Southern Forensics Governing Board - Jan 19-21 | Status: Completed | 2:54 PM Central
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Compete with dignity.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
I see myself as open to most any argument, although I tend to prefer case arguments, disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks (the K) over topicality arguments. (At one time, I thought of myself as fitting the policymaker paradigm when I was judging high school C-X.) I do tend to give AFF teams leeway on topicality, but that doesn't mean they should drop it! I also don't like seeing AFF case vanish from the round in favor of only a theoretical debate. I don't like seeing drops on the flow, but I expect debaters, themselves, to extend dropped arguments. Simply put, I wont intervene. In general, I expect good clash as well as thorough and exacting refutation in all speeches. Speakers of rebuttal speeches, for example, should tell me a good story; in other words, they should tell meexactly why they win the round and why.
With regard to spreading, I find that I don't keep up with rapid delivery like I did when I was competing, which is now more years ago than I like to admit. I am not anti-speed, but if I signal a debater to slow down, then he/she/they should do so. Bad argumentation is bad argumentation; it doesn't matter how fast or how slow the debater if they are making junk arguments (e.g., DAs or Ks with weak links). I have seen the fastest team in the round lose to debaters who spoke more slowly. I also believe an exciting and stimulating round can take place between debaters with slower delivery. Over the years, I have witnessed several such debates in NPDA, IPDA, and LD as well as in the college and high school policy formats.
Last, I expect debaters to behave in a civil manner toward one another. I just don't see any call for rudeness or incivility. I think now, more than ever, we need to engage in civil discourse. Bad behavior in the round (or outside the round) just doesn't bode well with me at all. Competitors participate in tournaments to learn and to become better debaters. And this activity should be enjoyable. Its supposed to be fun, and I think sometimes we forget that.
Debate better.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Lyeneal Griffin, M.F.A.
Assistant Coach, William Carey University
I will judge the flow. Please make sure that your arguments are clear and intelligible. This is important to me. Weigh impacts.
Neg, refute and build. Weigh impacts.
Draw your arguments from quality source material. Equity, inclusivity, and diversity in your evidence is a plus. Be clear on the scope of your resolutions. I like to review sources.
Be respectful. Bad sportsmanship will lead to a reduction of points. Do not talk down to your opponents or judge.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
If you get called on falsifying evidence I will drop you. Call out evidence you think is suspect and make the case for it.
I try to be as Tabula Rasa. 8 Years of competitive debate experience mostly Parli and IPDA but I have some LD and Pufo experience. Run whatever arguements you want but make sure they are logically supported.
Treat your opponents with affirming respect. Pursue the educational value of debate as an ethic. I have judged debates for over 30 years in various formats. I look forward to hearing your voice on this matter. I like good research and good delivery.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a