I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

If you spew, it is a automatic loss.

I judge off of the best combination presentation, logic, and argumentation

Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

I am a traditional LD judge, make of that what you will.

I am fine with any speed at which you wish to speak as long as you speak with clarity. I take this very seriously and I believe the clarity with which you speak is a large proponent of your overall strength as a debater.

I don't come into a debate with any biases so as long as your argument is more powerful and logical, you will win the round. Further going off of this, I value logic (backed by factual/statistical/empirical evidence) above all else. This is critical because there must be a basis on which I can judge the debate.

Lastly, please keep the debates civil and maintain your composure throughout the round.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

I did three years of LD at Copper Hills, and this is my first year out of debate. I was typically a traditional debater, but I am down for any argumentation. I have interacted with a lot of traditional and progressive arguments, so if you can explain it well enough that I can understand it, you can most likely run it.

Howdy! My name is Millie N. My pronouns are they/them.

I have 6 years experience in debate, but my strong suit is extemp. Debate should be as fun as it is rewarding. Those that argue their points clearly and effectively will get full points, but may not win. I believe that pushing yourself out of your comfort zone is the most important part of growing and learning.

Good luck, stay safe, and have fun.

Background:

I debated for 3 years in high school, mainly focusing on LD. I debated in college at the University of Utah in Parli and LD. I understand the mechanisms in which debate functions, both on policy-oriented and critical arguments.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed, slow down on tag lines, repeat advocacies twice, I will clear you twice then drop my pen. Don’t spread your opponent out of the round.

Theory:

Don’t run frivolous theory, only run it if your engagement in the round is really at jeopardy. If you present a good enough reason for me to vote on theory, I will. I default to competing interpretations as a way to evaluate. If you want to go for reasonability give me a bright line as to what is reasonable and what isn’t. I use standards as a metric for measuring abuse in the round so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them. Be very thorough in your voters.

Kritiks:

I LOVE THEM; but do them well. Don’t run identity kritiks if it’s not your identity, unless you have a unique way of engaging in the discussion that doesn’t speak for others or co-opt. Don’t commodify identity arguments for the sake of a ballot. They matter, and have the power to change rhetoric and modes of engagement. If you run unconventional criticisms, explain them to me with an elementary thesis.

In/Out of Round Conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS- don’t even bring up sexual assault/slurs/violence/gore without one to everyone in the room.

Be nice, if you’re rude or shut down/silence your opponent it will reflect on your ballot, and possibly a comment to your coach. Debate should be a space where people feel comfortable to engage and develop new ways of thinking, treat it as such.

Underview:

Traditional is good, progressive is good, run theory well, run kritiks well, and be nice. I'll drop you for being problematic!

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.