Hello, I did debate in high school all 4 years, with the first two being in policy and the final two in Public Forum. Thus, I know what is going on, but I won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic for the first couple of tournaments, so ease me in.

Speed/Signposting: I did policy for two years so I can handle some speed, but if you aren't signposting and telling me where I need to flow what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to flow it. With that, please signpost. Tell me where you are putting this argument on the flow. I can flow everything you are saying, but only if I know what you are saying, and where I'm supposed to put it.

Weighing: At the end of the round, tell me why you win. You could have the best defense in the world, but if you don't give me any offense to vote on, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.

Truth v Tech: I am a big mix of both. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I'm not going to vote for them in that area, however, if I am left with two impacts, whichever impact is more probable is the one I'm most likely going to vote on.

Framework: The only way I'm going to follow a framework is if you pull it through the entire round, if you don't pull the framework through, I'm going to default to a cost-benefit analysis.

Personal Preferences: One thing that I am picky about is pulling through evidence. Don't just tell me to pull through the impact or pull through the link, tell me specifically what I'm pulling through. Tell me the impact I'm pulling through, and tell me the link I'm pulling through. Just because your opponents drop your contention, doesn't mean you don't have to do any work on that anymore. You still have to tell me why you win with that point. Another controversial take that I have is that the second rebuttal needs to get back to its own case. To me, you can't not touch your own case from the 2nd Constructive to the 2nd Summary.

Evidence: Some things to me are unspoken, so you don't necessarily need a card for everything. I am all for analytical arguments, but there is a line where you need evidence for something you are saying. I will also call for evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. I will not call for it if it isn't called out by your opponents, but if there is a dispute, I view it as my place to settle the evidence debate.

At the end of the day, please be respectful to your opponents, don't make me not want to vote for you because you are being disrespectful. Good Luck!

if you get me in LD somehow god help you

im not gonna vote for Ks or theory either, IEs exist for alternative advocacies

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

I am a 14 year LD and Extemp coach and judge. A little PF when needed.

Just to get it out of the way, I will vote you down for speed. Typically, if I can't write it down, it doesn't exist in the round. Quality arguments over quantity. The one speech that I don't mind being a bit fast is the 1AR with only 4 minutes to get through is a lot. The rest shouldn't be rushed. Public Forum shouldn't be fast at all.

Extemp-- I am not overly concerned about your hand gestures or transitional movements. I do care that what you are saying is clear, clearly organized, has content- that is accurate, and has strong analysis/explanation to go with it. With being able to just Google whatever, I am going to really emphasize the analysis/explanation. Show me you are knowledgeable and have understanding.

LD-- Big on Framework debate in LD. If you aren't doing it and just focus on contention level, don't be mad that I agreed/disagreed with you based on a single, likely arbitrary point. Tie your points to framework to explain why your arguments are more consistent with the MORAL lens you have chosen for the debate.

PF-- Please don't just read and re-read cases. Work to get deeper into the arguments and give explanation for WHY a point is key.

At the end of the day, be civil, attentive, and really listen to each other. Being harsh, condescending, or dismissive is not helpful in winning rounds or being a good person. I don't mind being firm and holding your ground, just make it respectful.

TLDR:

be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops

About me:

I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)

Public Forum:

Drops:

I am going to be a flow over anything judge.

If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.

Speed:

I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!

Time:

I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.

For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.

Cross:

Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.

LD/Policy:

I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)

IEs:

You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)

As an LD judge, my focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. The resolution doesn't outline the general subject we are debating but the actual question I will vote on at the end of the debate.

I am very pragmatic. On a scale where 1 is totally pragmatic and 10 isd totally philosophical, I am a 2. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and breathe in the real world. Don't get too bogged down in debating philosophy at the expense of resolving the substantive resolutional issues.

I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions/supporting arguments, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. As LD/value debaters, it is important to integrate support of a value into your case position.

To me, your criteria is part of 'your' analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both sides but it should help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision.

Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated. My flow very much guides me when I make a decision. I try to take good notes but I don't flow sources (so don't shorthand with an author's name...use the argument label.)

Hello, I’ve done speech and debate through all four years of high school, and I now compete in college. I think Speech and Debate is a great tool to initiate meaningful civil discourse, for that reason, it’s imperative that you are respectful during rounds. If you are being unkind to your opponents, your partner or to me, you will get low speaks, and possibly the down in the round.

Speed

I can handle speed but make sure you are still being coherent.

Public Forum

I appreciate well-organized debaters who use effective signposting. I keep a good flow so make sure you point out any drops. You should write the ballot for me in the last two speeches. I truly believe in the idea that anyone should be able to walk into a round and understand what is happening in PF.

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

LD

I have never debated it before. Most likely, I will not familiar with the topic. I have judged it before and I understand the value, criterion, and the works of LD, but I’m definitely not extremely well versed in it.

You all are incredibly talented, and I’m so excited to watch you. Good Luck and you’ll be great. If you have any questions feel free to ask me during the round or feel free to email me at abiahsg@gmail.com if you have questions after the round.

I'm the assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in both interp and speech events after having competed on the Huron High School team in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round (informative, oratory, extemp, and the different interps), and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to interpret the author's original intentions). Ultimately, I want to be drawn into a piece with such realism thanks to your motions and expression that I have to force myself to look away to make comments/critiques.

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater. I also dislike when teams tell me to disregard entire speeches/rounds because the opponents don't have a 'framework' or other such terminology. Different teams coach with varying practices in mind, and some don't use such approaches. I prefer judging rounds that look to dismantle the integrity of the opposing side's position instead of trying to win on a technicality.

TL;DR - Tech>Truth. I love philosophy. Offense and clash win my ballot. Weigh and extend impacts. Have good argumentation and convey it well.

Email: pandaXrider2415@gmail.com

---->BACKGROUND<----

Brookings High School '24

3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp

1 year of Public Forum

3 Time National Qualifier

Bounced around in Student Congress and Extemp Debate too... even have World Schools Experience

| 2024 SD State Semifinalist in Lincoln-Douglas Debate

---->TECH VS. TRUTH<----

Tech>>>

I am very much a tech judge and don't believe in being a truth judge

I am a big believer in evaluating the round based on what is on the flow. Often when writing ballots I find myself writing that even if something isn’t true I will evaluate it based on the context of the round

As a judge, I cannot be bothered to try to think about my own opinion on the argument when my job is to evaluate the round based on arguments the debaters make

---->TIMING & SPEED<----

I will time all speeches and prep time. But I ask you time yourself as well to make everything smoother

I'm okay with speed as long as it's understandable... if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you

---->LINCOLN-DOUGLAS<----

Philosophy>>>

I'm pretty traditional when it comes to LD but that's not to say I don't like certain Circuit LD techniques

| Trad |

Clash on the framework. Explain why your value is most important and how your criterion best upholds it

Use contentions and the impacts to link back to your framework to show me how you uphold it

Weigh and extend your impacts!! This is incredibly crucial in a moral debate

Always warrant your cards

Uncontested turns are huge

Use voters. They do a great job of making what I should vote on clear

| Circuit |

Make sure your links and argumentations actually make sense

Disclosure Theory - 1/10. Hate it. Don't like it. Just strike me if you like doing this.

Theory Shell - 8/10. Just make sure the interpretation, violations, standards, and voters make sense.

Kritik's - 1/10. Also hate it. Don't waste time in our debate rounds complaining about NSDA rules or anything like that.

Counterplans' - 8/10. Again, if it's a solid counterplan that's carried through the entire round and holds its own merits, I'll vote on it

Disad -7/10. I do like disadvantages. Just make sure you use the consequentialist link chain and really show me how voting for the other side is a bad idea.

Role of the Ballot - 8/10. Establish good conditions and extend them.

Spreading - 2/10. Just don't. It never sounds good. If you decide to spread, then let's do an email chain or speech drop.

---->PUBLIC FORUM<----

Extend everything

Quantify and weigh impacts

I love voters. They do a great job of condensing the round into clear issues of what I should vote on

No new arguments in 2nd summary. This is done way too often... and also don't only start establishing the narrative by then... you should have the narrative present through the entire round

Have good warrants, uniqueness, and link chains. All of these are necessary for a good case

I am primarily an LDer so I do like a good framework in debate such as a cost benefit analysis or really anything as long as you find a way to make it work

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and I’ve been teaching coaching speech and debate for Brookings, SD for the last few years.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision. I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

CONGRESS

Congress is one of my favorite events and I even had the pleasure of serving as the parliamentarian in the 2024 NSDA Senate Final! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. When it comes to judging speakers, I'm looking for clear structure and well utilized evidence. The Authorship/Sponsorship/First AFF and First NEG speeches should set the stage for the corresponding side of the legislation while the following rebuttal speeches should ADVANCE the debate rather than consist of canned speeches that have little if anything to do with what has been said in the session. If you give a crystallization speech when you see debate is dwindling that's a nice plus along with references to the wording of the legislation or comments made by specific legislators. For PO, I'm more than happy to include a great PO in my ranking and will do so if I feel they were vital in the running of the chamber. A good PO keeps consistent times, gaveling procedure, accurate precedence/recency, and, most importantly, maintains decorum in the chamber.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

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 the 1st year assistant debate coach for Brookings. I did not do any form of Speech & Debate in high school, and have no experience before this year. I have judged enough rounds that I know what is happening, and I can keep an acccurate flow. I believe that there is NO PLACE for circuit debate in PF. I will not judge a kritik, and think they are automatically a losing point. Similarly, I believe that Public Forum, as the name suggests, must be accessible to the Public, and so I will vote down spreading. I am pragmatic in my ballot; please give me the most straightforward argument. Keep the link chains simple, and cut the B.S.

For this Topic, I've been judging all year, so I know what things are, and get arguments, but to restate, will always prefer the most logical and straightforward claims.

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.

Unless you consider yourself sufficiently well-versed in the history, culture, and politics of the Levant, I don't want to hear about it. I will dock speaker points for far-right and far-left talking points. If said talking points show up in your voters, I may speak with your coach about it. If you manage to venture into racist or antisemitic territory, we will be having a chat about it after the round.

** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

LD-

I am a very traditional LD judge. You have two jobs in the round, 1) establish what a moral world should look like, 2) explain how affirming/negating can get us to that moral world. You could have all the best evidence and arguments, but if you don't connect it to your framework, you haven't done your job.

I love niche philosophy and ideas taken to their extremes.

Not a fan of speed. I can follow it, but will stop flowing - so proceed at your own risk.

Plans and solvency don't exist in LD - no one in the round should be solving anything, you are using reasonable empirics and outcomes to help determine the ethics of a choice

You must debate the resolution. If you would like to speak to a judge about a different topic you are passionate about, there are speech events you can enter in.

PF -

I don't coach PF and I rarely judge it. Which is perfect because PF is meant to be debated to a "pubic forum". Make the topic make sense; make it easy for me. Don't make me fill in the blanks, explain your warrants and impacts and credentials. If you have an argument that would confuse your mom, don't bring it into PF.

Not a fan of speed. I can follow it, but will stop flowing - so proceed at your own risk.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for four years and I keep a decent flow.

Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is.

For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing.

I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I want to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

General

I Debated PF for 3 years for Brookings High School

3rd at NSDA nats my senior year, 36th my junior year. 2-time nats qualifier, TOC qualifier, 2024 South Dakota PF State Champ.

Timing and Speed:

Time yourself. I will keep track during speeches but the round will be smoother if you time yourself.

PF Stuff

Tech>Truth

Argumentation>Speaking Style

- ie what you're saying matters more than how you say it

Second speaker needs to get back to defend their own case in rebuttal.

Don't bring up new argumentation in Second Summary pls

Don't Spread

-No one knows how to spread well in PF so don't do it

-you can still talk decently fast just make it audible

Don't be boring, use cross to your advantage. Strategy is something I love to see in action.

Warrant and Weigh your evidence

Progressive

I have a really high voting threshold when it comes to progressive arguments ( K's, Theory, whatever). If you choose to run theory with me as a judge, you better be sure that you will cross all your T's and dot your I's. Don't be abusive.

Extra stuff

Tell a story with whatever you are running. A clear narrative will help bridge the gap between lay and tech judges in any round.

I love clinchers at the end of speeches. A short statement that brings out the message of your argument. (Ex. Unequal Rules for Unequal Players Create's Unequal Outcomes). I'll give extra speaks if you do this because I think its that important.

The round isn't over until the final focus. I believe that the FF is the most important speech. No matter how good/bad the round has been for you, if you know what you are doing FF is where you get my vote. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Warrants are what give you my vote over anything else. Weigh your evidence as well

Don't just say card names, explain why they matter.

If you want more info, just look at Emily Hua's paradigm. She was my partner and I agree with her on pretty much everything.

PF judging (quick update):

1) The rules do not permit plans. Even if the PF topic has policy-oriented language, the task for PF debaters is to discuss principles and ideas. This means no plans - and the opposition should not argue that PRO must solve. Do not create a fictional burden for you or your opponent.

2) I'm not a big fan of theory in PF - if you argue theory, you must be very specific with your link to the opponent's case / arguments. Generic theory arguments are a big time-suck. I don't support k's or disclosure theory arguments in PF.

3) It is okay to say no to email chains - but be sure to have print copies of your case and evidence.

4) It is up to you if you want to run a framework - I’m normally neutral on them, but I think it might be helpful to have one on the January topic.

5) There are other impacts beyond terminal. Just a reminder. :)

6) PF is not the place to practice your speed drills. Please communicate with me. I should be able to flow the debate without reading your case.

7) Debate is fun. Win or lose, enjoy the experience. Take everything you can out of it.

If you have questions let me know!

Deano

Background

I did Policy Debate for one year, Public Forum for three years, and Domestic Extemp for 4 years at Watertown High School, graduating in 2010. This is my first year coaching and teaching debate at Watertown. Previously, I worked in journalism and public relations in Grand Forks, North Dakota; Chicago, Illinois; and Orlando, Florida. I ended up back in the place I started because I’m a firm believer that debate teaches students many soft skills, especially public speaking and critical thinking, that they will use in their professional careers.

Public Forum Paradigm

I debated Public Forum while Policy Debate was still an event at South Dakota tournaments. Therefore, I approach Public Forum debate believing that it is the debaters' job to educate and persuade any judge, especially a lay judge, that they have the better case and can provide strong analysis as to why they should win the ballot. I can keep up with speed, evidence, policy speak, etc., but I want to give my ballot to the team who has the strongest case and who did the best job keeping their case and the round organized so the judges know what to vote on.

Additionally, because I come from an era when both Policy and Public Forum were debated in South Dakota, I believe that Public Forum should not just be a shorter version of Policy Debate. I don't want to see Kritiks, Disadvantages, Topicality, Plans and Counterplans in Public Forum. Just debate the resolution. Additionally, I’m fine with speed, but it should be reasonable.

I enjoy when there is good, legitimate clash. Impact things out for me. I don’t love framework, especially poorly run framework, but I will listen to it. If you are going to be reading framework in the round, relate your contention-level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours. Ideally this is done in the 3rd & 4th speeches. And, most importantly, if you’re running framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate — if you drop your framework, I will not be using it as I weigh the round.

Use crossfire to make anything ambiguous in your case crystal clear. In my opinion, crossfire is where the judge will learn who the stronger debaters are. They will know what questions to ask, and they will know what parts of their opponents' case to destroy. The best debaters use crossfire to advance the debate. You can easily win the round using your time wisely in crossfire.

In the end, I prefer good, solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round - tell me what is important.

Be confident, but have manners. There is no room for arrogance or rudeness in rounds. I won't vote you down for these reasons, but if your attitudes turn me off, there is a good chance I'm less engaged during your speeches, and your arguments are probably not going to get flowed or weighed the way you want them to.

Hi everyone, my name is Zoe and I’m a former debater and was an assistant coach as well for a couple of years. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.

Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)

Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run a framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying, it works out better for all of us in the end. In your final focus, I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.

LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within the framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Typically, I also do not catch the author very often when reading or explaining evidence. If you want me to flow a specific piece of evidence make sure that you use a short tagline, the best way to get me to flow what you want is signposting. If you say "so and so 2025" most often only the 2025 makes my flow but if you say what the evidence was and tell me why it mattered I am more likely to flow it and be able to vote for it. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick, if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.

Overall, have fun and be nice!

I am a down to earth judge. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar! Civility is a must!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

Public Forum/LD

My paradigm is fairly simple for any form of debate. Ultimately, I am looking for substantive issues to be resolved at the end of the round.

I believe that arguments need to be explained in the process of presentation. Please do not assume that I will do the work for you. Explain why your evidence supports your claims and why your argument is better or more important than your opponent's arguments.

If you have a particular way you want me to view the round, please make sure that you explain so everyone in the round understands the expectation (and make sure you meet the expectation as well). If that particular lens is important to the round, you should also be framing the round in that way the entire time (not just in your first and last speech).

While I don't have any predisposition to style or speed or structure or any specific arguments necessarily, I do prefer respectful debate where both sides are working to resolve the issues.

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

I graduated from Aberdeen Central last year, and I now study at USD under a Music Education degree. I competed in speech, but I've judged a lot of public forum. To that degree, I will judge the round on an analytic side, but I will also hold some weight on pace, projection, and tone. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. Don't be afraid to talk to me as well!