I’m a flow judge.

Don’t spread. Don’t run a K. Don’t counterplan or offer a very specific plan of advocacy. I’m not a huge fan of janky, strange Frameworks.

That being said, if your opponent runs a janky framework and you just ignore it, I am a flow judge - I have to go with it.

I'm fine with somewhat out-there arguments, if you can establish that they're really topical (for example, on the topic "Resolved: Direct Popular Vote should replace Electoral Vote in Presidential Elections", I ran an argument about India, Angola, and Pakistan - because they all have an electoral vote in presidential elections and the resolution doesn't specify "In the United States").

Also, don't be a jerk. I'm fine with passion and sassiness, but don't be a jerk.

PF/LD: (LD you can ignore the stuff about framework)

I have no preferences on speed or aggressiveness; debate however you best perform. If you present a framework, I expect that you'll use it. If neither team presents a framework I will default to cost-benefit analysis.

I don't flow cross. If a question is asked as cross ends, opponent may answer, but keep response as brief as possible.

Five second grace period to finish your speech.

You don't need to use prep time if you're just looking at cards, however, if you don't use prep time, don't prep for your speech.

I expect you to time yourselves. I will not time you.

Weigh your impacts, yo.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Summary:
I'm a policy/progressive LD judge. That basically tells you everything you need to know. They/them pronouns please.
Overall paradigm:
Run whatever you want at whatever speed pleases you. I am happy to vote on any arguments that you win. This means I will vote on theory, kritiks, DA's, CP's, etc. I consider myself a tabula rasa judge and will not come in with any biases as towards the arguments the debate should be about. I VOTE OFF OF FLOW 99/100 TIMES (the 1/100 time is when you say something incredibly derogatory towards a marginalized community).
Speaker point range:
I usually give between 25-30, with 27 being average and anything below a 25 meaning that the speaker has made a huge mistake. I basically only give speaker points based on your strategy, so don't feel like you need to be a good speaker to be ranked high.
Speed:
Go as fast as you would like, given you slow down when I need to write down taglines. If your opponent doesn't like speed, be courteous and slow down if they yell clear.
Disclosure
Despite what anyone will tell me, I will always be a strong proponent of disclosing. I feel that without disclosure, I am not doing my duty as a judge and am forcing a time deficit that hinders the improvement of the debaters I am judging. I will disclose my decision with rationale, give brief critiques, and then be willing to answer any questions from any debaters.

PF Specific Paradigm I've judged this event extensively, including TOC bid and national qualifying rounds. As with CX and LD, I am totally fine with any arguments you run (yes, even "policy" arg's like theory and K's) provided you run them correctly. My only requirement is you HAVE to extend any arguments you go for in the FF in the summary speech. If I cannot see the argument on the summary flow, I do not count it.

Debate:

Four years HS PF experience including Nationals, 5A State Championship, +/ Former PF coach at Bigham/ Judge at many local tournaments as well as several national comps.

Paradigm-type items:

Speed, jargon, etc. are all chill with me.

Please give me a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches!

Clear and straightforward warrants, links, and impacts for your arguments so I can give you credit for them on the flow.

Please cite sources in a way that allows me to verify the veracity of your arguments and information.

Always remember that debate is an activity about learning and growing, not just competition!

I will time and give time signals if you want me to, but I prefer to let you all do it.

Education:

I am graduating from the U of U in May with a B.S in Political Science as well as a B.S in International Studies, attending graduate school in the Fall. My primary areas of interest within my field are comparative politics, sub-state actors, MENA terrorism, democracy, American institutions, +.

Professional:

Utah Democratic Party - S.L.C, Utah

Creative Learning – Washington, D.C

Hinckley Institute of Politics - S.L.C, Utah

Utah Independent News - Saint George, Utah

Good luck and have fun!

Public Forum:

I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.

Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.

While I encourage you to use whatever method you need to time yourself, I will have the official time with me, including your prep time. When the time is up, complete your sentence and be prepared to move on to the next part of the debate.

You may speak as fast or as slow as you like - however - if I can't understand what you are saying, it may not be helpful to your argument.

1st and 2nd cross are individual crosses. Your partner should not be assisting you during this time.

My personal opinions on whatever the topic might be will not interfere with how well you make your case. Convince me and you will win my vote.

Best of luck to everyone!

Testing

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

-Speak Well

-Play nice

-Framework

-Time yourselves

-Give voters

Tabula Rasa, I believe that in creating a more fair and equitable debate round, putting my personal bias into how the round should be weighted would create more obstacles than are necessary, and creates a culture in debate wherein there is no evolution. That also means that emphasizing voters is critical. Present the reasons you won. If you have time, emphasize at the end of every speech what matters most thus far in the debate.

Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down a little on key components to help my flow. I appreciate road mapping. Feel free to time yourselves (I will keep time as well).

If during cross ex, an answer is being given when the time is up, I will allow a short answer past the time being up if both sides agree. I do not flow cross ex, although you must adhere to what you state in cross, in respect of fairness.

I have judged every form of debate and speech, and have been judging since 2005. My main events were Policy and dramatic interpretation, but tried most events.

Lay judge. 

I've been judging for four years. I have judged at NSDA nationals and several bid tournaments. I try to flow (but my son says that I suck at it)

Key strategies for winning my ballot:

- Use empirical evidence (data, examples, etc.)

- Framework is unnecessary.... But if you do run framework, use it throughout ALL your speeches

- Speak clearly. I don't like spreading

- I don't like progressive debates; keep it traditional

- Clash with your opponents, but be civil

- Use full cites for evidence (Name, Date, publication/source)

- I will only vote off of arguments in summary AND final focus

Clean and clear speech, good tone and pacing will always win the day.

Must make the point clear, Why is the status quo wrong or right. If you have a piece of legislation you have to have a compelling reason why the status quo is not working, i.e. what are the harms.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.