conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. 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'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

EDUCATION

University of Southern California - B.A. Social Science / Minor Education

University of Southern California - Master of Arts in Teaching

California State University - Master's in Education Administration

EXPERIENCE

Curriculum Development Director

High School History Teacher

Instructional Coach

Public School Administrator

GENERAL DEBATE JUDGING STYLE

I lean traditional and prefer to see the "art" of debate, demonstrating great speech delivery, confidence, and strong arguments. If you must spread, please provide me and your opponent with your case before debating. I value a clear structure that consistently supports your value/criterion.

GENERAL SPEECH JUDGING STYLE

I tend to emphasize structure, guidelines, and a convincing delivery for each category. I highly encourage using Cohesive Mechanisms (connectives, transitions, signposts, etc.) to make speeches easier to follow.

The first place is reserved for speakers who demonstrate the above and can articulate deep, insightful, humorous, and beyond-the-surface ideas with strong support and an authentic voice.

I welcome and prefer speakers to keep their own time. Don't forget to SMILE!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE (Extended Summary) 45 min

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Textbook.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Competition-Events-Guide-LD.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/learn/lessons/judging-lincoln-douglas-debate-training-video/

Structure

Framework

• Value - highest ideal you seek to achieve, directly connected to the wording of the resolution
• Criterion - explains how to achieve the value, often in verb+noun (i.e. promoting equality, respecting freedom)

Contentions/Key Points

• Claim - summary of the argument
• Warrant - reason why the argument is true (logical explanation, examples, expert quote, research)
• Impact - explanation of why the argument is important
• Link Back to Criterion

Speaker Point Guide

I will judge 25-30 speaker points in .10 increments for assigning speaker points. Points below 28 are reserved for students who do something rude or disrespectful. Please consider the Adam Smiley speaker points guide below.

30- This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.
29.8- This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.
29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.
29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament
28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.
28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.
28.2- This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.
28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.
Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Ballot-Interp-Blank.pdf

- Characterization

o Well-developed characters

o Relatable

o Responses are believable given the situation

- Blocking

o Clear actions of what the performer is doing

o Clear characterization and who is speaking

o Motivated movements

- Cutting

o Understand what is happening

o Easy-to-follow storyline

o Sequence makes sense

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal actions

EXTEMP GUIDELINES (7 min)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Extemporaneous-Speaking-Textbook.pdf)

- Intro

o Question/Answer to Question

o Thesis

o Preview

- Major Point 1

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 2

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 3

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Conclusion

o Restate the question and answer

o Review

o Closing statement

- Argumentation and Analysis – justification, impact, clear understanding

- Sources – credibility, should be citing sources and date, quality and variety of sources

- Delivery – voice, movement, expression, ethos, credibility, pitch, tone, pacing, volume

-

IMPROMPTU GUIDELINES (7 min prep and delivery)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-impromptu/)

- Organization (Structure – INTRO, BODY, CONCLUSION)

o Structure

o Transitions

o Makes sense

Analysis (Sound Argument)

o Directly addresses the prompt

o Justification

o Establishes the significance of points

- Delivery (Holds Attention)

o Voice, movement, expression

o Confidence

o Consistent eye contact

o Appropriate volume

INFORMATIVE GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-informative/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Informative-Speaking-Creating-a-Solid-Foundation.pdf

- Structure & Organization – Introduction, three main points, conclusion. Third main point should include implications (what the topic means to society as a whole). In-depth content development using credible sources.

- Delivery – effective verbal and non-verbal communication.

- Purpose – explain, define, describe, or illustrate a topic to gain understanding and knowledge.

- Relevance – thesis enables you to understand why this topic should be examined now

- Relatability – how the speaker connects the audience to the topic (inclusive rhetoric, affect, logical evidence, and education)

- Originality – inventive, unique, and exciting new approach to familiar topics

- Visual Aids – may or may not be used. Expedient setup of non-electronic or banned materials. No animals or people are allowed. Contributes to understanding, emphasize information, provide creative outlet that augments the content.

- Quotations – not more than 150 words of the speech may be a direct quotation and must be identified orally and in print.

DECLAMATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-declamation/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Declamation-Starter-Kit.pdf

- Cutting – a speech or excerpt delivered in public may be cut and moved around to make a 10-minute speech to convey a story the speaker wishes to tell.

a. Do you understand what is happening?

b. Does the speech flow effectively?

c. Does the sequence of ideas make sense?

- Structure

d. Teaser (30-34 seconds) short portion of the speech before the intro)

e. Intro (20-30 seconds) includes title of the speech, author, when it was delivered) gives context and a solid foundation to evaluate the speech that fits within the flow.

f. Main Body of Speech (7-8 minutes) delivery of the main points. Use credible evidence and anecdotes to sound less rigid.

g. Conclusion (30-45 seconds) wraps up the speech

- Delivery

h. Is the speech appropriate for the situation?

i. Does the student use voice, posture, and gestures that enhance the message?

j. Is the speech personalized to convey the speaker’s unique message?

k. Enunciation, pacing, intonation, facial expressions and bodily gestures, eye contact

- Context

l. Does the performer engage the audience?

m. Does the performance appropriately capture the context of the speech?

ORIGINAL ORATORY GUIDELINES (Extended Textbook Summary) 10 min

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Original-Oratory-Textbook.pdf)

- Importance

o Significant topic

o Clear thesis

o Delivery assists the importance of the topic

- Relatability

o Audience relatability

o Personable delivery

o Impact

o Inclusive rhetoric

- Originality

o Addresses topic in a unique and creative way

o Supporting examples are new and interesting

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal cues

- Appeal to Your Audience

o Ethos – credibility and moral competency of the speaker

o Logos – logical appeal

o Pathos – use of emotional appeals

o Audience analysis, audience adaptation

- Speech Development

o Establishes immediate emotional NEED for change

o Conceptual social problems, NOT specific issues

o No topic is original – spin it, flip it, wrap it, put it in context

o Topic Quality Standards: Validity, Relevance, Depth, and Digestibility

o Purpose statement and thesis

- Researching Your Topic

o Types of Evidence: statistics, examples, analogy, testimony

§ Examples: factual, hypothetical, case study, narratives

§ Statistics: descriptive, inferential

§ Analogy: literal, figurative

§ Testimony: authoritative, nominal

o 4 R’s of Successful Sourcing

§ Relevant – makes sense and connected

§ Recent – quotations timeless, articles 2 years, studies & stats relevant and uncontested

§ Reliable – double-confirmed

§ Re-usable – doesn’t have to fit exactly but proves argument or sub-point

o Sources of Research

§ Newspapers, periodicals, & magazines

§ Library

§ Online, Google, Google Book Search, Google Scholar, Online Newspapers

- Argumentation

o Toulmin’s Model – when any one is missing, unlikely people will be persuaded

§ Claim – position advocated in an argument

§ Grounds – evidence supporting the claim of an argument

§ Warrant – principle, provision, or chain of reasoning that connects grounds to the claim. Types: causality, sign, generalization, analogy, authority, principle

§ Backing

§ Qualifier

§ Rebuttal

o Logical Fallacies – arguments rely on false or invalid premises or inferences

§ Hasty generalizations

§ Ad-hominem (name-calling)

§ Strawman fallacy

§ Appeal to ignorance

§ Bandwagon fallacy

§ Genetic fallacy

§ Appeal to authority – because they’re an expert, popular but is not an expert

§ Sequential fallacy

§ Begging the question

§ Persuasive definition fallacy

§ Ambiguity fallacy

§ Composition fallacy

- Organization

o A good persuader unifies individuals who lack commonality

o System of persuasion for the greatest number: structure, sub-structure, articulation of the problem, clear organization

o Persuasion is rooted in the identification of the problem

§ 1. What impact is the action having on the greater population

§ 2. Reasons/causes for why the action is taking place

§ 3. Ways that the audience can combat the social problem

o Introductions and Conclusions

§ Primacy effect – what we hear or are introduced to first needs to be accurate, engaging, and clear (higher retention)

§ Recency effect – what we hear last is stored in short-term memory and more likely to be recalled

§ Introductions highlight the problem and give sense of where you are going

§ Conclusions digest and review main points and provide closing statements providing lasting impressions

o Introduction

§ Attention-Getting Device (AGD)

· Personal story

· Illustration

· Short examples

· Startling statement

· Poem

· Lyric

· Humorous hypothetical

· Rhetorical question

· Clever device (foreign language, mime, pretend

· Engaging with the audience

· Indirection (misleading audience with a purpose)

§ Link to Topic

· Link AGD to the action you are arguing is the problem

§ Thesis

· State your argument and what you are trying to persuade the audience to do

§ Statement of Significance

· Why is this topic important? Why should the audience listen? State facts or statistics that prove this is a real problem, and give it immediacy

§ Roadmap

· Sentence that explains where you will take us in your speech

§ Optional Conclusive Statement

· Clever punchline or clincher to finish off the intro

§ Optional Concession

· Predict questions judges might ask. Answer it or concede to it, offering an explanation as to why you’re still correct.

o Conclusion

§ Bring it back full circle, AGD

§ Restate thesis

§ Restate main points

§ Encourage the audience to act, inspire, and end creatively

o Persuasive Organizational Patterns (Structure and Sub-Structure)

§ Problem/Cause/Solution (PCS) – most popular and clear. Used when the problem is not easily definable or identifiable.

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Problem

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Problem 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Problem 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Solution 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review min body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Cause/Effect/Solution (CES) – often used when the problem is easily definable

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Effect

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Effect 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Effect 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal Preview

o Solution One (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution Two (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude Point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Two Prong – offers ways in which the problem plays out or two causes for a problem

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Prong 1

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Prong 2

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Implications

o What are the implications of all this?

o What does it say about society? Impact on us? What does it all mean?

· Solutions

o Transition

o Solution 1

o Solution 2

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

- Writing Your Speech

o Language Development

§ Simplicity & clarity

§ Use inviting language, not attacking language

§ 70-30 Rule (70% thoughts, 30% facts)

§ Avoid absolutes

§ Rule of Three – grouping concepts, adj., examples, etc. in 3s is more effective than 2 or 4 or more

§ Be appropriate – slang or profanity

§ Make powerful word choices – don’t repeat the same words

§ Use language strategies

· Alliteration

· Consonance

· Assonance

· Onomatopoeia

· Personification

· Visualization

· Metaphor

o Cohesive Mechanisms

§ Connectives/Transitions – i.e. “Now that I’ve discussed…”

§ Sign-posts – internal signs signaling switching of gear or moving to another point - “First,” “Moreover,” Additionally”

§ Catch-phrases

§ Extended metaphors – non-literal object/action extended throughout the speech

§ Vehicles – AGD, transitions, and conclusion

o Humor

§ Self-deprecation

§ Analogies

§ Puns

§ Indirection

§ Irony

§ Twisted quotations

§ Humorous quotations

§ Jabs at current events

§ Allusions

§ Understatement

§ Cliches

§ Overstatement

§ Portmanteau words

§ Alliteration

- Delivery

o Expression of meaning – synthesis of content and outward expression

o Character perception plays a role in the audience’s likelihood to accept or reject the speaker’s message – what you’re selling is YOU – be trustworthy, competent, natural

o Methos – appeal based on the authenticity or realness of your character. Unlike persona which is a social façade, nor is it a “speech voice.”

o Verbal Delivery

§ Pitch (high or low voice)

§ Tone (quality of voice)

§ Breathe through your diaphragm

§ Adjust head and neck position

§ Pace and pause

§ Volume and breathing

§ Articulation and Enunciation

o Non-Verbal Delivery

§ Facial expressions

§ Eye contact

§ Hand gestures

§ Posture/Stance

§ Movement

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or education just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional.

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

Please send your speech doc tosrini_kovi@yahoo.com as it will help me follow along.

I am familiar with some of the norms of PF debate, as my daughter has been debating for the last 3 years.
Be respectful to your teammate, opponents and judge, especially in crossfire and let them talk; Do not interrupt them.
I would like to see strong evidence that supports the argument directly.
Any new arguments in final focus will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so that your opponents can respond.
Comparatively weigh; make it clear for me why your argument is more important.
I will be taking notes on the debate.
I am ok with collapsing, but make sure to re-explain the argument.

Speaker Points:

<26.5: Rarely given and only when very poor OR offensive.
26.5-28.9: Average. Most people will get somewhere in this range
29-30: Amazing!

For the email chain: nickycate@yahoo.com

I'm a former Lincoln-Douglas debater, so I'm most familiar with traditional LD and LARPing. My approach towards judging is tabula rasa, and I put a heavy emphasis on the framework debate. I'm comfortable with judging policy-style cases such as DAs and CPs. Don't try to run a K. I'm not familiar with the literature. Only run Theory and T if it's warranted.

I find it very important to extend your arguments clearly throughout the round and voters. I'm comfortable with spreading, but don't do it at the detriment of your clarity. Tell me why your impacts are important under your framework, speak clearly, and be civil!

Most importantly, have fun! :)

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

This is my third year of judging. I prefer to keep rounds traditional (paper flow, no spreading, etc). I am looking for clear and concise arguments for debate. I appreciate when you keep your arguments logical and well-framed. Aim for clarity, not speed.

As for speech, I am looking for an engaging delivery and an organized, compelling selection of piece and topic.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate -

In judging Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate, my approach revolves around a few core principles that align with the fundamental objectives and structure of LD Debate. Here’s a detailed paradigm for how I evaluate debates in this format:

Objective of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is designed to engage participants in a philosophical and ethical discourse, focusing on values and principles rather than policy specifics. The objective is to assess the validity of competing value frameworks and the application of these values to the resolution.

Importance of Value Criterion

1. **Central Role of Values**: The core of LD Debate lies in the clash of values. Each debater must present a value proposition, which is a fundamental belief or principle that they argue should guide decision-making. The Value Criterion (VC) is the metric by which the value is practically applied to the resolution. It’s crucial that the Value Criterion is clearly defined and logically connected to the Value, offering a clear standard for evaluating the round.

2. **Evaluative Framework**: I prioritize the clarity and relevance of the Value Criterion. It must be directly tied to the Value and effectively demonstrate how the arguments and evidence presented align with or support the Value. A strong Value Criterion will help in weighing the impacts of arguments in relation to the core philosophical issues.

### Evaluative Criteria

1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Arguments should be clear and logically structured. The debaters’ value and value criterion should be well-defined and consistently applied throughout the round.

2. **Relevance**: Arguments should address the resolution and engage with the philosophical implications rather than focusing on policy details or technicalities.

3. **Impact and Application**: Evaluate how well each debater applies their Value Criterion to the resolution. The round should focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the topic rather than practical policy solutions.

### Policy Debate Tactics

I will not tolerate tactics typical of policy debate, such as "spreading" (rapid-fire delivery of arguments) or excessive technical jargon that obfuscates the debate’s core philosophical focus. LD Debate is intended to be accessible and focused on substantive value-based discourse. Arguments should be presented in a clear and accessible manner, allowing for a meaningful evaluation of values and criteria.

In summary, in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I emphasize the importance of a clear Value Criterion connected to a well-defined Value, with a focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the resolution. Policy debate tactics that detract from this focus, such as spreading, will not be considered effective in this format.

Congressional Debate -

Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.

Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU competes in NFA-LD and CEDA/NDT

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

High School Topic Exposure

I am not a primary argument coach or participant at Summer institute for high school policy debate, and do not have in-depth knowledge of IP topic trends.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the Energy topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

Though I don't feel particularly dogmatic about the plan/no plan debate, my preference is that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan and the debate should be about the desirability of that plan. I do not enjoy clash debates, and in those rounds HEAVILY appreciate some novelty/pen time/judge instruction PLEASE.

I have few policy preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

I have judged infrequently for the last few years, so I may not be up on the latest trends in progressive arguments, but I understand debate and I flow.

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I really don't want to judge theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument, but theory is not my forte and I generally feel that fairness and educational value are going to lean toward having a debate that is topical to the resolution. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

Tl;dr: Please debate the resolution. It will make me happy.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

Maggie Stearns---Emory

She/her

maggiedebate@gmail.com

Won round 2 at the GFCA Novice Practice Tournament #1 on September 12th, 2020 which in my opinion is more important than the TOC and NDT combined.

Have fun

For K affs/Negs---If you dont send out analytics for the neg block and I dont understand the bajilion DAs and mini args ur saying, im not flowing them. Send ur analytics. Also dont just make a billion DA arguments with no cards. Choose a couple good ones to warrant out.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Woodward Academy

Former Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

Make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers, answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”)

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x!

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

I'm an English teacher and UDL Debate coach in the Atlanta area, I teach speech and argumentation, and I enjoy growing our speech program!

did pf for 3 years for monte vista high school. have competed for uc berkeley debate.

pf preferences:

i am hesitant to evaluate most progressive arguments but i could be convinced

if i'm judging speech i'll try my best