I've been coaching and judging debate since 2010.

I can handle speed in speech as long as it's not blazingly fast. I will say "clear" one time as a warning if I can't understand you.

I will be keeping a detailed flow on my computer. I will flow your authors and a summary of what they are saying.

I value argumentation over style. I put emphasis on part of the round being improvised. Your speeches should be responsive to what has happened during the round. I do not like pre-written rebuttals, summaries, or final focus speeches.

When assessing a debate I consider clash over each contention and determine which contentions each time has carried through the round or pulled to their side. Then I will consider weighing arguments to make a final decision.

I am most persuaded by arguments that present clear and tangible impacts. I do not heavily weigh philosophical or semantical arguments and would generally prefer you provided more evidence rather than arguing about authors or publishers.

Please be courteous to your opponents. Speak to me and not your opponents. Do not talk to your teammate, use your cell phone, or make silly faces during your opponents speeches.

Please do not shake my hand at the end of debate I appreciate your appreciation but a simple "thanks" will do.

Background: I was a PF debater from 2014-2016 on the local and national circuit. I also participated in a variety of speech events through NSDA tournaments as well as the IHSSA, including spontaneous, public speaking (IHSSA), and expository address (IHSSA).

Debate Preferences:

• In the rebuttal, the team which speaks second should both attack the opposing team's case and defend their own case against attacks by the opposing team.
• Please collapse the round in the second half. If your opponents decimated one of your arguments and you don't have adequate defense, don't waste your time trying to prop it up. The most successful debaters are those who understand the context of their round and can pivot to frame the round around elements they are winning.
• Essential defense should be extended in the first Summary.
• If something is not mentioned in the Summary, it will not be flowed in Final Focus.
• I really appreciate voters in Summary and Final Focus.
• Weighing makes my job a lot easier. If no weighing occurs, you lose control of the round.
• I do not flow crossfire. If something important happens in cross, tell me in a speech.

Speaking Preferences:

• Organization: Please signpost whenever possible. Good organization helps me make a fairer decision and usually results in a better round of debate.
• Speed: I can handle moderate speed, but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to flow everything. Remember -- this is PF, not Policy or LD. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please slow down on author names and dates so I can keep track of evidence in the flow.

Evidence:

• I prefer that evidence be initially introduced by direct quote, but if you must paraphrase, please ensure you represent the evidence accurately with regard to its meaning, intent, and context. In later speeches, feel free to (accurately) paraphrase but make sure all evidence is connected to an author or organization for flowing purposes.
• After frequently dealing with teams using inaccurately paraphrased evidence during my time as a debater, I have zero tolerance for bad evidence. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if there is any question as to its credibility. Please have evidence either as a cut card or highlighted in a PDF. If I conclude that evidence has been misrepresented, I will drop it from the flow and drop speaker points as appropriate.

Arguments:

• While I am open to any argument, I am not very familiar with how to evaluate arguments that deal with Ks/theory/etc. You will have to work harder to explain to me why I should care (and slow down, please).
• Creative/unexpected arguments can be fun, but they still need to be well-supported, well-warranted, and impactful to be effective.

Other Items:

• I will do my best to keep time, but please time yourselves as well to keep everyone accountable.
• Please be respectful to your opponents. The inability to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Feel free to ask me questions about what you have read here! Debate is an educational activity, and adapting to your audience is an important skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life.

I did primarily PF for 4 years and have coached PF and some Extemp at Theodore Roosevelt since 2019. I'm an average flow judge who's on and off the national circuit.

Email chain: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, love the game, though I think the way PF debaters think of tech debate at the moment harms their overall debate skills,round clarity, and personal growth. Constructing and defending arguments rooted in at least some truth, being ok with having to adapt to anyone in front of you, and narrative debate will help you after you graduate much more than spreading 4 kinda stupid contentions, card dumping blippy responses, and hoping your opponents miss something. Cheap tricks anywhere will never get you far, and yeah, you're cheating yourself. That being said, I don't dislike those types of rounds at all if they are done well, and I definitely enjoy extinction rounds, but I think the tendency to value those debates over anything else without question is bad for PF.

I’m not going to answer any questions before the round unless both teams are present. Ask me anything you'd like afterward.

Do not wait for me, start setting up asap

Do not go over time or prep steal. Call your opponents out if they do this. I try to time, but keep track of each other.

I don't like flex prep or talking to your partner in cross or speeches. Cross is binding, and defense is never sticky.

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If the team that wins the framing or weighing extends and wins their argument, they win. If neither framework or weighing occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the path of least to their impact. I default to scope. Tell me in a speech what I should do instead if you want.

I would prefer it if you told me how I should evaluate the round or write my ballot and WHY. judge instruction is a lost art.

Framework: Tbh I don't really have a ton of of experience with anything more advanced than util, SV, etc. just explain it to me and why I should prefer it

Speed: I will not follow along in a doc. I usually like flowing faster rounds, but you're risking me not catching or understanding what you say, especially online. I can keep up ok,probably about 225-240 wpm that's clear. I flow on paper, so my hand starts hurting sometimes. We'll see if I move to my laptop. I hate blippy and frantic speed; make it intentional and remain clear. I will clear you twice, but do not clear the other team.

Slow down on tags, stats, if your arguments are less common, and a bit in the back half

Evidence: only read cards. If it is misrepresented, I'll strike it from the flow, but you must tell me in a speech to look at it and why. I don’t like having to look at evidence, but I will if it’s essential for my decision. I’d strongly prefer if you resolve the evidence debates in speeches. I despise teams that lie about evidence.

General Preferences of Arguments:

You need to fully (u + l + il + impact) extend your arguments. Not extending your argument means I cannot vote for it, even if your opponents do not call it out.

Quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense, or you will lose)

Resolve clash, and you will win.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. The best 2nd rebuttals frontlne and collapse on what they're going for, frontline turns, and maybe weigh. If you try to frontline your whole case, I won't catch all the frontlines, and you'll probably undercover their case. If you can do it well without causing those problems, go for it.

Anything in final focus needs to be in summary, no new weighing mechanisms in final focus, only expansion of ones from summary, responses to the opponent's weighing, new meta weighing is ok.

I love logical warranting, smart analytics, knowing your evidence, and real-world knowledge. It should be obvious that this is what every judge wants, but PFers increasingly lack this and rely on evidence/arguments from the wiki without doing their own work cutting cards or following the news :(

you do not need a card for everything. If you use “they have no evidence” as a response against a smart analytic using background knowledge, I will scoff.

You need consistent responses starting in rebuttal; entirely new arguments that need evidence to be true starting in summary is not a good strategy. This is why you can't spread yourself thin in 2nd rebuttal, especially.

MORE WEIGHING AND COMPARISON OF ARGS CAN START IN 1ST CROSS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Progressive Arguments

If I have to, I’ll listen to and vote on anything within reason.

I'm familiar with most theory arguments, but honestly, I don't really like them. I really don't want to listen to frivolous theory. I get a bit lost with the jargon and specifics on my flow sometimes. I do my best not to be biased, but I despise bad evidence ethics and improper disclosing. I'm going to give you very low speaks and have a low threshold for responses to frivolous shells like Comic Sans.

I prefer K’s to theory, but I'm unfamiliar with nearly all the K literature, so just simplify it for me. I understand the basic structure and have decent real-world knowledge. Know your links, alt/s, run it well, and we won't have a problem. None identity K’s would be fun to listen to.

Slow down and explain everything more for prog debates. I require sending speech docs to everyone. Do not run progressive arguments against clearly inexperienced debaters in front of me. If you haven't run into prog arguments before, don't just complain about how you don't know how to respond.

PF has very short speech times, so I will be a particularly bad judge if there are a lot of offs and you go fast.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. My favorite things are comfort and confidence, humor, smart strategies, efficient word economy, and good comparison/weighing. Also good warranting/nuance. Basically everything I said above

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpretate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!

I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:

1) Shake hands with opponents after round

2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Public Forum}

NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.

VPF- Rock roll, just send speech docs if spreading. Better safe than sorry. Not that I can’t flow just want to make sure you are actually reading cards in case and not just like 3 words of a card.

SPEECHES:I like nuanced arguments. Clash is must Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order. But please for everyone’s sake no new in the 2 and make sure you are signposting.

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.

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Lincoln Douglas}

NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.

Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.

SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.

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. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.

{Speech events}

Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.

Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.

I am a First-year out 4 years of PF at Theodore Roosevelt High School

Add me on the email chain please: Charlesetimm@gmail.com

Please make an email chain and send docs so evidence exchange is either not necessary or it goes really quickly

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

For all events I am here to evaluate you, run whatever you would like.

I am tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed.

I don't flow off the doc

I do not keep time, please keep it yourself and check back on your opponents.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence is bad have cut cards.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I had very limited exposure to Ks when I was debating. I have seen more since judging and can evaluate K's but you must run them

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.