Assistant Debate Coach Skyline High School UT (2011-present)

Update: 11/14/18

[justinbaker006 gmail com]

I evaluate debate argumentation before evidence. Unless you specifically tell me to look at x,y,z evidence first, it's unlikely that I will hinge the debate on the evidence. I prefer voting off of the flow, but will look to substantiate evidence comparisons through the evidence.

I heavily favor debates that actively encourage clash. I find this notoriously lacking in small circuit policy v k debates. For the kritik, I like concise overviews and additional link analysis.

I prefer contextualized theory debates, over flow heavy theory debates. Resolution and round specific analysis carries more weight on my flow than the number of your turns to topic education.

I try to follow a speaker point system with median 28 and deviation .5. In this system a 29.5-30 reflects top 2% of speakers on the national circuit.

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

Aff- I'm good with just about any aff, from traditional to kritical. It's fine if you have a policy action plan with nuclear war impacts, and it's also fine if you read no plan text and have your aff based on epistemology. I put a lot of emphasis on solvency. 

Topicality- I find it hard to vote on topicality unless specific examples of how you have been hurt in round by the aff being non-topical by your definition make their way into the neg block. Generic statements accusing 'abuse' do not hold much weight. If you are planning on going for T in the 2NR, I would suggest dedicating at least 5 minutes to it in the block.

CPs- Show the difference between the plan and the CP very clearly. I go aff if there is not an obvious net benefit. I will vote on reasonable perm arguments. 

DAs- love the politics. The link debate is very important to me. I enjoy case specific DAs.

Ks- I am less likely to buy a permutation on the alternative, but I will vote on the argument that wins. For neg- show me the world of the alt, and be very specific. I'm good with most all Ks. 

Framework- I find it really hard to vote on prefiot solvency if there is perf con, but it is the opponent’s job to point that out. Give me lots of clash on the standards and voters of the framework, and why said standards and voters should or shouldn't influence the ballot. 

Theory – I LOVE THEORY! But slow down when you are reading it, my goodness.

I do not call for cards unless there is a blatant disagreement over the actual context. 

Speed is fine, but if you are all full speed when reading through a complex theory block, I will not get everything, so that's on you. 

I'll vote on which argument wins, regardless of personal preference. But I'm human. Being outright racist, sexist, transphobic or homophobic is a great way to lose the round.

Joseph McPherson

Debated 3 years CX at lone peak HS

Currently a sophmore debating at Snow college

Rounds on the Topic 20+


Over all philosophy

• Debate is a game - I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t run, I will try to be as open to anything as possible, so have fun and read what you like, just make sure you are explaining it well.
• If it isn’t in the 1AR or 2NC/1NR I will do my best not to evaluate it
• Prep ends when the flash drive is out of the computer, or the email is sent.
• I'm fine with tagteam but overwhelming your partner will be reflected on your speaks.
• If you are going to record a debate/speech you must get permission from the other debaters being recorded.

Specific things


Theory – I have a avarage threshold for what constitutes a good theory argument. A very specific Multiple Conditional Worlds or Pics Bad argument will go very far. "Reject the argument, not the team" is usually enough for me not to vote on a theory argument besides specific examples of inround abuse, The more specific the violation and standards are to the debate round the more likely I will agree that there was abuse. If you read your theory block at 100% speed I will probably not flow it and be annoyed. In round abuse scenarios are preferred, but I will vote on potential abuse.


Topicality – I enjoy well explained and in depth topicality debates, but often feel this is lacking. I'm not a huge fan of generic "substantial" interpretations. I prefer you have a very specific interpretation and violation with the intent to define. i usually default with resonablity unless there is specific examples of inround abuse not just "education, grounds, ect. In round abuse has a lot more weight than potential abuse. Buzz words like “limits” “fairness” “predictability” aren't impacts, but rather internal links.


Disadvantages – Specific case arguments and a well-written disadvantage is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch. A specific disadvantage with up to date uniqueness and relevant links to the Aff will go a long way with me. Generic disads like “Spending” aren't as interesting, but always willing to vote on them if the link and impact are clear. I love a good politics debate; this includes evidence comparison and impact interaction. On any Disadvantage you need to have a clear scenario of how you get to your impact, especially extinction impacts. Just because you say "extinction" doesn't mean it is going to happen, prove why it matters or should be something I evaluate.


Counterplans – I will vote on any CP if it has a clear net benefit and solves majority of the affirmative. Reading through the CP text at full speed probably means I won’t know what the CP does and you will start behind in that debate. I will not kick the counterplan for you if it doesn't solve.


Kritiks - This seems to be the type of debate I participate in more as my debate career continues. I have participated in all types of these debates, from high theory to identity debates. You should feel comfortable to read whatever you want and have me be able to understand it. I think this type of debate is strategic and i'm eager to listen/vote on different kritiks. All I ask is that you make sure you explain it well and make the link/impact very clear. There should be a clear role of the ballot or role of the judge articulated by both teams. If you are reading a K aff I prefer you actually relate to the topic, but there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. Also, that doesn't mean I wont vote for you if you don't. To get my ballot with a non-traditional aff you just have to justify why your discussion is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution. Also, I find impact turns to most arguments a strategic decision that most teams don't take advantage of.

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

Past Experience: I was a four year policy debater in high school and was an assistant coach for several years after high school but have not seen a debate round for several years. My speed and flowing capacity are not as fast as they used to be so taglines need to be clear and analysis can be fast but needs to be well understood.

Overall I like impact calculus. The Aff needs to prove that if I vote aff their plan will affect the world in a positive way and the neg needs to prove the opposite.

Feel free to ask specific questions before round.

I attempt to judge objectively. Do what you do best, I will try to leave predispositions at the door. It is not my position to tell you how or what to debate. Generally I think cases should be in the direction of the topic, instrumentality however is up for debate; just make sure you do a good job otherwise it could be a hindrance to you.

I am a philosophy major so the moral framework is very important. I want the framework spelled out. I don't want someone to tell me about the moral 'Ought' and end it there. Spell out that the moral 'Ought' is a form of Deontology stemming from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperitive, and that it tries to negate Utilitarianism. Just walk me throught the framework saying some choices are morally forbidden or some actions need to be preformed regardless of their concenquences. I like terms to be clairified. If a term is central to an arguement, then it better be defined. Ambigiuity is an issue.

The main point is the argument. Ethics and frame work is important to your argument. Make sure you explain your words like moral and justice - they are vague words so tighten them up and define them. Polish is important, but if the argument is weak I am not opposed to doing an occasional low point win. Arguments trump period.

I prefer more traditional LD debate including a strong Value/Criterion debate. I am willing to follow most debates competitors give. I prefer arguments that say something matters. It is not necessary however if you can make the other team or individual lose that works for me too. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards.

I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense.

I do flow and like easy to follow debates. Don't bounce around. Signpost are important. Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.

It is better to go somewhat slow when speaking. I can keep up in most cases, but it is harder to flow. If I can't flow your argument it won't count. Not to mention many people sacrifice clarity for speed. If you want to try speed I will queue you in to nonverbal signs that state I can't understand your speed prior to the debate.
Be professorial. Attack the arguments, but don't attack the person. I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or slippery slope arguments. I don't mind giving constructive criticism and perhaps adding a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas.