Hello Debaters,

I approach the 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:

Flow-Centric Evaluation:
I prioritize the flow & time limits as the primary tool for decision-making.
Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
I appreciate the organization and signposting that enhance the flow

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.

Clarity and Signposting:
Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
Try to use simple words during the debates, remember, the PF should be the debate everyone can understand.
Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

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.

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.

Evidence-based arguments:
I like debaters who use accurate and meaningful data & resources during the round, they are more persuasive to me during the round; In another way, I am not a fan of theory arguments.
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.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive behavior & language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your final result.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide (besides the last part), 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.

Good luck & Have fun during the debate!

4-year Public Forum Debater and 2-time National Qualifier. 4-year Original Orator and 3-time National Qualifier.

PF:

I default CBA

Flow judge who will be very sad if you don’t signpost :,(

I take prep for cards. I have final say for time!

If you tell me to look at a card, I will look at the card.

I value kindness and respect in every debate round. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. of any kind.

Have fun! Debate should be a friendly competition. I encourage making appropriate jokes and pop culture references that will make me laugh.

(she/they) Email: lauren.gilli03@gmail.com

(Pre-Round Skimming=Bold)

I have 4-years' debating experience in VPF (mainly trad/lay), various IEs, and 3 years at NSDA Nats for PF/Extemp (once somehow). If you have any questions before/after the round, ask! I like giving help and will give critiques when I can.

~Decorum~

- Don't be an [expletive] in round. If bad enough, give you the lowest speaks possible or the L :)

- I will not stand for prejudiced arguments/rhetoric. I will give opposing team the opportunity to continue, otherwise I will end the round with a fun chat and an L for the offending team, along with lowest possible speaks and a talk with coaches.

- Use trigger/content warnings please. If you have enough foresight to do that, I expect an alt prepared.

- Please no descriptions of sexual assault/in-depth anecdotes of such.

Basics

- Your job is to make my job easy.

- Keep a clear narrative throughout the round- overviews are nice and I love them done well.

- Speak clearly :)- stumbling is fine, I feel you. It doesn't mean you're any less confident.

- In PF, it's not policy- and in LD, stay understandable. No spreading please. If y'all are going way too fast, I will raise my hand.

- For Congress, spreading is absolutely contradictory to the point of the event. Please don't <3

- If, for some god-forsaken reason, you decide to spread against my warning, please send me a case doc. Email above.

- Debate is a competition, yes, but also respect the origins. The point of debate is to persuade, and you can't perform if you are spreading. If you are going too fast, I signal, and you don't slow down... I will flow what I can understand. You have been warned.

- - - I have four points about spreading. That is a sign.

- EVERYONE: SIGNPOST PLEASE <3

- Weigh for me, otherwise I'll do it myself (and that is a threat...mwahaha).

- I generally don't vote on obviously false args. Opposition, at least tell me it's clearly false, give a quick reason before moving on.

- As long as an argument is warranted, have fun with it! I like wacky args if the links are there.

First Speakers (PF)

- Please don't state Cost-Benefit Analysis (a la common sense) as FW in your case. It is useless unless it is used as a response to your opponent's FW.

- Give me (preferably only) voters in summary (collapsing/crystallizing) - again, makes my job easier - line-by-line is rarely summarizing and I will die on this hill. At least throw in voters at the end if you decide to not summarize in your summary

Second Speakers (PF)

- Your success in rebuttal rests on signposting. Tell me where you are! Please!

- For your partner's sake (and your own), start weighing in rebuttal

- Have fun with final focus because it doesn't matter much- The round is won in Rebuttal and Summary! Be sassy but stick to your guns- keep your narrative cohesive w summary

Crossfire/Ex

- It doesn't matter. Keep it clean, no punching. I don't flow during this time unless there is a mic-drop moment. If there is said mic-drop moment, bring it through in later speeches.

- I'm only here for the quotable moments

- finish answer if timer beeps, but not question

Evidence

- I have absolutely no tolerance when it comes to evidence violations. I have had bad experiences in round and will not let an abusive team win. If you want me to call for your/the opp's evi at end of round, tell me. Don't be afraid to stop the round and call a violation if they continue insisting on their evidence being something it's not.

Theory

Very limited experience, outside of a few rounds re: disclosure in LD and one in PF. If you run theory, be clear about your narrative and make it obvious why it should be preferred over substance.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am sorry, I have limited experience in LD judging. I'm teaching myself as much as I can starting '21. but please treat me as a lay judge. Spell it out please. I know next to nothing about LD, so be clear and explain thoroughly. Limit jargon- I competed a lot, but in a very traditional circuit. Glean what you can from the PF paradigm <3

_________________________________

This is debate! The point is to learn and meet people! In the words of my former debate coach, "Do your best. Have fun."

I have some experience

Hello, and thank you for competing!

A Little About Me

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years at Sioux Falls Washington High School. I also did speech and interp events for all four years, specifically Info, Non-O, and Impromptu. I'm currently on Arizona State University's Oxford debate team for the 2024 Regent's Cup Tournament. I like dogs more than cats and enjoy a good gyro.

If I'm Judging PF...

I started my debate career in PF in the fall of 2019. I transitioned to LD in January of 2020, and I haven't done any PF since. If I'm your PF judge, bear my lack of recent experience in mind. Go slower, and err towards sound logical arguments rather than torrents of lesser arguments (quality over quantity) and voters hinging solely on dropped cards. In short, cut my poor LD brain some slack.

If I'm Judging LD...

I consider myself a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. The value and criterion debate are of paramount importance, and should be treated as such. The debater who wins my ballot will not always be who wins the flow, but rather who convinces me the arguments they are making are achieving the value that is winning the round. This being said, I recognize the importance of strong contention level arguments in fulfilling the framework, so be thorough in all speeches.

Strong voters are incredibly important, especially to the aff. In the final aff speech, the entire time should be spent on voters, and I generally recommend a first voter on the value/criterion debate before going into the contentions.

On speed, I will not flow anything I cannot understand. I tap out at around a rapid conversational pace, so spread at your own risk. The purpose of debate is to instill public speaking and argumentation skills in students, and this purpose is negated if debaters are encouraged to argue in a manner indecipherable to the public at large.

In this vein, I will not consider Kritiks, Counter-Plans, or other policy refugee-esque arguments in LD debate. Just as a baseball player does not have to worry about their opponent pulling out a cricket bat, a debater should not have to worry that their opponent might attempt to play by an entirely different set of rules. This being said, I'm a sucker for a good topicality debate, and I enjoy RA and observation arguments. A general rule of thumb is "does this argument interpret the intent of the resolution, or does it attempt to circumvent or nullify the resolution?" If an argument falls under the former, go right ahead. If it falls under the latter, I'd advise saving it for a different judge.

Generally, I'm a Tech over Truth judge, but if a truly outlandish argument is made in round (an argument that the KKK helped race relations in the south after reconstruction is a particularly salient example I recall from my debate years), a brief statement pointing it out as such will be sufficient.

I flow all arguments given in a round. I do not flow cards. If you wish to make an argument, you will have to actually make that argument (claim, evidence, warrant, etc). You can't just say "O'Connor 11 says climate change will kill us all." In this vein, when pulling through arguments, you have to reiterate the thrust of the argument itself, you can't just say "Pull through O'Connor 11 which proves my opponent can't access...whatever." If you try this, odds are I have no recollection of what O'Connor 11 is, as I only write down "climate change will kill us all." In this vein, I don't believe all arguments have to be derived from cards. A well-reasoned analytic argument will beat a poorly reasoned card every time. So debate with arguments, not by volume of cards, and pull the arguments, not the card through to win my flow.

Don't try bringing up new arguments in the 2NR or in the 2AR. It won't work. I won't flow it. Please save your time through crystallizations and voters.

A minor final point: I enjoy historical allusions. If you have a command for history, and can give a historical comparison (or, even better, if you can poke holes in an opponent's historical comparison), do so. It will both give you extra speaker points, and make my heart glad.

If I'm Judging Speech/Interp...

I did just about every speech event over my years in high school, and understand the requirements of each. I especially enjoy info, and particularly like speeches about oddball topics nobody cares about (my senior year info was about early South Dakota political scandals). I also reject the infusion of OO formats into info. Thus, I ding infos for including overtly persuasive language or calls to action. The requirement of the event is to INFORM me about something, not to PERSUADE me to do something.

All things considered, I would prefer to not give time signals during speech and interp events (except extemp/impromptu). I want to give you every chance to suck me into your story/argument, and that is inhibited if I'm constantly worrying about looking at the clock and putting up the right hand gesture and the right time. Also, your writing, cutting, and performances in these events are set before a tournament begins. While I understand that at the beginning of a season pieces are often in flux, by the middle and end of a season, you should know that your piece runs under ten minutes. It shouldn't be on the judge to do that for you. Therefore, I will still give whatever signals you ask for, but know that I'll be more distracted during your piece if I'm thinking about signals and if I'm judging a close round at the end of a season, and the only thing distinguishing two pieces is that one competitor asked for time signals every other minute, I'm going to give the round to the competitor who didn't ask for time signals on the grounds that they know their piece better than their opponent knows theirs.

A Word on Common Courtesy...

In debate, be respectful to your opponent. I will not tolerate belittling, rudeness, or offensive language. Recently, I have noticed a troubling trend in Nat Circuit debates of overt rudeness and disrespect in round. Such actions are counterintuitive to growing the activity of debate; after all, who wants to join an activity where they just get yelled at and insulted every weekend. If you engage in such behaviors in round, it will be reflected in your speaker points, and (if particularly egregious), in the result of the round.

In speech events, I will rank you lower if you are disrespectful, loud, distracting, or obviously not paying attention. Speaking to an obviously disinterested audience just plain sucks. As competitors, we can have the basic decency to at least appear like we care about what the other person is saying. If I notice someone being overtly disrespectful or disinterested (eg: falling asleep, talking with another person during a piece), it will be reflected in the result of the round. So, pay attention. And for heaven's sake, DON'T LOOK AT YOUR PHONE!

In short, to quote Bill and Ted, "be excellent to one another."

If you have questions/comments/concerns/funny dog videos/information about Jimmy Hoffa, please email me at jarhinrichs@gmail.com. Alternatively, you can ask me anything you need to know before a round starts. Or after a round ends. Really, any time that isn't the middle of a speech works.

Thank you for reading, and have an excellent round!

Hello, I am a parent judge.

If I am your judge, remember it is your job to convince me to vote for you.

I will flow your round and I look for contentions to be supported and defended.

I look for how you work as a team. Are contentions dropped?

Speaker points are individual and will be scored that way. It won't matter how much info you put into your allotted time if I can't understand what you are saying. Please fill your speech times. I will let you finish your thought before I call time if you go over.

Please speak loudly and clearly as I sometimes have a hard time hearing.

Debate is a fun activity, keep it that way. Be respectful to your opponent and to me!

If you have any specific questions on preferences, feel free to ask me before the round is started.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Original Oratory at Harrisburg in my final semester of high school. At state, I competed in OO and was a finalist in LD; I also competed in LD at Nationals (2024).

This is my first year judging, and I’m super excited to be here!! Speech and Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it! If you have any questions about my paradigm, don’t hesitate to ask!

General:

1. Be respectful of one another. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.
2. PLEASE SIGNPOST, PLEASE!!!If I do not know where to flow, I won’t flow. It helps everyone in the room if we know what you’re saying to what.
3. I’m good with speed (as long as you enunciate); but remember, the faster you talk, the more likely something can be missed on the flow. If I’m not flowing, I probably can’t understand you.
4. DO NOT DROP; but a drop doesn’t count unless the opponent pulls it through.
5. Off-time roadmaps are all good with me. Just don’t use that as your signposting for the whole round.
6. No K’s and Theories unless they’re really, REALLY topical. To me, you’re here to debate the resolution, so do that.
7. I’m like 90% tech over truth. I won’t evaluate blatantly false statements, but I won’t insert my own world views and biases into the round; it’s not my place to do so. I tend to not prefer very far-fetched ideas; give me pretty strong link chains if you're running something in left field.
8. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.

LD:

1. Value and Criterion are very important and it is how I make my decision. You don’t have to win on your own framework; you can show me how you win on your opponents. Whichever framework wins after clash and whoever best meets it is how I will evaluate the round.
2. Don’t make new arguments in the final speech if you’re AFF
3. I do buy solvency and anti- solvency in LD.
4. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
5. Ultimately, I give a ballot based on four big things:
1. framework
2. empirics + defense (relevant, weighed, support of claims; if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

PF:

I am very unfamiliar with PF layout and debating, but as I am becoming more familiar, this is what I look for:

1. Weighing your evidence and telling me why your evidence is more relevant/important is an easy way to get my ballot.
2. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
3. Ultimately, I give my ballot on three main things:
1. empirics (relevant, weighed, support of claims)
2. defense (if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (again, the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

IEs:

I am not here to judge your topic or script; I’m here to judge your speaking and your approach to the topic or piece. I love seeing unique takes, even if it’s a “basic” topic. Just move with purpose, enunciate, give eye contact, have vocal inflections, facial expressions, and you’re good to go.

Congress/Policy/etc:

I am so sorry in advanced; I have not an ounce of knowledge in these events. I will be looking for responses to attacks on claims and validity in those statements... I think.

LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

I'm a former high school debater who competed in public forum for 4 yrs and foreign extemp for 3yrs. I'm a 2 time national qualifier, once for student congress and once in FX. In general for all events I can handle some speed but be reasonable. Everyone should be able to understand what is happening and that includes someone who's only seen a couple of speeches or debates. If an event isn't listed below then I've never judged that event or only a handful of times.

Extemp

Please first and foremost answer the question. Having given plenty of these speeches myself, I will know when you're trying to weave your way around the question. After that I look at quality in regards to both the information being presented(quality sources, quotes, etc) as well as how well that info is presented. Much prefer a 5min 30sec quality speech than a 6min 30sec speech of rambling.

Oratory

Competed for a year and a half in oratory so I understand what makes a speech good and bad. Every speech should be on a problem, cause, solution format especially for novice. Makes it easy for you and I to understand. Please oh please don't trauma dump when it doesn't relate in a major way to your speech. Enjoy well crafted jokes throughout a joke to keep me entertained so commit to the joke.

Public Forum

I will be keeping a strict flow and will keep a note of information. As far a dropped contentions or AT's go, tell me if the other side drops a point, otherwise I'm forced to include that evidence. Not afraid to call cards especially on heavily conflicted points. Misconstruing each other speeches will cost you heavily in speaker points and my trust in what you have to say after. Don't flow CX but if something from cross is mentioned in a speech I will include it. Best bet to gain my ballet is in final focus to give me voters. Otherwise I have to assume what points you value higher than others. I prefer voters not to be in the summary speech but if you do go that way ensure you have enough time to get to all points in each others case.

Lincoln Douglas

I know the bare bones of LD debate. Value framework above everything else. That doesn't mean the winner is the final chosen framework, but the person who best matches their contentions to the established framework. If neither side concedes to a framework, I will judge the round off of which framework I feel was argued with more mastery, and applied in a more effective technique towards the topic. If I feel both frameworks are truly tied in the debate, then I'll resort to contention level debate.

Student Congress

Quantity of speeches isn't everything. Try to give as many speeches as you can obviously if you're trying to win but ensure quality coincides with those speeches. Value of questions asked in relation to the topic is taken into account. Best case scenario is you talk about the questions in a way that adds to whatever side you're arguing.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

[Overview]

I did Lincoln Douglas debate my senior year, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus, I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them.

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading, don’t do it (I have audio processing problems). My preferred speed is a moderate pace, aka a 6-7/10. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

TIME YOURSELF. You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer.

/Speaks/

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

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.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

for South Dakotans:

If people in the room want disclosure/feedback immediately after round I will do it.

In general I think debaters should be more creative and more willing to make strategic calls. More specifically:

• PLEASE use me as a judge to test interesting frameworks/non-stock arguments.
• You should concede framework if it's obvious you should concede framework. You should always ask: Do these frameworks prioritize meaningfully different things? If no, framework probably doesn't matter. Similarly, the NC does not have to read framework. You can just say "I concede the aff framework."
• I will HEAVILY reward these things in the 2nr/2ar:
  1) Choosing one or two arguments and weighing them very well (both links and impacts). I do not like split voters that try to win everything in the round.
  2) Weighing against the best version of your opponent's case. If you start your voters with the phrase, "even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments," and then you convince me that you would still win, I will give you a 30.
  3) Clearly implicating arguments in terms of the mechanics of the round (e.g., "if I win my deontological framework, then neg can't weigh any consequential offense, which means their contentions 1 and 2 don't matter").
• Empirics need warrants. If you cannot explain your evidence I straight up might not vote on it. If neg reads “trickle down economics works and wealth taxes decrease investment” (with mediocre warranting) and aff reads evidence that says this isn’t true, aff also needs to explain why this isn’t true, otherwise I will be very hesitant to vote for them.
• It's your burden to have a warrant, not your opponent's to point it out. If you extend an impact that I believe to be unwarranted I will not vote on it. This also means you get the implication of your warrant, not your tag. You can't be like "a wealth tax causes economic collapse" if your warrant just says that investment will decrease. I will listen to your cards and will be sad if you over-claim impacts.
• Huge fan of strategically dropping arguments.

—

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

If you need accommodations during the round please let me know. I am fine with you timing yourself on your phones and sitting while you deliver your speech. I am down to do doc shares if it helps you with audio-processing.

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcoming and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

My educational background is in History, Education, and Political Science. I've done research related to queer theory, education policy, and nationalism.

If you have any questions or want advice please reach out to me at samuel.markley@coyotes.usd.edu. I try to respond at a good pace, so if I don't by the next tournament it's likely that I just simply did not see your email.

——> tl;dr <——

Quality of arguments > quantity. I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what to run unless it's discriminatory (k's and cp's are fine but theory arguments against them are also fine. Fully depends on how y'all argue it), BIG ON FRAMEWORK. I'm good if you want to workshop something new, I like to think I provide good feedback and pointers.

My personal comments to you are mix of "here is how I am evaluating the round after a speech you give" to walk you through my thought process, along with pointers and recommendations I would give that didn't necessarily factor into my evaluation of the round or how I voted. So if I mention something in there and you're thinking "This was never something my opponent brought up? Why did he vote on this?" the answer is that it wasn't something I voted on but is rather a recommendation on how to strengthen your case or a speech.

——> Topic Specific for Jan/Feb <——

PF: Absolutely out of my depth. Assume I know nothing.

LD: I personally think that the resolution explodes the amount of possible aff advocacies. I am willing to listen to a defense of the whole resolution or you simply defending one of the two, but I am skeptical on defending both LoS and Rome Statute in the 1AC and then kicking out of one in the 1AR. Essentially if you defend both in the 1AC then I think you have to defend both in the 1AR. Don't make it a moving target for the neg. I am of course down to have my mind changed on this.

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". But don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win YOUR framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted, and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I have opinions on this that are too long for a paradigm that range from fairness, education, advocacy, and my role as a judge and educator.You can still argue theory against these and say they are abusive or non-topical, but you need warrants as to why beyond "this doesn't belong in LD." That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, including when a traditional debater wipes the floor against a K.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

My opinion on topicality debates

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I am a three year Public Forum debater at Jefferson High School. So I am very familiar with PF debate. As a debater, in order to win me over please do the work for me. Weigh the impacts said in the round and make it clear through the flow why as a judge I should vote for you. Please keep the round respectful and be kind to your opponents.

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

tldr:

debate should be a place where everyone feels accepted and respected. whether you win or lose you should feel proud of yourself! this activity is hard and just participating in the first place is a real accomplishment.

experience:

-former pf debater from sf roosevelt in south dakota... now @ georgetown university in washington dc

-1x qualifier to nietoc (oo and drama)

-2x qualifier to gold pf toc (won the most toc bids in the state my junior year)

-3x qualifier to nats (worlds, pf, and oo)

key things:

-id say im a flow judge, tech over truth, and also i try to be tabula rasa as best as i can.

-collapse pls!

-SIGNPOST I BEG

-also pls extend (you don't need to extend authors bc i don't write them down but you should def extend warrants, links, impacts etc)

-i listen to cross so don't lie in speech abt what happened in cross

-defense is not sticky

-pre-reqs, short-circuits, and link-ins are gasssss

-EMPIRICS WIN, OFFENSE WINS, WEIGHING WINS

-debater math is terrible don't do it

evidence sharing:

id prefer y'all setting up email chains before round and sending docs before speeches. it really makes life easier for everyone and prevents stealing prep, delaying the tournament, etc. (also add me to the email chain.... im540@georgetown.edu )

speed:

please don't spread. i can handle a conventional speed but id prefer not to miss one of your arguments and then you end up losing because i thought you didn't say it. if you think you're going fast but not spreading then you're probably fine. if i say clear then you're going too fast. SLOW DOWN ON TAGS PLS

prog:

theory: im most familiar with disclosure theory but im not opposed to trigger warning theory or paraphrasing (any other types of theories will need to be extremely warranted). friv theory is annoying so pls don't run if u want good speaks. also have good cut cards pls.

kritiks: i have zero experience with ks so you will really have to dumb it down for me (i'm not against you running ks).

cps, plans, trix: no.

other:

if you have any questions feel free to email me at im540@georgetown.edu

I did ld and extemp both my junior and senior year of high school so i have a decent amount of experience. To preface this, i am a very traditional judge.

IEs: i did extemp for 2 years so i have a good amount of experience in this. When judging rounds for extemp, i’m looking at not only how you speak, but if you can provide credible sources for the information you are providing to me.

Any other speech events, i am not super experienced in these but i do understand the basics. Interp- I am looking at how you convey your speech throughout, and your delivery of said speech.

LD: I did LD in high school. When deciding who wins the round i’m looking for

-framework: this is very important to rounds for me. tell me why your framework matters in the round and how it relates back into your case

-sign posting: please please do this. it is very easy to get lost in a debate and keeps it easier for the judge to follow what you are referring too and where you are at on the flow

-voters: THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR POINT IN THE DEBATE. without voters, i don’t know WHY i should vote for you. please give this at the end of your speech and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-flow: i will not flow anything that is dropped unless it is brought up by your opponent.

-speed: while i am not a huge fan of spreading or super fast talking, i can understand the fast pace as long as you annunciate. preferably no spreading, but if you’re going to make sure you are very clear and concise in your speaking.

PF: while i didn’t do pf, i do understand how pf works. when i’m decided who winds a pf round i look for who was able to convince me the most as to why we should or shouldn’t do this. be the most convincing, and provide good evidence as to why we should or shouldn’t do something.

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

TLDR for LD:In traditional debate I usually resolve the value debate first, then I look to see which side best maximizes that value or avoids harms associated with that value. Critical debates and theory args are cool with me, read what you want basically, I’ll vibe with it if it’s done well. See LD section for more.

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10 speed. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too crazy speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad/immoral args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and I’ll go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm open to critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessibility to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

I was in debate all 4 years of high school, and have a pretty good grasp of how all formats go. I competed in Public Forum and Foreign Extemp, so those are the events I understand the best and will be able to follow along with the best on a flow. In IE's I expect to be entertained the entire speech with the speaker being able to keep my attention, while also giving me relevant information. In debate events, I can handle speed, but in PF don't get out of hand (the format should work for someone we found on the side of the road). I'm a 2 time national qualifier (StuCo, and FX), and an SD State Champion in FX.

Extemp:

Your speech is made to answer the question you chose. If I feel the question is unanswered or unclear, it will be held against you heavily. I think Extemp is a great event for creativity in speech writing where you can have a lot of fun in your seven minutes while still performing an informational topic. I always enjoy silly intros that relate to the topic, but PLEASE don't make a joke about a serious topic. If you use your note card (and the tournament allows it), it will only count against you if you make the notecard obvious.

Inform:

I expect my attention to be on you and your boards during the entire speech. There could be an explosion that happens in the room next door, and I should miss it because of how focused I am. On top of that, I want to learn something in your speech that I didn't know before (I won't hold it against you if I've seen it before). That means I like more unique topics with the best information possible.

Oratory:

I'm a strict judge of the problem, cause, and solution format of an oratory. By the time your intro is finished, I should know your topic, and what you will be talking about for the rest of the speech. While I love personal stories in Oratory, don't trauma dump for the whole speech. I expect relevant sources that tie into your topic if you have personal stories in your speech. Finally, keep me entertained, 10 minutes can be a long time with a mono-tone speaker.

Oral Interp:

I know next to nothing about Interp, but I did a little bit of acting in my life. I want to be able to follow along with the story you are conveying and have a fun time watching. The more I'm attached to your characters, the better.

Public Forum:

I will be keeping a strict flow and will keep a note of information. I will only mark contentions as being dropped if they were ACTUALLY dropped, and the opposing team reminds me that they were dropped. Don't misconstrue evidence, I will call cards if they seem sketchy. Also, don't misconstrue your opponents' speech, I've seen too many rounds get thrown in the mud because nobody knew what they were debating at the end of the round. I will not write information down during CX, but if you mention it in the following speech, I will add it to the flow. Finally, I want to be told what the main voting points are in the final speeches, and why your team should win. Act like I'm some guy who doesn't know how to tie his shoes, and make it obvious.

Lincoln Douglas:

I know the bare bones of LD debate, and may the great Kerry Konda have mercy on your soul if I'm your judge in LD. I will keep up with the flow, and focus a lot on the framework debate. That doesn't mean the winner is the final chosen framework, but the person who best matches their contentions to the established framework. If neither side concedes to a framework, I will judge the round off of which framework I feel was argued with more mastery, and applies the most towards the topic. If I feel both frameworks are truly tied in the debate, then I will judge even more heavily on the contention level.

Policy Debate:

I have never seen a policy round in my life, and I'm curious how I got here if you're reading this message. I will also be sad if I have to change this.

Student Congress:

I will rank competitors on the quality and quantity of speeches. You should be able to give multiple good speeches in a session (throughout the session). I will take note of competitors' abilities to ask/answer questions as well. To demonstrate true mastery of this event, I expect any speech after the initial speeches on both sides to address previously stated information. If you are trying to get a ticket to Nationals in StuCo, you will have to be able to supply information on the previous speeches.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make-up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed, however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 7ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

I have two semi-serious rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.

Hello!

I am currently LD coach at Edina, and previously competed in South Dakota for 4 years with a traditional LD background. With that in mind, here are a few of my preferences.

i do not care if you sit or stand. do whatever is more comfortable :)

add me to the doc if you are sharing it with your opponent ! email: breannawollman@gmail.com

Flashing Evidence:I won't take prep, but be quick with it.

K's Read super fast will not go well in a round with me in the back. Run it if you want to- but please act as if I haven't researched and read the material. How can I evaluate it if you read it faster than anyone can comprehend?

For LD:

You have to win the Value. It doesn't necessarily have to be your FW, but you have to win it in order to win the round. It is your obligation to show the moral obligation of the actor/actors in the resolution through the framework you present. If you drop framework entirely you will make me sad :(

POINT OUT DROPS. I AM A FLOW JUDGE AND WILL EASILY VOTE ON DROPS

If you are running a framework that isn't structural violence or Util and debate with it well- expect high speaks! I love when there is real clash and people try to run different things.

For speed- I prefer a fast conversational speed. If you are reading so quickly that you are gasping in between each sentence you are speaking too quickly for me. Even if you share your doc with me- I will use that to fill the gaps if I feel like it is appropriate, but I am not going to make the arguments for you. Part of this event is persuasion and there is nothing persuasive about speed reading/yelling into your computer.

Your roadmap should be just aff neg and or voters. If it is any longer I will start to get annoyed. On that note, please come into the round preflowed so we can get started immediately.

If you are mean, I will vote you down and doc your speaks. This is an educational activity, and being mean prohibits a fun and educational learning environment.

You need to make your link to the resolution clear. I am skeptical about nuke war/ extinction impacts. If you are running something like this you need to really convince me that it is possible.

On the same note, If your impact has nothing to do with the resolution- it won't be weighed in the round.

If you notice that I have stopped flowing in round, there is a good chance that you have lost me on the flow or you are just repeating things.

Please make sure you are sign-posting. I don't want to guess where to put an argument on the flow.

Make writing the ballot super easy for me :)

Good luck, and remember to have fun! If you have any questions- feel free to ask!