Debate Experience
4 years at Highland in SLC, Utah.
3 years of policy, 1 year of LD that was progressive by Utah standards, but probably not as progressive as some circuit debaters.
I mostly debated in Utah, although I did some circuit debate at tournaments like Alta and UNLV.

Revised September 27, 2015 (Young Lawyers/Beehive Bonanza):

My involvement in debate since graduating high school has been limited to judging at a handful of tournaments. This means that my judging style has become more traditional than what it used to be. I am not opposed to any style of debate on principal, but there are certain arguments that I will be less likely to understand, such as some kritiks. Similarly, while I don’t dislike speed, I probably can’t keep up as much as other judges. How fast is too fast? I dunno. 

This year, I am going to start voting based on who I think did the better debating (as per the ballots used at most tournaments). To me, “Better Debating”, while entirely subjective, reflects a variety of (what I think are) reasonable expectations for debate, like

• How interesting you are (Translation: Would I rather watch you debate or read my cell bio textbook?)
• How organized you are (Translation: How many cups of tea will it take to get rid of the headache that looking through my flows has given me?)
• The quality of your arguments (Translation: Re-read your case right now and ask yourself if your second contention is really as good as you think it is.)
• How convincing you are (Translation: Is listening to you like listening to PETA trying to persuade me to become vegan? You’d better hope it isn’t.)
• Are you engaging with your opponents arguments (Translation: Debate without clash is like a football game where every kickoff is returned for a TD. The only difference is that your speaker points will be much, much lower.)
• Your understanding of the arguments you read (Translation: Did you actually prepare your case or did your coach say "Read this, have fun, peace out" without explaining it to you?)

I also don't think there is any such thing as an argument that is "right" in the context of debate. Just arguments that are better articulated to me. With that being said, there are definitely arguments that are objectively not true.

In the past, debaters who have won my ballot do a better job of explaining to me what arguments they have won, why they have won those arguments, and why those arguments matter in terms of my decision. 

Pet Peeves:

• Disorganized, boring debaters who make weak arguments
• Debates without clash
• Sports metaphors
• Recycled, cliched statements like "I can only see an aff ballot", or "As a brief, off-time roadmap".
• Reading an argument without purpose (Contrary to what your coach has told you, I don’t need you to define the word “The”. If you are never going to bring something up past the 1ac, don’t read it)
• People trying to shake my hand at the end of a round (DON’T. I will pretend to be sick. And chances are I won’t be.)
• Arguing with me (not the same as asking questions) about my decision (You lose 1 speaker point for every 30 seconds you argue with me)
• Being rude to your opponent (Wanna see how low your speaks can go?)

The most important thing is that you have fun and debate the way you feel most comfortable. I promise that I will do my best to accommodate any style of debate, and to be flexible in my decision making. There is no right or wrong way to debate.

If you have questions, email me at
yotam6@gmail.com

Good luck. I guess.
-Yotam

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

I judge tabula rasa. I expect debaters to convince me what arguments to vote on. I flow the round but it is the debaters responsibility to be clear about where on the flow they are arguing. This is most easily done by referring to specific structural elements of the each teams case, or citing the card author that the debater is responding to.

While I try my best to be a tab judge, I do prefer not to vote on theory. However if theory is argued, goes uncontested, and there is little else to vote on — then I might vote on theory.

I'm currently an Economics student at the University of Utah in my third academic year, second actual.

I did debate for three years, all three of which I did Lincoln-Douglas. I dabbled in Dramatic Interp, Extempt, Impromptu, Parli, and others. 

I was recognized for my skills in impromptu, Lincoln-Douglas, Interp, Mock Trial, and Model United Nations.

In terms of what I look for in a debate round, my main focus is on clash and logical consistency. I want arguments to make sense and connect to one another, and I want clash to be organic, not forced. Argue where the argument is, not where it was a round two tournaments ago. 

In terms of how I structure my rounds, I prefer speed that a lay judge would expect. I prefer debaters to sit during cross examination and stand for speeches. I prefer that debaters time themselves so that I can focus on flowing and judging. 

I am a quantitative person. Statistics, used honestly, are very persuasive to me.

I frequently check evidence. Don't try to slip things by on me!

Speed is great in policy and LD. It has no place in PF in my opinion.

Debate: 

LD- In LD, I vote on how well a debater can uphold their value/criterion based on their side of the Resolution. 

Policy- I vote on Impacts and the weight of the evidence that upholds that impact. 

Public Forum- I vote on Impacts as well. 

Overall I like debate that has clash, clear links and roadmaps, and a debate that challenges me to see a resolution in a new light. I like clear speakers that smile a lot. :) 

I dislike definition debate and unnecessary rude and unprofessional behavior. 

I'm pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.

Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)

I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.

My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.

Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.

Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.

I have been judging speech and debate for six years now (over 60 tournaments). I never debated in high school. I got involved in the debate community when my oldest child joined the debate team. I have had four kids on the debate team, two currently. So I guess you could say I am an experienced mommy judge. I have tried my best to learn as much as I can so that I can be a competent and fair judge. With that in mind, I offer you my paradigm:

In general, I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow tag teaming, flex time, non-timed road maps and non-timed evidence exchange. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am a big picture judge and an impact calculus junkie. I understand debate lingo. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I appreciate logical and analytical arguments as much as evidence based arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). As you can see, I am up for anything, but don't assume I know everything. Remember that although I have six years of experience judging, I am still learning. If you have something you really want to run, do it, but keep me up with you and educate me on your pet argument as you debate. I also love voters because I am lazy and if if I agree with your voters, you have just filled out my ballot for me. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I allow counter plans and progressive arguments. I only value the V & C if you do. I am still trying to figure out why that is so important. But I have voted on it in the past if the debaters made a big deal about it. I am more likely to vote against you if you drop an argument, since LD is all about clash, but will allow you to group arguments in subpoints as long as you answer each contention.

In Public Forum debate I don't have any specific things you should know. Just have fun.

Policy is my favorite. So know that if I get to judge your round, I am just so glad to be here. I think I covered most of it in my general paradigm but I did want to discuss T. I have voted on T before but only if it was an obscure aff and not one of the five novice affs. I go for reasonability over competing interpretations. However, I have had some beautiful T arguments wasted on me, I am very sorry to say. If you love T arguments and are willing to risk it, then persuade me and educate me on T. I want to understand it better and be more open minded in this area. I would have to say this is the only area I am biased, but it's simply because I don't get it.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

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.

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Email for chain: calenjsmith@gmail.com

Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.

Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.

Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.