Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

• The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

• The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

I debated throughout high school, mainly LD but also a bit of PF. I'm versed in Policy as well. I just never competed in it.

I vote on flow. I'm down for whatever. You decide where the round goes. If you run original and interesting arguments, I'll give you a boost in speaker points. If I think both teams deserve to break, I'll give both teams high speaks and vice versa. Pretty basic.

LD --

LD sets itself up for interesting moral debates. But if you want to just discuss policy, that's fun too. Regardless, give me some framework to vote under, even if not explicitly stated

From a technical side, each speech should address everything in the debate up to that point. I don't mind dropped arguments. I'll vote on what arguments stand on the flow at the end.

PF --

I think framework is generally not essential in PF. If it's an essential part of your case, make sure you spend time on it, then I'll absolutely vote on it.

From a technical side, I think PF should be pretty flexible, so basically do whatever you want with each speech. However, if you don't talk about an argument for two consecutive speeches it's dropped.

Policy --

I'll vote on whatever: T, Theory, Ks, PICs, K Affs, etc. I let Neg teams do anything. Because of this, I want your arguments to be actual answers to the Aff, so don't waste time on a generic K that has a shaky link.

From a technical side, it's the same as LD.

For any style of debate --

Warrant your arguments. Most cards just mean someone at some time said something. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. I'll vote on logical takedowns of arguments. Warrants explain the flow.

I prefer analysis/weighing arguments to card pushing. Don't read a card that isn't relevant just to read a card. Make an argument instead.

I dislike ridiculously long link chains. I'll vote on them if your opponent doesn't answer them, but taking down one link is all that it takes to drop the argument.

I'm not stuck to traditional argument structures. If you don't know how to structure a type of argument, don't worry, still make your argument, and I'll vote on it like anything else

I have been judging debate for the last 10 years. I like straight up policy debate - I consider myself a "policy maker" type judge. I do NOT understand kritiks and do not recommend you run them. I do vote on topicality if there is actual abuse in the round, and I do not mind if it is run strategically by the negative. I do not mind speed through the warrants of your cards, however slow down on your tag lines because I do flow your debate and judge off of my flows. My philosophy is that constructive speeches and cross examinations are for the teams to share evidence. Rebuttal speeches are for you to make sure I understood what arguments have come through and win your side the round. Make sure you impact calc out the round for me in your final rebuttal speeches and give me voters. Most of the time I followed the round, however make sure I did not miss something you find an important voting point. I do not time flashing as long as it is reasonable - do not stall during flashing in order for your partner to prep.

My name is Zacharyah, I use they/them pronouns. I am a tabs judge, I’m comfortable judging any argument so long as it’s executed well. Run your stuff, do the line by line, am have fun! I’ll break down my philosophy per argument.

Experience: Centennial High School Policy 4 years (4 bids to TOC). Arizona State- 1 year.

Include me in the email chain: zacharyahharbauer@gmail.com

Case: Case debates are incredibly important to me. Never forget that the 1AC happened and attack the case. Line by line is extremely helpful for me, try to stick with it to earn speaker pints

DA: tell the story of the disad. Have specific links and strong internal links. Uniqueness can overwhelm the link. I’ve yet to vote on the Trump base disad and I have a difficult time seeing myself ever voting for it. Not saying it’s impossjble, just an uphill battle.

CP: prepare to defend the theoretical implications of the argument. Cross-x is binding when it comes to conditionality

K: try to link to the aff in some way. Run your weird stuff if you want, just keep the flow clean

K Aff: run whatever. Don’t need a plan text to win my vote but framework can change that

Framwwoek: love it. I’m just as likely to vote for a k of few as I am to vote for fw proper.

Topicality: I love this argument. It needs to be well developed. If you’re going for it I’m the 2’r it should be all you go for. Default to competing interpretations

Theory: don’t speed through this.

Speaker points: I look to give speaker points to people who maintain a line by line, enunciate clearly, compare warrants within evidence, don’t drop anything, overviews at the beginning of the speech. Those are some of the things I look for

tldr; execute your stuff. I flow by paper so be mindful of what you’re speed through. I’ll call for evidence after round. Have fun!

TLDR

I did Policy debate for two years in highschool and almost exclusively competed at local Idaho tournaments. I am now in my second year of doing parli/NPDA debate in college. I was a 2n in highschool and was mostly a T/ptx/cp debater. In college, I run K's in most of my rounds. Just do what you're comfortable with and good at.

T/Theory

I'm a more gamesy judge than most. I like theory and T debates as well as unique/trixie theory arguments. The only argument I have a uniqely threshold on is an RVI. It would take a cold concession to get me to vote on one and even then I'd be crabby. That said, impact turns to T and Theory are fine.

Policy Arguments

Run whatever you want but don't assume that I know topic-lit or the creative name that your camp came up with for your core disad. The status of your offcase positions (i.e. counterplans and alts) doesn't justify contradictions between sheets that generate straight turns on one sheet or the other. I'm cool with condo and dispo in policy unless told otherwise. Also, I think that PICs and other tricky cp strategies are interesting but will vote on PICs bad.

Kritiks

I really like Ks but still have A LOT of reading to do before I'll understand everything you're running. What I know is mostly not high theory i.e. cap, neolib, colonialism, anthro ECT. but I can hang with some DnG and other high theory that I haven't read if you explain things very simply to me.

I evaluate perms as advocacies unless told otherwise. This means that I'm less focused on framework and more on links v. link turns and alt v. alt offense (unless you go for an impact turn/framework strat). I don't vote on links of omission and would like a clear link to the AC established early and blown up in the 2nr. This is easiest for me and I'm lazy.

I think performances are valuable and have a place in debate but should not weaponize identity in a way that makes me choose between your survival strategies and the other team's cap argument.

Speed

is fine. Spreading when the other team repeatedly asks you to slow is not. Don't exclude people from debates. Also don't read your speed bad argument if you didn't ask the other team to slow.

Access

Please let me know if I can help improve the environment that you're debating in by accommodating any ADA or identity related obstacles to you competing and having fun. Debate should be fun and safe.

Speaker Points

I am on the high end when it comes to giving out speaks. I usually give the 1 28-30 or 38-40 based on the ballot options and rank down from there.

Misc.

Be nice.

I don't time flashing.

Don't steal prep or type while the other team has your flash drive. If you do, your speaks will suffer.

I try to protect against new arguments.

Please for the love of God extend warrants in cards and not just tag lines. Collapse to arguments. Collapse sheets of paper.

Don't flow off of your laptop exclusively. The #1 cause of novices popping senior teams in front of me is when one team makes analytical cross applications of cards and the other team drops them because they weren't in the speech doc. I know that it's tempting to rely on the computer, but you'll be a better debater if you're locked in on your flow.

I really love debate and helping folks learn (when I can), so feel free to ask me questions after the round!

Email me @ blakejonescontact@gmail.com if you want help with debate, someone to look over your prep and give feedback, or to ask me questions ahead of round. I'm still learning too but will do my best.

As a coms judge I am looking for a classic/traditional debate where you are supporting or negating the resolution with your value criterion. I appreciate respectful clash and will attempt to flow. I am okay with moderate speed. I understand that LD is morals based but I am looking for empirical impacts weighed under your value and criterion.