Hello! My paradigm will be broken down into a general overview of how I judge and specifics for each main event is listed below. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

I don't typically judge on this point, but remember to respect everyone in the round. This means not insulting people, respecting people's pronouns and prefered names. Generally, don't be rude and disrespectful. If there is a major issue in this regard I will take it to tab and contact the coaches and individuals who need to know. I don't expect this to be an issue, but I do want to set the expectation.

I did debate in high school so I am very familiar with all of the events. I primarily competed in Policy and LD. I'm primarily an impact and flow judge. Show me clear links to the impacts and how they are relevent to the round. Make sure that arguments aren't dropped, and if they are I know why and that it's intentional. I don't mind if people speak quickly, as long as all the judges (if there are multiple) and competitors agree before the round begins. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, mostly because I have often seen it used as a way to overwhelm the other team and win because of dropped arguments instead of debating in any real depth. I think it is important to have multiple different arguments to present, but I do prefer quality over quantity. If you set up a SpeechDrop or email chain please include me in it. Overall, be nice, have fun and try your best!

Policy:

Policy was the event I did the most in high school, so while I may not be familiar with the topic, I am well aware of the rules. I like impact debates with a solid focus on the flow. However, don't sacrifice comms for flow or impacts. I don't mind Counter Plans or Topicality arguments, but I'm not a huge fan of Kritiks. If you decide to run a K, make sure you understand it very well and have a solid link and alt. I don't usually vote on Ks and I often find them to be more trouble than they're worth. Many times people don't understand what they're saying and missinterpret the authors they're citing. I will know if you don't understand what you're saying, it will affect the quality of the debate, and impact your chances of winning. I like seeing a lot of clash on both sides of the flow. Make the round interesting, show me exactly why the plan is either a great or a terrible idea.

LD:

I love the value and criterion debates in LD. I like a lot of clash on both sides of the flow, but don't forget the value and criterion. I am a more traditional person when it comes to LD because I don't like counter plans or counter advocacies and I like seeing the moral side of the debate. Impacts are important, but in LD morality is the primary focus. Please don't try to turn the round into policy or PF. Those events have their places, LD is not one of them. I have yet to see a Kritik in an LD round that needed to be there. Often the arguments in the K could just be run as part of the case, so I'm not a huge fan.

PF:

I didn't really do PF in high school, so I am less familiar with the rules and standards. Regardless, I like seeing a solid framework that is upheld in the round and a solid flow. I do like impacts and clear link chains. I do prefer when frameworks are more than Cost Benefit Analysis, but it's not a requirement to win.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

Add me on email chains and email me if you have any questions before/after the round: hankanator13@gmail.com

TL;DR: I consider myself Tab Ras. I am comfortable with any type of argument, I am comfortable with any speed (P L E A S E drop a doc if we're online. I dont care how good you are, momentary lag could literally lose you my ballot - if i dont hear it or read it, i dont flow it), don't impact turn structural violence if you have any moral compass, and be respectful. Debate is a game you play with your friends, and you can't be friends with someone you don't respect! Plus if everyone is mad at each other all the time, none of us have fun. I probably won't look at the debaters too much, but know that I am listening, flowing, and processing every word!

Above all, the most important part of every debate is inclusion: Elitist and exclusionary practices are killing this activity across the board.

When your opponent has an accessibility request; unless you have a legitimate reason that their request is unrealistic, please comply and adjust your strategy so that your opponent can participate at their best. Reading overly complex arguments so your opponent can't respond and spreading when your opponent has asked you not to does not make you cool, smart, or a good debater. The best debaters are excited to have their ideas tested by other intellectual minds, not so scared of losing that they will do anything they can to manipulate the ballot for a cheap win. Oh, and also, please remember to have fun :)

LD/PF

LD: Value/Criterion

• This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
• There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. That being said, in my humble opinion, V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing. Whose morals? What moral guidelines? So, know that the more specific and nuanced framework will most always win out over the vague and general one.

PF: Framework

• For the love of all things good in this world, please stop reading Cost/benefit analysis in any and all debate events. PF topics are almost always written to have an inherently CBA structured debate, so reading it in case is a waste of your precious time. The only time you should read CBA is if your opponent reads some wacky framing and in the rebuttal you're like "Nah, cba lol" in which case you're fine. I'm exaggerating, but at the same time I'm really not.
• Seething pretense out of the way... CBA is the assumption, but I 100% believe that you can read alternative framework in PF. When you can't read a plan, F/W can help you narrow the debate in a nonabrasive way, and can lead to some very powerful debates. That being said, the same standards apply from LD (and policy...)

Substance

• Links, Links, Links. Debate is about the links. How do we get from your argument to its impact; how does voting for economic growth leads to a decrease in poverty; how does the existence of great power competition lead to nuclear war; how does implementing a UBI mean a marxist takeover that results in the death of all the soy plants as we are all forced to be vegans, etc! If you go through the effort of intentionally building a solid narrative that can guide me to the voting issues, the ballot will probably be in your favor. In other words, extend your case, don't just respond to what your opponent has said against your arguments!
• Impact Calc! The more impact calc you do in the debate, the less I have to do after the speeches are over, and that only works in your favor. Tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent's and the debate will be a lot easier for you.
• A clean flow makes a clean ballot! Make the effort to stay extra organized, and it will only work in your favor.
• Give me voters; in your perfect world, my RFD should just be a regurgitation of your last speech. Tell me where you're winning in your eyes. Tell me what's important to evaluate and make my life easier.
• Be Confident in yourself! You've got this!

Everything else is in CX

CX

I default to stock issues until told otherwise. I will vote on what you tell me to except impact turns to structural violence as explained above.

T

Here is where I have made enemies (Jett). I will vote for T. I will. But just be very aware that the bar for your Interp is really high. If their aff is actually non-topical, then it should be the easiest debate to vote on as I believe in fairness and education above all else. However, if the T debate is just teams spreading definitions of what Russia or NATO is back and forth, I will ignore T. You have been warned. :P

Theory

Every theory shell needs the following: Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters/Impacts, and Framing. Theory is to correct abuse, so don't make me sad by being abusive with your theory.

F/W

Tab Ras - what you say goes, right up until they say something different. Then you've gotta prove why your worldview is better.

AC

I don't care how you structure your case, just make sure it has all the necessary parts. K affs are dope and you will make me happy by reading one, but it is really easy to tell if you're reading one without knowing what it actually is, typically by the first cx, if not the rebuttals (don't just steal off of open ev).

DA

Every disad needs clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If they all exist in one piece of evidence, great. But you need to do the work to make the chain of events clear to me, as the clearer your argument is the more likely I am to vote on it.

CP

I love a CP. Read one if you do too. Every CP needs a text, it needs to be mutually exclusive, and it needs to have a net benefit. I.e. I need to know what the counterplan is, why it can't happen in the aff world, and why it is a better course of action than the aff. Perms are a test of competition, so if they can prove why the aff and neg can coexist, it doesn't become a reason to vote neg anymore, and I can comfortably default to the aff.

K

Warning for Idaho: I understand that it can be exciting to get a prog judge and want to read a k on the rare opportunity. However, in my experience, it is better for you to win the round with the prog judge and get solid feedback on the arguments you know, as opposed to the arguments that you've brushed up on or downloaded from the wiki. I'm always in the mood for a K, but reread the fairness piece at the top of the RFD. If you're a varsity excited to smoke a novice because, unlike you, the novice hasn't spent hours reading Baudrillard or Mbembe, you are bad at debate and I dislike you. That being reiterated, I love a good K debate! A few notes:

• Frame the ballot. When you read a K, give me a role in your vision of the world so that I know what's expected of me as a judge; give me instructions. If I have a stock lay case against an Identity K, I'm going to need work from both sides to determine the ballot. Most likely the K will be read against a case that has V/C or CBA which is framework. So, contest the moral question brought by the other team; don't ignore it.

• In 999/1000 cases I Do Not Believe in You Link You Lose. Prove the impact, no matter how obvious the impact is (even cap). Prove everything and assume nothing.
• The more specific the alt the better. Personally, I believe the material strategies outweigh complex ivory tower proposals to change the entirety of the human race's epistemology. In other words, I buy the alt of anarchist revolution by defunding the police and handing out guns in the street more than I buy the alt of transforming society into hippies singing kumbayah and loving one another. Extreme and hyper specific examples for sure, but I hope the point is carried across.

Do it, but do it right. I need a clear impact, a clear link to the aff, and an even clearer alternative. A material course of action is always better than a vague epistemology argument (tho epistemology is obviously key to K). I you want me to burn everything down, I will grab the torch, but you need to do all of the work necessary to outweigh the aff.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.