Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as the current assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) and previously an adjunct LD coach for Lake Highland Prep (FL). I also was an instructor at NSD Philadelphia 2024.

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP/Policy: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary. Weighing in back half is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." Have fun and be nice.

My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters not speed spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. It also makes for a better debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. Clarity is more important than speed. 2) That questioning be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. That you evidence links to your warrant is important. 4) I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Coach and a speech Judge. 5) I was a Philosophy Major in college so I do enjoy the framework, value aspect of Lincoln-Douglas debate. 6) Why should your framework and value be weighed over your opponent's is important when I evaluate the round.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments making in-depth arguments pertaining to sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round. I want this in LD as well. Link your arguments back to your value and criterion for me.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Nuclear Impacts: I think it is important that you know I have hard time believing that nuclear war is going to happen. If this is your terminal impact, you need to really set up the situation and chain of events for me to follow. Generally, there is an impact that happens before nuclear war or winter that is more likely, requires fewer links, and would be easier to convince me is true.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and NSDA speech and debate coach for Waukee High School. This is my third year of coaching and judging. I frequently judge LD and IEs.

rowens@waukeeschools.org

DEBATE:

tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions, turns, and weighing; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; be thorough and respectful.

PF: I am more traditional in PF - this event was created to be accessible to all. Some speed is fine, arguments should be warranted with evidence or logic.

Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the entire card or your entire point when extending, but make sure we know why it should be extended

Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, especially on the local circuit. If myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading before the round

Weighing: Need to link to your framework; if what you're weighing doesn't match the value/criterion of the round, it won't have much strength.

Theory, Ks, etc: Have limited experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in the local circuit or PF. If you make a warranted argument or there is a legit rules violation, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it, but these are not the preferred main arguments to be run.

Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.

PF

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. Any questions feel free too ask.

SPEECHES: Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

NLD- unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

Tyson Smith--he/him--smith.tyson@iowacityschools.org

I debated policy for four years in high school and two years in college, then judged as an assistant coach, ran a national program in lots of events (though I was always most focused on policy) for a handful of years. But, it's been a minute....

Speed is your choice: I have certainly judged debaters faster than you. I have also certainly judged debaters who are clearer than you. If you aren't clear, I will let you know loudly. I recall having asked a debater to be slower, but only once. It's way more common that clarity is the issue.

I don't know a ton about speech docs; my opinion is that what you can intelligibly say during your speech is what I plan to evaluate. I think it's best if I flow the debate and probably if all the debaters do as well.

Your time is limited, so when you are doing whatever it is you do between speeches, that's coming out of either your cross-ex time or your prep time. I assume cross-ex starts right after the speech ends unless you say you want prep time first. When you tell me to stop prep time because you're ready to speak, it should not take more than about ten seconds to convey the order and then start.

Because it has been a while for me, please don't assume that I know every acronym or nickname for your argument. I give off a lot of body language so if you look at me you'll know if I'm confused, flowing actively, nodding because I grasp and maybe am persuaded by your args, or look like I just don't believe you. You could learn a lot from watching--some debaters keep their heads down and miss out.

I generally prefer to judge explained arguments that truly clash rather than a super blippy festival of thousands of claims in a contest to see which one was dropped. I've judged plenty of the latter kind of debate and it can work but it doesn't really show the highest level thinking. Make your arguments specific and responsive to the other side and you'll certainly earn more points and probably win more too.

This applies to your T violations, your counterplan, the disad link, and the kritik that you run every single debate. If you read a ton of theoretical cards and don't explain why they connect to the aff, it will be easier for them to explain why their specific plan is an exception to the general rule that the state (or capitalism, or biopower, etc.) is always bad. I usually coached more the policy args but I coached a lot of teams who ran Foucault or other kritikal arguments frequently so I am comfortable operating in that world too. It always helps when debaters connect the various worlds for me so they're not expecting me to do that for them (theory, philosophy, impacts). If you don't do this, don't blame me for how I choose to do it...

I don't have any specific predetermined bias about whether multiple conditional counterplans or kritiks are bad or good--those are things for the debaters to resolve for me.

I don't really mind the partner being involved in a cross-ex or the speech but if several people are talking at once, I'll probably be listening more to the person whose turn it really is to speak. When you talk over your partner it should be for a pretty important reason because it usually serves to undermine their cred or yours or both.

Speaker points for me usually fall between 27 and 28.5, and back when I judged a lot it was always in half point increments. I do understand that tenths of points work now. In several hundred debates I have judged, I have probably only given a handful of 30s and maybe gone below 25 about that many times. The key here is I'm looking to reward debaters who show: smarts and quick thinking, clear speaking, persuasive arguments that are plausible, and a true effort to be engaged in the debating process (this meaning listening, flowing, not shutting down an hour before everyone else if you're the 1N, and just acting like you're into the learning going on in the room).

I have never judged an online debate, but if in that situation I would probably anticipate that things might move a bit slower--I just know from zoom meetings that this is the way online communication works best.

If there is something else you want to ask me about that I didn't speak to, please do so. I want to be open to the ways this awesome game has changed since I was super-involved in it!

I'm currently a Freshman at ONU. I did LD Debate for 6 years at Iowa City West, the top paradigm is LD, scroll down for other events.

CONFLICTS: Iowa City West

I want to be on the email chain: sptho24@gmail.com

I want to think that I will be as objective as possible in round, but here are some arguments I know better than others. That being said, I'll vote on anything if it is won, with only very few exceptions.

Assume I have zero topic knowledge.

CX is binding and I don't flow it, but I'll pay attention

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

EXTEND PLEASE

Shortcut (this is just my familiarity with styles, not what I will and won't vote for):

Trix - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 1

K's - 2/3

LARP - 2

Non-T K affs - 2

Performance K - 3

K V K - 2/3

--------------------------------------------

Defaults:

Metatheory > Theory = T > K

Truth Testing

Presumption and Permissibility negate

Theory Voters : DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, Competing Interps, No RVIs (Don't make me use these please)

Note: This is just my defaults, this changes the second someone reads literally any weighing on these things

-----------------------------------------------

Note for Novices: I don't care what you run. I do want you to understand it, otherwise I won't be happy. But I will vote on tricks, K's, theory, whatever. If you are reading stuff clearly just handed to you and you don't understand it, I won't be happy and your speaks will drop. But I will still vote on it.

-----------------------------------------------

Tricks -

I'm a tricks debater, so go for it man. I think they are fun. I don't love being super sketchy in CX, you don't have to tell them every implication, but like, answer their questions truthfully. I'll boost speaks if you give a new trick I haven't seen (i.e you read a new paradox and you do understand it). The only tricks I WON'T evaluate are "eval after X" I will evaluate the whole round, I think this leads to a paradox of regression, and it's stupid. I do enjoy if you understand what you are reading. And extensions are great, please extend. Also keep in mind, the dumber the trick the lower the threshold obviously, and have warrants please.

--------------------------------------------

Phil -

I love a good phil round. I'm comfortable with most frameworks, if you're reading some really out there stuff, just explain. Frameworks I know: Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Contracts, Libertarianism, Polls, Ripstein. (Probably more I just can't think of them). Love engaging in frameworks, and hijacks are wonderful. The main thing is explain your framework. I'm also cool if you have hidden skep triggers, but if asked in CX for them, please give them, if you try to go for one you didn't give when asked I will still evaluate it, but your speaks will drop a lot, and I am going to be easily persuaded for new responses against them if you do it. Basically, don't be shifty and don't lie.

--------------------------------------------

Theory -

I'm good for theory. No matter how frivolous. Obviously the dumber the shell the lower threshold of responses. Defaults: DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, C/I, No RVIs. DON'T MAKE ME DEFAULT PLEASE!!!!! If you read like 26 shells in the AC your speaks will drop (note I'll still vote on it though). I'll vote on disclosure (begrudgingly). And again, I literally don't care if it's frivolous, you win the shell you win the shell. I'm not gonna gut check unless that ends up being how it is said I have to evaluate it. Also reasonability NEEDS a brightline.

--------------------------------------------

LARP -

I'm not a larper, keep that in mind. But it's not that complicated, and I can judge it. I think it's probably the most educational for the real world, but I also think they are kinda boring. I'm cool with CPs, PICs, DAs, Plans, whatever. WEIGH. Without weighing I can't decide which impact is worse and I might default to presumption or permissibility. I'm not joking, I'm not really gonna weigh for you.

I don't know what judge kick is and to me it sounds like intervention.

Must say you're kicking something if you kick it. Not extending isn't the same as kicking

--------------------------------------------

Speed -

I can handle some speed. But as a debater I found LARPers tend to approach light speed sometimes, and so if that's you. Know if I can't understand what you say I won't flow it. I try not to flow of the doc all the time, and I'd love to not have to.

--------------------------------------------

K's -

I'm cool with stock K's (Cap, Set Col, etc).

I can do High Theory (Nieztche, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) But EXPLAIN YOUR K. I literally am not qualified at all to judge a K round without you explaining it. (THIS IS MY MOST COMFORTABLE WITH K'S -- FROM HERE YOU ARE READING A K AT YOUR OWN RISK)

K-Affs - I can judge these, didn't run them very often, but I can judge them, just explain your K and why you aren't Topical if you aren't being Topical.

K v K - I'll try, but know I'm probably not the best judge for this. I'll do my best. But I NEED a lot of instruction for this. Also how hard this is for me to evaluate depends heavily on the K's that are clashing, ie Cap K V Set Col K will be easier to evaluate than Psychoanalysis V Baudrillard.

Performance K's - I'll again try, super unexperienced with this. I need a LOT of explaining as to why your K matters, is good, and why the performance is key to the K. Again, probably better strats than this

Also know, I don't like listening to generics, I really don't want to hear your 90 link backfile, the more generic the link, the lower my response threshold is going to be. The more contextual to the case, the stronger the link. I really don't want to have to see a massive link block from your backfiles.

If you kick an alt, you gotta say you kick it. Not extending isn't sufficient

Floating PIKs must be hinted at in the 1n

--------------------------------------------

Postrounding -

I'm ok with it, but I'm also a person, so don't please don't get too aggressive or anything. But please, if you think I robbed you of a win, please postround me. I think this is a good norm. However, I also reserve the right to leave if I don't feel comfortable with the post rounding.

--------------------------------------------

OTHER EVENTS

Policy

I have no clue how your event works, and I'm kinda scared to ask. I don't know your lingo, and I don't know the norms, I can't do top policy speed, please be a little slower - To be clear, I'm fine with spreading, but like more of an 8/10, keep in mind my LD background, if you make a round similar to that, I'll be really happy and your speaks might rise a little. Besides that, most of the stuff from LD applies, but like, I'll need even more judge instruction than usual. I know literally nothing about your topic or what any of the things you are talking about are. Explain what your plans and counterplans are and what they do. Otherwise it'll be hard for me to vote on it. Check the LARP section for more specifics, all that stuff applies here.

--------------------------------------------

PF

I'll treat this as basically a trad LD round, because I feel that's the best way for me to judge it. I'll do my best way to judge as I can, but do know that my LD background is a thing. NOTE: This DOES NOT mean I'm cool with circuit arguments in this style, I know that they aren't cool in PF, and running them will NOT make me happy. Judge instruct as you can, I'll do my best

--------------------------------------------

Misc

1) Please extend

2) I don't flow author names, say where you are

3) Signpost for the love of the GCB

4) If you tastefully roast an ICW varsity in LD I'll boost speaks by like +.2

If you roast ICW Quincy Tate it's like +.3

If you prove monism is true and have the line "Monism is true - I am Joe Rankin" that's like +.1 - +.3

5) Have fun, debates a game and if we aren't having fun why do we do this?