Jack Bradley

Highland High School '15

Idaho State University '21

1. I'm an old policy debater that is comfortable with what you want to do.

2. I think debaters are often too disconnected from reality.

3. I think reading Topicality in Novice Policy is Dumb. If you decide to run T as a Novice, and you’re the aff, just say you’re on the case list and you’ll win that flow with me 11/10 times.

‘23 State Debate Update:

Congrats on making it to State! I’m excited to judge this competition, and I want you to enjoy what could be some of your last debate rounds ever. Play to your strengths, debate in the way/style that you want! I’m flexible and competent and can keep up. In other words, I’m clearly one of the most comfortable prog K like judges at this tournament, so if that’s your speed, go for it!

Any questions? Just ask! Happy to help.

I have judged very little this year! I am not familiar with any of these topics as a result. That doesn't mean I need you to slow down for me and excessively overexplain your arguments, just keep the jargon/acronyms associated with the topic to a minimum.

I am a huge fan of framework/resolutionary analysis in all debate formats, because I often feel like opposing debaters arguments are like two ships passing in the night.

Robert Bradley

Paradigm * November 2019

I like judging. That is why I am here. Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures. You can make some great friends through high school debate. Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions. I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate. I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors. During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” criteria. Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round. If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.

I am looking for significant “voter” issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice. I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. Remember to have fun! Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don’t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”

Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. *

Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, and significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.

I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.

I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment. I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.

Judging/ Coaching Highlights:

8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho

Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018

Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah

Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah

Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach

National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014, 2015 & 2016

Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

I am a college student that debated all four years in high school. I did Policy for two years, LD for one year, and Public Forum for another year. I qualified for nationals in various speech and debate events and achieved quite a bit of success in high school. Speed is totally cool with me, but I want real warrants provided for each claim you give me, and I care about well-developed links just as much as I care about well-calculated impacts. I am fine with kritical arguments as long as you actually know your philosophies and do not completely misconstrue these philosophies in a attempt to simply win the round. 

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 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 Speech and Debate Coach for a High School in Salt Lake City, UT.  I occasionally judge both Policy Debate and Individual Events.  When I judge Policy Debate I am looking for significant voter issues.  I do not choose them myself unless forced.  I wait for the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote.  I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me.  I like to think of myself as Tabula Rasa, knowing of course that that is almost impossible.  But I do not care if you run a policy, performance, and or Critique, or what you wear or say during the round specifically regarding issues etc.  I can adjust.  I promise I am smarter than I look. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here.  However:

1. Be courteous- you can have confidence but don't be a jerk

2. Humor is appreciated

3. Debate like you want to be there
4.Sound smart--look like you know what you're talking about. You build ethos by knowing your arguments like the back of your hand.
5. Be bold.
6. Don't lie- I will probably vote against you just for lying.

When I judge Individual Events I really like to hear things I haven't heard before.  I am looking for a well constructed speech with a flow.  But I like stories.  Even in Impromptu.