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.

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.

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

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

I like to see debate rounds run the way they are meant to be run. If i am judging LD I want to see the debate focus on the Value and I want to hear arguments being evaluated using the criteria. For policy i want to see evidence, I want to see answers to claims, and i want to be able to understand you. For Public forum i want to see solid evidence as well as sound reasoning being used. As far as speed goes, if i can understand you feel free to spew as much as you would like, i have several years of debate experience (both judging and competing), so i can keep up with the best of them. However, if my pen is down and i am not writing something, odds are you are either going too fast, are being incoherent, are unclear, or i just don't fully understand where on the flow your argument goes. For LD and PF, feel free to choose between going point by point down the flow or you can go block by block, just make sure I KNOW what you are addressing, why you are addressing it, and why it is important. For policy i feel very similar, though i do expect for point by point to make flowing easier. I embrace the utilization of definitions to guide ALL DEBATE EVENTS, feel free to define, analyze, and interpret the resolution. Just know that if your opponent does so, and you fail to address it, that is now the official interpretation of the resolution which i will be judging the round on. So if they say that the sky is purple, and you don't respond at all, the sky is now officially purple. But note, that outrageous claims such as that don't inherently require several pieces of evidence, but rather a clear and concise argument as to why that is false (i.e. look out the window, the sky is not purple). Finally, I love the use of clear voters, they make my job easier in deciding the winner and show what each debater views as the most important points.

For speech events i like to see originality, creativity, clarity and adherence to the rules of that specific speech event. Honestly, whoever entertains me most, while adhering to the speech guidelines is going to win the round.

1 final note. If a tournament allows oral critiques/disclosures i will willingly give them. I do believe that oral critiques are far superior to written ones as you can openly ask questions, However, if the tournament does not allow oral critiques i will attempt to put as much information as i can on the ballot.

I was an LD debater for three years in High School. I ran a generally traditional style of debate, but don't have any major biases against against progressive debate with an absolutely clear link to the topic.

I will vote on T and Theory, K's are less attractive but I will vote on it if the argument is clearly linked and well explained. I honestly have a hard time buying non-Topical Narratives, so it's not your best strategy to use, but you can try it if you want. THE LINK IS PARAMOUNT.

I love solid topical debates!

Voting issues are key. Tell me what to vote on. If you leave me a mess to judge you may not like how I choose to vote. Make it easy for me to give you the win.

Spreading is okay, but if I need to read what you are saying to understand it you are going too fast. I will judge only based what I hear and understand in the round. I will say clear.

I keep a flow. Dropped Args are huge. EXTEND THEM! Show me their impact.

I will weigh the round based off of the weighing mechanism presented in the round, V and VC are default if nothing else is presented.

If you have any questions I am happy to answer them before the round. As well as give appropriate feed back after the round. Debate is the best! Let's try to laugh, be respectful, and learn together.

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

As a judge I come into the room the least educated person in the room- waiting to be informed and swayed. In LD debate, fiat in an important principle for me- I want to hear the argument for WHY something should be done- not if it CAN be done nor do I care about a plan or counter-plan. Evidence and definitions are also key and something I listen for in making my decision.

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I did PF in high school, graduated in 2019. I was assistant coach at Salem Hills for a year, but it's been a while since I've been in the debate realm. I should be able to hold my own just fine in any round, but let me know if you have any specific questions about my paradigms.

Good luck in all your rounds!!!

Updated 10/1/20 for UK

nicholasjlassen@gmail.com please include me on the email chain- you're also welcome to email me for any other questions as well

I debated in high school and college and I am the current head coach at Bingham HS in South Jordan, UT.

College Topic: I am well versed in debate but relatively new to this topic. Please explain important acronyms the first time you use them.

High School Topic: I have several tournaments on this topic already and I am pretty familiar with the literature base.

Theory - I really enjoy a good topicality debate. However, my expectation for the negative to win is that they can clearly define the impacts of the argument i.e. how has the aff been unfair to you directly, what grounds have been lost, why is your model for education better? I dislike time suck theory that you are never going to go for-i.e. things like incredibly thin pics such as capitalize the L in the word lands and disclosure theory. The important thing to keep in mind is that if you want me to vote on theory, you have to be good at articulating the impacts.

CP's - I believe that counter plans really need to be mutually exclusive either through actor or avoidance of a DA or something or else, otherwise it's really easy to buy the affirmatives claims of the perm. The permutation should be a test of competition towards the counterplan. In the plan v counterplan debate it is important to prove why your side is net beneficial either through some DA story or winning some solvency mitigation towards the aff or the CP.

DA's - My expectation on the DA debate is really articulate the link story. I think a lot of generic da's are easy to non/unique out of. As far as the link story goes, I need a good internal link chain. Please make sure that I can see how we get from the aff to point b and then point c.

Politics - I have a strong tendency to default to more recent evidence on politics disads. This can definitely create a research burden but if you want to run politics then you should know that this means that a lot of the time, it boils down to a recency/card quality debate.

K's

Aff - I want to know that your K aff means something. I am much more likely to buy into your criticism if there is some sort of personal connection. Make sure you are ready for the framework debate. I need to know why your framework is better for education than the negative or why I should choose to recognize your role of the ballot versus theirs.

Neg - I am open to most K's on the neg. I know it practically impossible to have hyper specific link cards for every aff. But with that in mind, please articulate how the aff links through a thorough analysis. Please make sure that you articulate the alternative well if you want to go for it -I want to know what the world of the alternative looks like and what happens when I sign my ballot neg. If I am left confused about what the world of the alt looks like, it will be hard for you to win the debate.

Method v Method

The one point I want to make here is that I have a higher threshold for voting on the permutation then i do in a plan v cp debate. I hold the aff to a similar burden as the negative, I would not let them just stand up and coopt your advocacy so I most likely wont let you stand up and just say perm do both and gain 100% access to their advocacy. I want the competing ideologies weighed against each other and to know why your world is "better" then the opposing teams.

Please don't be rude, disrespectful, racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. I will doc your speaks and most likely drop you. It's not welcome in debate or in society overall.

Congress: Clear contentions, stated clearly, well supported by citations. (ie, Contention 1 or My first Contention). Do not make me try to figure out what you are wanting to say. If examples are used, back up the example with a legitimate source. Ask intelligent, to the point questions. Answer questions efficiently without a bunch of fluff. If you don't know the answer or don't have the support for the answer, I will know it. Don't waste my time or yours bluffing around. Civility is paramount. Do not talk over each other, that is rude.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

Graduated high school five years ago. Only did debate my senior year but I won most of the tournaments I attended and received two bids for nationals, thus don't change your case to appease a lay judge--I definitely know what's up.

I like passionate rounds; tell me why you (and consequently I) should care.

Please follow the flow. DONT DROP ARGUMENTS. On that note, no judge kick: tell me what you’re going for.

No card clipping.

I’ll vote on both tech and truth so tell me why I should value one over the other in the round.

I love intonation in voice. Also make sure you slow down and emphasize tags.

Best things you could do to win the round: be respectful to your partner and your opponents, clear impact calc, and (if you haven’t picked up on it yet) tell me WHY you win the round.

PSA: incorporate Beyonce into your case and there's a better chance you'll win the round. Let's have fun with it.

Good luck snitches.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

I'm a pretty straightforward judge. Be clear and concise in speeches, carry your points and contentions through the round as well as your opponent's. Be prepared and professional, I prefer debaters time themselves and don't use gendered pronouns in referring to their opponent. Along with that, I urge for political correctness in the round, arguing something that is explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will not help your case. Beyond that have fun and take it easy.

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

Email: nadia.sabry.155@gmail.com

Debated for three years at Bingham HS ‘19

General:

-Be nice, have fun

-I am very expressive so you can probably tell how I feel about whatever is going on at anytime

-Disclosure is important

T

I like T a lot but that means I have a higher threshold for it. I’ll evaluate through competing interpretations.

K Affs/FW

I usually lean neg on these debates because I consider fairness to be an impact and debate is a game. I love topic specific Ks that the debaters are passionate about. I see debate as a game, but you can convince me to vote otherwise

DA

Not a huge fan of politics. The more specific, the more I like it. If you are winning the counterplan, the lower the threshold I have for a link.

I like clear and thorough internal link analysis.

CP

I love cps that steal from the aff evidence. Explain what the perm is. Neg fiat is good.

K

I think framework is one of the most important things here. I’m familiar with many identity based arguments and enjoy postmodernist literature, so read whatever you want. Explain your alts.

I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped. Pre-crafted arguments about what your opponent has said or dropped that are obviously pre-crafted because they're inaccurate for the round will hurt your overall score -- it demonstrates a lack of listening and adaptation.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

A little bit about me:

Debated Public Forum for 4 years in high school.

I am addicted to chapstick, (Burt's bees) so if I put on chapstick a lot during the round that's why.

I want to be your friend, probably.

Judging style:

Be respectful to each other, but I like a little sass lol.

I don't flow cross and usually don't listen.

Be sure to weigh for me so I don't have to.

Warrants are essential. If you can't back up your evidence with logical reasoning and warrants then the argument is not an argument at all.

Defense is key. Frontlining in second rebuttal is ideal.

I enjoy unique arguments, but your link chain needs to be established clearly. I won't weigh arguments that don't make sense.

I am fine with speed as long as you can be understood by the opponents and myself.

Sign posting is a MUST. Roadmaps should not be longer than 5 seconds.

Don't ignore contradicting evidence and continue to restate your evidence as an answer, INTERACT with your opponents evidence and explain why I prefer yours over theirs. Same goes for warrants. PLEASE compare your warrants and why I prefer yours over theirs.

I am a fan of organization in your speeches. Tell me where you are going. I lose a lot of motivation to flow if you jump around randomly every .2 seconds.

I don't want to be confused at the end of the round. Make sure your FF is clear.

If your opponents are saying something abusive or untrue, there is no need to get visibly frustrated to let me know what they are saying isn't right. Like you I also have ears, so take a deep breath and maintain your composure. I will catch it.

Please don't take 78483927 years to pull up your evidence. I will be very very sad. :/

When you are reading evidence you need to take prep! I'm really not out here tryna stay in one round for 2 hours.

You can run anything as long as it makes sense, but as a PSA I do not have a lot of experience with theory or K's, so if you run theory, you better approach it as if you are explaining it to a white suburban mother of 6.

PLEASE make the round fun. I beg of you. If you make me laugh, I will increase your speaker points by 0.2

These are super basic principles, so if you have detailed questions you can email me at hunterjakesteele@gmail.com

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

i doubt anybody will actually read this, but here it is

policy experience: 4 years of policy debate, three-time region champ, 3rd place in state, two time nat qual.

i can stick with anything but my rfd will definitely come down to stock issues and how well each team debates. a good entertaining round with clash on every point is ideal and even though that is hard in northern utah with all of the theory debate, it would be nice to see clash and head to head battles with stock issues.

all in all, spewing and spreading is okay, but i will not flow what i cannot understand

any other debate:

i am just looking for a clash worthy debate. a clash filled round are the best parts of rounds. it is not necessarily who has the best speaking ability, but also the amount of substance in your case. most of the times this goes hand in hand, but if your case is no bueno, you will hear about it.

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.

Debate: Debate is about clash. That being said, if you decide to run a "K" and it does not logically fit with the topic, or opponents spend the debate arguing topicality rather than the topic, this could cost points/ranking. Contentions, frameworks, plans, etc. need to be clear. Roadmaps are helpful, but not required. Be ready to show evidence and have logical connections to your contentions, reasoning.

If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I will give you a signal. If you continue to go too fast for me to understand, and not seem to acknowledge my signal, this will impact your scoring.

Congress: I am looking for a well-presented argument on the bill presented. Memorization is good, but not key. However, you should not be reading directly from your speech, especially further into the debate season. Evidence and logic are preferred in your speech, with references to your sources. My scoring is based on how many quality speeches are given, how many quality questions you as between speeches, and how knowledgeable you are about the topic you are presenting. Being a quality chair who is able to control the house/senate is key as well.

Speech: I am looking for a good speaker, someone I would enjoy listening to, and watching all day. Speakers should have clear voice, appropriate tone, and gestures, as well as props appropriate to topic (as event permits). Speeches should also have clear organization which matches topic and tone. Appropriate presentation and dress are a must.

In all events, be respectful and polite. Attack your opponents case, not your opponent, and always leave, if not as friends, at least acquaintances.

I am a flow judge. I need signposting and don't drop arguments unless you explain why it is no longer relevant. Don't look at your opponent in round, specifically cx. Don't use gendered pronouns to refer to your opponents (use they/them or "my opponent/s"). Above all else, anything explicitly racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, etc. will not help your case--and depending on the severity I will stop the round.