Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

Digital Debate #1 Update:

- I prefer using email for file share, 1AC shouldnt be sent out at round time, you can at a minimum send to me 5 min before and then cc your opponent before beginning of speech. I drop your speaks for inappropriate uses of time in online tournaments (out of prep and going to get water, going over prep, starting late). If you are having internet issues, adapt by sending docs beforehand.

- First tournament of season so you should probably start slow.

- Just as a general overview, I really hack towards simple arguments that tend to flow on higher levels (if you were to take a % of rounds where X arg is top layer). I have theory as my highest pref bc its intuitive and usually results in the best clash... theory v K rounds make my head hurt bc neither prefiat implication is ever explained in detail to me relative to the opposing impact.

- If you have questions you need to ask beforehand. No guarantee I will see the email before start time but its best if you are confused or think i might not be the judge for you.

- HAVE FUN!!! A loss here isn't the end of your debate career or life in general, there is more to life after debate and there is more ways to be involved in debate after debate!

faindebate@gmail.com

Auburn ‘16-‘20

Auburn University ‘22-‘26

Prefs:

1 - theory

2 - larp

3 - trix

4 - k

5 - phil

Strike me if you are a traditional debater.

Intro:

• My name is Michael Fain (please refer to me as judge, Mr. Fain, or Michael, in that order). I competed in LD for 3 years and have been judging/coaching for the past 4. My background as a competitor was entirely based around hacky arguments, trix, and baiting theory. As a judge I have gone through many different phases of what I like to get out of rounds and what I am most comfortable listening to. For the longest time I was a hack for trix, this is no longer the case seeing as trix debaters use this to run relatively dense phil and not explain it. The pref chain above is accurate and should be used for big tournaments. As a judge I evaluate the round according to how I flowed it based off of the information that was given to me. I fully believe that a close round with many different layers of offense with 11 of the most qualified judges will result in some sort of judge split. I believe that I side in favor of the majority in these rounds as my squirrel rate in tech rounds is something like 1/100. That being said, I will score the round in my rfd’s about what I think the split would be, and could provide reasons why my contemporaries might vote the other way. All judges value different things, we all hear the round differently, so as long as its close on the flow there is always the potential for a split ballot.

Preferences:

Performative - I am hard of hearing in my left ear, this does not affect round outcome, however, you are responsible for being a mindful debater and positioning yourself in the room to be heard.

I am traditional insofar as debaters ought not look at each other when speaking, should formally address the judge, should stand to speak if able, and should appropriately use their prep time (see below). (IRL ONLY)

Strategic - My voting record and past RFDs indicate a few tendencies. I am comfortable voting on very small issues with little to no risk (best examples would be like ivis on reps, conceded spikes indicting speech validity, any accessibility arg). For some reason this tends to mean I vote neg more often.

LAYERING:

After having almost 30 different iterations of my paradigm I have settled on this being the only relevant section that ought to be read before a round, anything else can be asked via shared email chain between myself and the competitors before the round. Proper LAYERING and weighing is the only thing that matters when it comes to my ballot. It is your responsibility to defend your offense as the highest layer in the round, and if your offense functions on the same layer as an opponents, why your impact should be weighed as greater. Too many times is there floating offense on different layers where the procedural “rules” of debate force theory to come before substance. Maybe I don’t judge enough but it appears that gone are the days of policymaking good frameworks dueling against the K. I do not need to be scratching my head at the end of a round asking myself whether or not the K or T is top level. The battleground of the round is normally not on a link level in the rounds I judge, and if it is, enough time is not spent explaining it. The real clash is on which offense flows above the other, youd be best suited to spend your time on that.

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity PF debater 2020-2023. Current varsity policy debater at Samford University

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Thoughts

Condo: Condo is good. I think having ~3 conditional options is good strategy for the negative. Here's where I have some issues:

Contradictory conditional options: 1-3 counterplans and a K is fine, gold standard. More than one K/theory of power, or contradicting counterplans and I start leaning aff on condo.

Multiple un-carded counterplans: Not a fan. I think any counterplan should have at least one solvency advocate. Unless you are hitting a new aff, I am very sympathetic to condo bad args if you are reading 2+ counterplans in the 1NC that's just the counterplan text. Additionally, if you're the 2A, I don't think you should have to read cards on these counterplans in the 2AC. A 1NC uncarded counterplan definitely justifies new 1AR responses/cards.

CP Theory: I will not judge kick the counterplan unless I am told. I will be unhappy judge kicking the counterplan even if I am told. The 1AR should absolutely make a no judge kick claim.

If you're going for a perm, I will most likely need you to slow down if you're doing a lot of theory.

Topicality: I lean aff on topicality. This is not to say it's impossible to win topicality in front of me. I think the negative should be very explicit about what the violation is, and how that results in an explosion of limits. I'd rather topicality not be card heavy following the 1NC/2AC. I think a good 1NC T card goes a long way and I really don't want to spend time post-round scrolling through mediocre 2NC evidence that say the same thing the 1NC said. Not saying don't read evidence on T, but be very intentional with the ev you do read.

I think if you're debating T, you should be rehighlighting all of their evidence to prove your limits/ground args. This goes a LONG way, especially for late-round evidence comparison. You should also pretty please send these rehighlightings.

K Debate: I prefer to judge debates that are grounded in the topic/topic literature.

If you are reading a K on the neg: Love to see it. I generally prefer to think about Ks as a counterplan with a massive internal net benefit. This should frame the way you explain the alternative. I like when the alternative defends a substantial, material change from the status quo (i.e. I don't like when the alternative is just to "reject the aff.")

Framework debating on the neg: I generally default to weighing the aff against the impacts of the K (unless instructed otherwise). As such, it's super duper smart for you to leverage root cause arguments or serial policy failure.

If you are reading a K on the aff: I will pre-req this with I am not a good judge for performance related affs nor am I a good judge for affs that do not affirm the resolution. Generally, I think the aff should defend a material change that is in the direction of the topic (which means your first response to a DA should not be "no link"). Otherwise, I'm very willing to vote on T/Framework (fairness is an impact, and switch side debate probably solves your offense).

hey! hope it's going well!

• Competed on both the national and local circuit, so I'm comfortable with any speed, just send a speech doc
• Tech > Truth ; but amazing speaking will be reflected in your speaker points
• I will be fine evaluating any argument, so run whatever you think is best. (LARP = Trad > T/Theory > Phil = Kritiks > trix). Disclaimer is that I've been super out of debate so I won't be able to understand any super niche arguments with Phil or Ks
• Has been a while since I’ve seen a debate round so I won’t be too familiar with the topic
• If it's a tech vs trad round, I'll be voting off of tech
• I will be very happy if you make the round easy for me to decide (collapsing, weighing, extending offense, etc.)

esp86@cornell.edu

For Samford:

I have strep and it really hurts to talk so I will give an oral RFD if we're allowed but I'll go into more detail on the written RFD.

Please send a speech doc for each speech because I don't trust my internet. My email is bentp2017@outlook.com

I don't know anything about this topic so don't just go into the round expecting me to know all the background info.

--------

Hi, I’m Ben (any pronouns) and I debated LD at Auburn High for 3 years. I haven't had exposure to debate in like almost a year so treat me like a knowledgable lay judge. I’m better at judging traditional rounds because I don’t have much experience with progressive arguments. But with that being said I ran a lot of prog argumentsfor fun my senior year so I somewhat understand them and if you really want to run one just over explain. I would really appreciate a speech doc for each speech but I definitely need them for online tournaments. I’m okay with speed but if you’re going to spread, again, send a speech doc. Don't be rude and don't take rounds too seriously that is cringe. If you’re funny then I will boost your speaker points. I’m going to time you but make sure you time yourself as well. I feel like usually it’s better to use they/them pronouns for your opponents in round, but if you would rather something else just let me know. Read trigger warnings before triggering arguments. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Also please don't call me "sir" I am literally 18 years old. I'm a big fan of joke cases so feel free to run them. Lastly, if you run a super dense K that only people with PhD's will understand I will zone out and start watching Glee clips on TikTok. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask me before round.

Have fun

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org

Former policy debater in HS and College (2012). I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but primarily influenced by this policy background. I'm familiar with plans, CP's, K's, planless Affs, T, theory, but I'm less familiar with more well known arguments in LD like high phil debates. I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden for the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I am convinced is a path to the ballot.

If you are a trad PF/LD debater, do what you do best, but I will not exclude "circuit" or "tech" forms of debate without a winning offensive justification.

Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

===Circuit LD Notes===

[1 =Great!; 5 = Yikes!]

-Policy (1) - See above.

-K (1): Most of my debate career and graduate work was spent in this literature base, but you shouldn't assume I know your specific literature or that I am willing to fill in explanatory gaps when making a decision. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links, even if your actual link evidence is making more sweeping claims. I'm interested in what the alternative resolves and what it means for my in-round decision-making if you win framework.

-K Affs (1): A winning Aff generally has to advance some contestable, desirable, and generative method beyond "res is bad, reject the res." More interested in smart 1AC construction whose engagement with the res already features nuanced, built-in answers to common neg args as opposed to overly relying on generic preempts.

-CP (1): I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-T vs Plan Affs (2.5) --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. Analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options when the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan.

- T vs K Affs (2) -- Much more persuaded by clash, skills, topic education, and trickier offensive reasons for why the model is good than fairness. I generally believe most standards on T are internal links that the Aff is probably impact turning. Best 2NRs on T will still neutralize case and any theory of power arguments that help with the disads to T/exclusion.

-Theory (3): Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments. I have historically never voted on friv theory, but I have tanked speaks.

-Phil (5): You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption. I don't mind saying "I didn't get it, so I didn't vote on it" even if subpoints are dropped

How things outlayer is up for debate, but here is my crude default order for reference: K of procedurals/discourse > T > Theory > K of Aff > Value/Phil/Presumption > CP vs Aff > Status Quo vs Aff

NCFCA Regional 2017 | Lincoln Douglas Champion

Hello!

I am a former LD debater and current US History teacher at Auburn High School. My debate experience was not in the public school system, so consider me a lay judge regarding terminology.

Do. Not. Spread. I expect clarity. Do. Not. Spread. If I am unable to understand your point due to your speed of speech, I can’t consider your argument. Do. Not. Spread.

I am more of a traditional / life judge than progressive and technical. I highly value CX and will flow it. Summarizing your points at the end of each speech will at least guarantee speaker points.

Your attitude towards your opponent shows me how confident you are in your words. If I sense even a hint of sass or snottiness I will take notice. If you make a mockingly shocked face at an opponent’s argument I will notice.

I would like a copy of your case. Please email any relevant documents to annikakwollner@gmail.com or share through tabrooms.

glhf