I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for their own agreeegisnes.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.

I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.

Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.

AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.

T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.

K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.

CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.

DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.

REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!

I come from a Lincoln Douglas debate background and I apply a "classic" LD paradigm to most events. Speech and Debate are communication events. The better communicators of ideas will win rounds. In debate that means making, substantiating (with credible evidence), and defending rational claims.

I believe value - criteria cases make for a good framework of debate, and if you fail to present a specific value and related criteria, I will 'assume' one for you and flow voting points around how well you defended the (possibly assumed or inferred) value/criteria. Even for things like Policy Debate, Congress, and of course Public Forum, I can't help but apply a 'value - criteria' mindset to why I'll give a win. The debater who shows supremacy in defending WHY their argument 'matters more' (offers value), and offers HOW their case fulfills specific value(s) better than the alternative position will win the debate (or spar or public forum or name the event).

I believe good communication is the ultimate goal of all speaking and debate events. If you bring spreading to a level that is incoherent, you lose. If you fail to support logical claims with credible evidence, you lose. If you intentionally seek to offend the judge, your opponents, or others with overt and malicious attacks on belief structures, cultures, preferences, or other demographic or psychographic factors, you lose and are reported to authorities for recommended censure.

While NSDA guidelines allow for 'critique' cases, per MY paradigm I maintain that they are pronouncedly lame. I've never seen one executed properly. Per NSDA guidelines I see only ONE viable approach for a successful critique case. It must:

1. represent a demonstrable ethical concern with the assigned topic of the debate from the perspective of the specific position (aff. or neg.) represented by the individual offering the case.
2. limit the arguments to a distinctive critique of the specific topic at hand. I will not consider or evaluate any conversation about the viability of 'debate in general' or other non-resolution-related 'critiques'. Without a demonstration of absolutely pristine logic and unquestionable ethical interest in why the critique is more important than the resolution, the critique case will receive an automatic loss from me every time. It would be a very rare situation where, in order to win, the opponent of the critique case would need to say anything more about the critique than "my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments about the resolution, I therefore win the debate on the resolution."

Once a round begins, I do not afford time for "off-time roadmaps" or anything, really. If you're standing there speaking, then you're presenting and except for very brief checks to confirm your audience is ready, you should be logging time (either towards your speech or your prep time). If you're desperate to squeeze every second of time for your arguments, the classy way to sneak the "extra" speaking time would be to say something like, "please deduct the following off-time roadmap from my prep. time".

I am currently the assistant coach at Layton High, this is my second year coaching and fifth year being involved with debate. I am an English and Philosophy major in my junior year of college. I have competed in every event except for policy and interp, but am familiar with all of them. I judge off of the flow.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: LD is traditionally a values debate, and should be done as so. One's case should successfully uphold their value and their criterion while having the best evidence to support it. LD is not solely focused on evidence, we must also analyze the values and morals.

Additionally, a round can be won or lost during cross-examination. Time should be used wisely, questions should be well thought out, and the exchange should be referenced in later speeches.

Competitors must speak clearly, and maintain professionalism.