on your opponents side first, and then use the rest to respond to a few arguments the opponents made against your case.
4. summary: literally the most important speech. this makes or breaks your round if i’m being honest. clear and concise. boil it down to the main points, what is dropped and what isn’t, and use voters (main things that are the reason why you win. can really be anything)
5. final focus: really just explain to me why you won. rounds are usually won at summary, but if you tell me something really good in final focus, you might win. don’t repeat the voters back to me. i already heard them. no new evidence though
6. cross fire: this is my pet peeve. ask relevant questions please. and don’t keep pushing something that they already answered. DO NOT BE RUDE. OMG IF YOU ARE IT MAKES ME MAD PLEASE PLEASE DONT.
7. use off the clock road maps for all speeches except the constructive

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Im not the most familiar with this. I do know structure and stuff kinda of it. You will have to help me with timings and what speech is what. Things I look for in this are similar to PF, so just read above whatever you need.

Niche things:

1. CBA is the worst framework in history
2. ontology makes me wanna die
3. jakob hofer loves K's, run one on him
4. if you run a joke case, i genuinely will listen
5. if you see patrick pope, tell him to run his damn miles

I hope you guys get in the habit of reading paradigm. if you do read this, mention SpongeBob squarepants to me before or after the round and i will give .5 speaker points. whoever does it first gets the extra points

If you are a novice and somehow run a K, you instantly will be given the W

If you are in novice please run a K I think it’s funny. Intense XC is fine but just don’t be rude. I do not like long rambling in XC, please refrain from doing so.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

I vote based on who I thought won the round.

LD-

I am an LD-er and I think it’s pretty kool. So make sure it is LD and not PF. Unfortunately topics recently have been degrading into the PF side so as LD-ers we have a moral obligation to keep it within the realms of LD. Basically make sure you have a solid value and criterion and make sure it’s well connected to your case. I love a good Value and criterion debate so make sure to hit on that as in LD they are the entire backbone of all your contentions. Otherwise I’m pretty relaxed, I also wont flow drops or attacks that arent pulled through unless it gets really close, so just as a tip make sure to pull attacks and drops through.

PF-

I dont really know much about PF, but make sure to have strong connections. I think impacts should be stressed, but also the links so if you do not provide a plausible link I probably wont flow it.

About me-

I judge novices. My name is Elijah Shirley, male, and I go by Ely (pronounced Eli). I’ve done a year of PF and a year of LD, and did some BQ at nationals (heheh). I’ve also done a little bit of duo and extemp on the side. LD is my main thing. I’m gen z, so if for some reason you want to know that going into your round, there you go. If it looks like I’m not paying attention to your speech I’m probably multitasking (flowing or writing comments); just keep talking.

Everything-

I’m a flow judge even if there’s nothing on the flow. Being a good speaker only gives you an advantage because I’m more likely to understand you (and because of subconscious biases or whatever). If each debater is clear enough for me to write arguments down properly, then I couldn’t care less who talks smoothly (other than for speaker points of course). If you make an argument, please repeat it every speech. Also, I will never vote off of cross examination, if you somehow get your opponent(s) in a bind during a questioning period, I will take note of it, but unless you actually bring it up in a speech I won’t even consider it by the end of the round. That being said, don’t be a jerk; stumbling something small or misspeaking doesn’t constitute a conviction. I’ll try to view the round based on what everybody means (as long as I don’t have to do any guess work), not on what everybody says. Finally, stay on topic. I’m unlikely to vote on anything thats based on some implication of the resolution rather than the resolution itself, mostly because I don’t expect to see it run well.Most debates I’ve seen are sub-par so don’t worry about how good you’re doing, just have fun.

LD-

If you think you’re running deontology, you’re actually running rule utilitarianism, but it’s functionally similar. I’m not huge on impacts. They will probably matter because everybody will run basic-ah consequentialism, but even then ideally I would be voting on the value debate. (Of course, this is a case by case basis. If theres not significant clash then impacts are quite important). I have an interest in ethics, so bonus points if you know what you’re talking about. (I like virtue ethics the bestest). You guys are LDers, so your my favorite. (Clap emoji).

PF-

I’m not following. Tell me where you are (on the flow), and how many responses you have. If you do that you’ll probably win because I will have your arguments written down, and not your opponents. (Ideally this wouldn’t be the case, but in my experience that’s what it comes down to in novice).Also, be consistent in your team; your partner should carry through everything you’re saying. (Again, whoever doesn’t drop anything usually wins in novice, even if it’s abysmal). Thanks.

Speech Events-

I’m not a speech person, so I don’t know what I’m supposed to be looking for. I won’t judge you like a traditional judge. I will just be voting on what I enjoyed the most and what seemed the most technically skilled, but my knowledge is limited. The exception is Extemp, in which case just do what you do, elaborate, and slow down.

BQ-

Idk. Do what you want as long as your opponents following along. I don’t think this section is even relevant to anybody, but if it is then I love definitions. Many definitions. Also please stay on the topic, I’d like the arguments to be very conceptual.

Congress-

If I’m your judge so help you god.

For LD novice prodigies-

If you’re running rule based consequentialism then I will likely be voting solely on probability; why is your moral rule more probable to cause benefits than the consequences your opponent is proposing. In this case you should still have impacts but they should function as a proof of concept for your rule.

YOU SHOULD PROBABLY NOT RUN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN NOVICE: (If you do, I’m rooting for you, but you probably wont win.)

If you’re running hard deontology then I won’t be voting on impacts, but you do need to explain why the position you’re supporting is rational or otherwise obliging, even when it may cause more suffering. Essentially, I’ll be looking for whatever’s more rational than pain and pleasure. The downside is if your opponents prove that I should care about consequences (in the way they’re proposing), then I am fully willing to vote for them even if that consequence is “mild discomfort.”

If you’re running virtue ethics then honestly you need to do something similar to deontology. Why should I care about flourishing or somebody's character more than tangible harms and benefits? If you don’t want to do that, and run it as some form of rule consequentialism with virtue as foundation for pleasure over pain, then just read my rule consequentialism section.

If you’re running a kritik just make sure your opponent fully understands what you want them to debate and why they should debate it. I like kritiks that are still loosely related to the topic, but will theoretically vote on any kritik.

If you’re running theory then I’m probably not going to buy it. For me to vote on a theory I have to personally believe it, and as far as I can tell right now everything seems fair when I’m sitting in a novice debate. If you’re opponents do something crazy and you’ve got a shell against it, then I might vote for you but this is a rare case.