I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

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.

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 competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

LD-

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

PF-

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

About me-

I judge novices. My name is Elijah Shirley, male, and I go by Ely (pronounced Eli). I’ve done a year of PF and a year of LD, and did some BQ at nationals (heheh). I’ve also done a little bit of duo, extemp, and readers theatre on the side. LD is my main thing. I’m gen z, so if for some reason you want to know that going into your round, there you go. I will often look distracted. I’m not. I’m just thinking about what you’re saying or multitasking (flowing and taking notes of the round for your comments); Trust me. I’m paying attention; just keep talking.

How to debate good-

USE ALL OF YOUR PREP TIME. If this means you have to spend 3 minutes just sitting there and thinking, by all means. It’s a good habit to get into.Try toTELL ME WHAT YOU’RE ATTACKING EXPLICITLY. It makes it so much easier for me to follow. Also, if somebody forgets to bring up a part of their own case or framework in a speech (meaning value and criterion for LD), that’s called a drop. You need to TELL ME WHEN THEY FORGET TO BRING UP SOMETHING like this. Say, “They dropped their contention/value/criterion, so we won’t be debating this for the rest of the round.” Similarly, TELL ME WHEN THEY FORGET TO ATTACK SOMETHING. This means they dropped it on your side. Say, “They made no attacks against my contention/value/criterion, so you can assume that they agree with it. It matters because…” Try not to be the person that drops things. Finally, in your last speech TELL ME WHY YOU WON. Literally say, “You should vote for me because…” This is called a voter. It should go over clash, such as when contentions or framework directly disagree with each other (meaning value and criterion for LD). Tell me why I should prefer your side. It should also go over drops: what was left untouched and why does it matter.

My debate opinions-

For me, DEFENSE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN OFFENSE. In general, whatever you guys end up talking about the most is the side that’s winning. If you’re talking more about the aff case than the neg case, aff is probably winning. The amount of defense you put up is the amount of your case that I’ll be able to vote on. I’m a flow judge even if there’s nothing on the flow. Being a good speaker only gives you an advantage because I’m more likely to understand you (and cus’ of subconscious biases or whatever). If I can properly write down what everybody said, then I couldn’t care less who talks smoothly (other than for speaker points of course). Also,I don’t consider cross examination, if you somehow get your opponent(s) in a bind during a questioning period, I will take note of it, but unless you actually bring it up in a speech I won’t even consider it by the end of the round. That being said, don’t be a jerk; stumbling something small or misspeaking doesn’t constitute a conviction. I’ll try to view the round based on what everybody means (as long as I don’t have to do any guess work), not on what everybody says. Finally, stay directly on topic. I’m unlikely to vote on anything thats based on some implication of the resolution rather than the resolution itself, mostly because I don’t expect to see it run well.

LD-

If you think you’re running deontology, you’re probably running rule utilitarianism, but it’s functionally similar. I’m not huge on quantifying impacts; you might still need to if everybody’s running basic-ah consequentialism, but even then ideally I would be voting on the value/criterion debate. (This is a case by case basis: If theres no significant clash on the framework then quantifiable impacts are very, very important) This means you should ACTUALLY SPEND A DECENT AMOUNT OF TIME DEFENDING AND ATTACKING VALUES AND CRITERIONS. I have an interest in ethics, so bonus points if you know what you’re talking about. You guys are LDers, so your my favorite. (Clap emoji).

PF-

I’m not following. (This is because I usually see four people with completely different ideas all acting like they know more than they do. Confidence is a great thing, and now is the time to develop it. Sadly, it means I’m prone to confusion). This means you should SLOW DOWN AND EXPLAIN IT LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND IT. Whoever is clearer usually wins. This means tell me exactly which contention you’re attacking, and make sure you and your partner are locked in: they should be reiterating what you say.Also,I like framework.

Speech/Oral Interp-

I’m a debate person, so I don’t know exactly what I’m supposed to be looking for. I won’t judge you like a traditional judge. I will be ranking people mainly on one thing:Variety. I don’t even care if the vocal inflections make sense (as long as it feels somewhat natural); just add variety in speed, tone, and pitch to add interest. Also, if your speech is way shorter than it should be—as long as it doesn’t sound choppy—I won’t really care. I prefer 2 minutes of quality work over 7 minutes of yap. Also, I prefer a slow pace. The one thing I do know about is Extemp. For this, I want you to elaborate and slow down. I am looking for a conversational tone. I want it to feel like you understand what you’re talking about.If it feels like you’re just reading off a script, I probably won’t place you very high. You can still have a script, of course, just don’t use it as a crutch.

BQ-

I love definitions. Definitions are one of the most important part of big questions. Also,stay on topic. Finally, I don’t care much for real world examples. You can use the real world as a proof of concept, but if you’re framing the topic in terms of what we see in the actual world I will be less compelled to vote for you.I prefer conceptual, hypothetical arguments. This is where 90% of the debate space should be.

For LD novice prodigies-

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

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

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

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

If you’re running a kritik just make sure your opponent fully understands what you want them to debate and why they should debate it. I like kritiks that are still closely related to the topic, and tend to prefer voting on the resolution.

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

Congress-

If I’m your judge so help you god.

THANKS FOR READING MY PARADIGM!!!