I don't have strong opinions. I enjoy seeing the pros and cons of all sides. 

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Background

I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments in 2014 when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 40 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

Timing of speeches

I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

Speaker Points

I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

Major annoyances

Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. Some inadvertant rudness can be expected and it grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard. Unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.

Summary:
I'm a policy/progressive LD judge. That basically tells you everything you need to know. They/them pronouns please.
Overall paradigm:
Run whatever you want at whatever speed pleases you. I am happy to vote on any arguments that you win. This means I will vote on theory, kritiks, DA's, CP's, etc. I consider myself a tabula rasa judge and will not come in with any biases as towards the arguments the debate should be about. I VOTE OFF OF FLOW 99/100 TIMES (the 1/100 time is when you say something incredibly derogatory towards a marginalized community).
Speaker point range:
I usually give between 25-30, with 27 being average and anything below a 25 meaning that the speaker has made a huge mistake. I basically only give speaker points based on your strategy, so don't feel like you need to be a good speaker to be ranked high.
Speed:
Go as fast as you would like, given you slow down when I need to write down taglines. If your opponent doesn't like speed, be courteous and slow down if they yell clear.
Disclosure
Despite what anyone will tell me, I will always be a strong proponent of disclosing. I feel that without disclosure, I am not doing my duty as a judge and am forcing a time deficit that hinders the improvement of the debaters I am judging. I will disclose my decision with rationale, give brief critiques, and then be willing to answer any questions from any debaters.

PF Specific Paradigm I've judged this event extensively, including TOC bid and national qualifying rounds. As with CX and LD, I am totally fine with any arguments you run (yes, even "policy" arg's like theory and K's) provided you run them correctly. My only requirement is you HAVE to extend any arguments you go for in the FF in the summary speech. If I cannot see the argument on the summary flow, I do not count it.

2 years in Public Forum

2.5 years as an assistant debate coach for 2 different schools

Traditional mentality but understands progressive

I know policy very well and is my favorite event to judge, Speed is fine up to a point. I believe you can win without speed but the choice is yours. Do not feel limited in your range of strategies, I will understand what your talking about.

I prefer students who provide a clear and concise framework.  I also prefer students who provide a good summation of their case. If a student is disrespectful, overly patronizing, or displays poor body language I will mark down for that. I will also mark down for speaking rate (if you speak so fast I can't understand I will mark down - unless spewing in policy) and the excessive use of filler words. 

I look for a clear, understandable LD debate with strong clash of values and criterion.  

Don't spew; I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them.  

How to win the round: give a clear roadmap; cite your evidence clearly so that I can note it; constantly show how your points and evidence tie back to your value and criterion, attack your opponent's case but be polite, professional, and fair to your opponent; get your opponent to admit that your value is primary; employ logos/ethos/pathos in appealing to me; point out your points that flow through and those dropped by your opponent.

How to lose the round: bring in Ks and counter plans and jargon that you simply recite and can't explain in your own simple, powerful words; be rude and/or abusive to your opponent; spew so quickly that I stop taking notes; ignore me as the judge and just look at your laptop; drop points; tell me what I should think or do instead of persuading me; admit that your opponent's value trumps yours.  

Sharon Ellsworth-Nielson

Speed

-I'm not good with speed.  If you want to spread, go ahead.  I will drop my pen and stop flowing if you are incomprehensible to me.

Voters/Scoring Summary

-In the last couple minutes of your last speech I need a concise and simple explanation of why you won and on what key points/stock issues.

-If your opponent supplies this and you do not there is a high possibility that I will vote in thier favor, whether or not you thought it was justified.

Flashing and Flowing

-I want flashes of cases so that I can flow your cards and cases properly. Make sure what you flash me is what you are reading.

-If flashing becomes obnoxiously long I will take it out of your prep, other than that flashing isn't included in prep.

-Sign post.  If you don't tell me where you are it's not going on my flow.

-I am a flow judge.  That being said, I also do care about your spreading/speaking style and your conduct in round so keep that in mind.

Topicality

-Most of the time I won't vote on T.  If, however, you make a convincing (and sensible) arguement as to how topicality is important and it's implications I may vote in your favor.  Don't base your round on these arguements.

K's

-I don't understand most K's and don't think they are usually productive in the debate space.  Don't run them.

Theory

-Theory has a place in round, but I have a high threashold for it. Make sure you give me the standards and implications; if you don't, I can't find it convincing.

Jargon

-If you start rambling on about the USFG and QPQ you will lose me.  If you're going to use acronyms or jargon explain to me what they mean before you use them.

Value/Criterion in LD

-I prefer you to debate traditionally in LD with a value/criterion that links into your contentions and is strong enough to be a voter at the end of the round.

Pet Peeves

-Debaters that are abusive to (obviously) novice opponents for the sake of it.   If you decide to act this way, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

-Talking down to me or being incomprehensible.

-Disorganization

Larsen, Hunter

Judge for: Hurricane High School, UT-US

Background: 4 Year HS Debater, 9 Year Judge (Debate: CX, PF, LD) ( IE: O.O, FX, DX, Impromptu)

Events: Policy(CX), LD, PF, O.O, IMP, FX/DX

LD Paradigm: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a value and a value-criterion. The value is the abstract good to be achieved. The value-criterion is the standard used to measure success in achieving the value. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your value? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s value? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s value-criterion succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me!

PF Paradigm: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of CNN's television show, "Crossfire" (1982 -- 2005). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are never off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV persona. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience.

CX Paradigm: Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I dislike newer arguments such as kritiks and some theoretical points.

NO SPEWING!!!!

SPEECH:

When It comes to speech I am looking for articulate and prepared speakers.

O.O: I am looking for clear well written original speeches, the speech should be persuasive and articulate. The speech should be something you are passionate about.

DX/FX: Your speech should be informative and have at least 3 clear sources. The presenter should be prepared and knowledgeable on the topic chosen, they should also provide clear points and strong arguments on their point.

IMP: I am looking for clarity, clear points and a compelling speech on the topic chosen. (If it's funny, sad, serious, ect. make me feel it.)

BG:

Currently, I'm a radio news producer and have been for the last two years. Prior to kick-starting my career, I debated in college for 3 years, coached high school debate for 4 years, and competed in high school debate for 4 years.

I'm really up on current events, considering current events are my 9-5 and hobby. However, I love to learn new things and hear compelling and unique arguments.

In college, I competed in parliamentary debate. The best way to describe the event is like policy debate and extemporaneous speaking combined. I coached all forms of debate. And in high school, I did Oregon parliamentary debate and Public Forum.

What I like to see:

I'm a big fan of clash and having a clear flow. If I don't have it down on my paper, I'm less likely to vote for the argument. I'm a bit of a scatterbrain (thank you ADHD) so while I can keep up with a hoppy flow, I would prefer it keep it as clean as possible, for yours and my sake.

I enjoy strong impact and link debate and believe that's usually where the debate comes down to. When judging K debate, I believe framework and the impact debate are most important.

Additionally, I LOVE hearing arguments you wouldn't normally hear or go for. So, that wacky K or questionable disadvantage... free game. Debate isn't just about winning--I believe the fundamental point is learning and getting better at the craft. Try new things out when I'm your judge. I'll give you feedback and let you know how to make the case stronger for your next round.

I'm fine with speed, but will clear you if I have zero idea what you're saying. If I clear you or your opponent does more than twice, I would recommend just slowing down.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of trigger warnings when talking about sensitive subjects such as sexual assault and suicide. I won't automatically dock you if you don't inform me that you'll be talking about this before the start of the debate, but I probably will have a sour look on my face.

As always, feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I am a traditional judge. All decisions are based on arguments that are presented. If either team takes time to argue about a certain contention more than another contention I will judge heavier on the contention that is argued the most. I will not judge anything unless it is clearly stated, meaning if I catch a flaw in the argument I will not put that into consideration unless it is pointed out to me by the opponent.

What I look for when I judge is respect of me and other debaters.  That you try to do your best and learn from round to round.  I also want to see that you try to be interested about what you are speaking about.   

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.

The purpose of a debate is to persuade me to your side, to convince me you are right.

A consistent, concise and well supported case articulately presented is the key.

With that in mind:

- Give me a roadmap so I know where you are going;

- Summarize at the end so I know where you think you won;

- Evidence is important, but appeals to logic, history and analogy can also be persuasive;

- Make sure I can understand your argument—volume (in decibels or number of words) does not compensate for an unclear or unsupported argument;

- Do not use jargon—I am a judge, not a debate groupie;

- Be considerate—shouting your opponent down is not the same thing as convincing me.

My background:

In high school (so long ago), I participated in Lincoln-Douglas and Congress. In law school, I was a finalist at the Oxford International IP Moot Court.

I am a patent lawyer and litigator, having argued before federal courts in California, Illinois, Texas, and Virginia, among others.

No spreading. You will be deducted points for speed reading.   I would like for you to develop and clarify an argument.  

I will reward debaters who do not merely read their blocks but who come up with their own arguments on the fly, think independently, make strategic decisions, explain their positions, and weigh the competing policies or issues in rebuttal.   

I will reward you for clarity and persuasion.  Explain WHY, I should vote for you, especially in rebuttals

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

This old timer can't time, I prefer teams to time themselves.

Please do no spread/speed reading, I have a hard time hearing as it is.

I look for politness towards opponents (especially during cross examination/crossfire) I prefer teams to not abruptly interrupt one another during questioning. I reward teams for clarity and persuasion.

Explain why I should vote for you, especially in rebuttal speaches. I don't particularly like when debaters solely read from pre-written blocks, but rather when they come up with their own arguments on the fly, think independently, make strategic decisions, explain positions, and weigh the competing policies or issues in rebuttal.

Phones on airplane mode during round.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand