I'm a very simple judge. I have experience judging Congress, PF, Policy, LD, and all other IEs. At the beginning of the year, I am lax, understanding, and offer constructive criticism. However, I get more strict as the year goes on. I firmly believe that it is up to you as debaters to impress me. However, this is DEBATE! Have fun! Make yourself at home. I'm a person, not a evil heartless zombie.

On that note, there is one major thing with me as a judge; DO NOT SPEW! I can listen fast, but if it gets to the point I can't understand you, I can't judge you and you WILL be marked last.

I have participated in high school debate for about 3 years for Logan high school and I am currently a member of the Weber State University Debate team, so I will flow and (usually) know what is going on in round.

That being said please explain your arguments; in context on how it engages with your opponents case. This is especially important when extending evidence. Give me examples why your evidence proves your point. Give me the full story.

My style:

I am your standard "policy oriented" judge up until someone tells me not to or why it’s bad to be one. ROB or ROJ args if done right are pretty convincing to me.

When running FW (and please do) please, please impact it out. It frustrates me when a good 6 min debate on FW turns out to be a wash just because neither side explained or extended an impact.

I love K affs, they are the breath of creativity that is important to debate imo. But keep in mind while running that to win that arg you must explain to me what your argument actually is. Have explanations how the aff is at the least the direction of the topic, or if it is not addressing the topic, explain why that is the preferred method of your kritik. While I think that K affs are great, they also run the risk of a particularly strong T/FW edging out their ground.

On the topic of the T arg, I will pull the trigger on it, but the standard time-suck won’t cut it. You will have to have a pretty fleshed out story how the affs case choice has a direct strat skew for the neg. Showing in round instances or having a topical plan text is a real good way to do that. Also, sub note on the T arg, I am not super familiar with the topic literature so you will have to explain maybe a little more than someone who has judged this topic before.

Debate is a highly competitive game, but is a superb educating tool as well. So have fun and learn!

Humor and wit displayed in round (as long as it is not offensive) will be rewarded will a marginally higher speaker score.



TL;DR -or- "But how do I win your ballot?

Impact out your args, defend them, weigh them, explain them. They are the reasons I vote for or against you.

Properly extend your evidence or arguments. No shadow extending or just reading the tag line.

Explain your K (in all its components) but expecially your alt.

If you have FW, also have an impact to go along with it.

Have fun and play nice!

Other notes of interest:

if you have any questions you can email me at davidastel1@gmail.com

I am listening to you even if I am not looking directly at you.

I would like to be on the email chain/pocketbox or have the evidence flashed to me, thanks in advance.

Brock Hanson

Precious Assistant coach, Rowland Hall St. Marks — five years

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

Role as judge in debate — I attempt to enter debates with as little preconcieved notion about my role as possible. I am open to being told how to evaluate rounds, be it an educator, policymaker, etc. Absent any instruction throughout the round, I will most likely default to a role as a policymaker.

Purpose of philosophy — I see this philosophy as a tool to be used by debaters to help modify or fine-tune specific parts of their strategies in round. I don’t think that this philosophy should be a major reason to change a 1AC/1NC, but more used to understand how to make the round as pleasant as possible.

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

Prep time — Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/when the speech-email has been sent. I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, but I will usually keep prep as well to help settle disagreements

Evidence — I would like to be included in any email chain used for the round using the email address below. I will read un-underlined portions of evidence for context, but am very apprehensive to let them influence my decision, unless their importance is identified in round.

Speaker point range — 27.0 - 30. Speaker points below a 27 indicate behavior that negatively affected the round to the point of being offensive/oppressive.

How to increase speaker points — Coherence, enthusiasm, kindness, and the ability to display an intimate knowledge of your arguments/evidence. Cross-ex is an easy way to earn speaker points in front of me - I enjoy enthusiastic and detailed cross-ex and see it as a way to show familiarity with arguments.

How to lose speaker points — Being excessively hostile, aggressive, overpowering, or disengaged.

Clarity — I will say ‘Clear’ mid-speech if I’m unable to understand you. I will warn you twice before I begin subtracting speaker points and stop flowing - I will attempt to make it obvious that I’ve stopped flowing in a non-verbal manner (setting down my pen, etc.) but will not verbally warn you.

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

Affirmatives - I don’t think affirmatives should be inherently punished for not reading a plan text, as long as they justify why they do it. I am probably more interested in ‘non-traditional’ affirmatives than a big-stick Heg aff.

Counter-Plans — Speeding through a 20-second, catch-all, 7 plank, agent counter-plan text will not be received well in front of me. However, super-specific counter-plans (say, cut from 1AC solvency evidence) are a good way to encourage debates that result in high speaker points.

Disadvantages — Specific, well articulated DA debate is very appealing to me, but super-generics like spending are a bit boring absent an aff to justify them as the primary strategy.

Framework — Engagement > Exclusion. The topic can be a stasis point for discussion, but individuals may relate to it in very different ways. (See Role as judge in debate)

Kritiks — Easily my 'comfort-zone' for debates, both for the affirmative and negative. Creativity in this area is very appealing to me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that whoever reads the best poetry automatically wins. Be smart and articulate about your arguments, and make it seem like you care about what you're talking about. The 'K’s are cheating and so they should lose' -esque arguments aren’t especially compelling, but if you can intelligently explain why the hippy-anarchists sitting across from you should go back to their coffee shops and beat-poetry, I'll vote on it. Performance as a method of supporting arguments is welcomed and enjoyable insofar as it is grounded in arguments.

Theory — I think specific, contextualized Theory arguments are much more persuasive than generic, broad-sweeping theory claims. Spending 5 minutes on Theory in a rebuttal does not grant you an instant ballot, inversely,15 seconds of blippy violations it at the end of the debate makes it difficult to pull the trigger absent blatant concessions. I’m more comfortable and better versed in regards to theory arguments than with topicality. I am very persuaded by arguments against performative contradiction. I understand the strategic utility of having multiple lines of offence in a 1NC, but would prefer to evaluate 1NC’s holistically as a constant thought.

Topicality — Topicality is perhaps where I’m least experienced from an argument standpoint, and thus don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates, I do, however understand its utility against blatantly abusive affirmative. In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Feel free to ask before round or email me if you have any questions

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

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.

Experience:
Policy debate student- Kearns High 00-03
Debate coach- Juan Diego Catholic High 2011-2022

I'm a progressive LD judge, moderate CX judge. I hate the idea of a judge paradigm. I don't believe my preference should determine what is presented in the round. I am not opposed to particular issues or topics, nor do I prefer certain issues over others.

The expectation for any round is that you present well formed arguments, provide support for your case, and refute your opponents case. I can handle any speed you can deliver, however it is your responsibility to be clear.

I vote strictly off my flow. If you are not clear, I do not flow. I will not tell you to clear up, it is your job to know if you are being an effective communicator. Likewise, if you don't tell me where to flow something (for example, on my opponents second contention), I will flow it straight down -which may not bode well for you.

In any round, you need to give me a reason to prefer you. Impact your arguments. Well formed, quality arguments will be reflected in speaker points.

Professionalism, formality and presentation (including diction, lack of slang and vocabulary) play a large point in my awarding of speaker points, and the rules below are a guide to best practices.

PARADIGM: I judge on a cross between policy styles with an emphasis on Speaking / Communication Skills ; winning AFFs will demonstrate that they have presented all the stock issues (H,I,S,S,T) , while successful NEG's will show specifically why and how the AFF has failed to support one or each of the stock issues, and/or how their counter meets stock issues better or more completely. AFF's should also show that they have fully supported their case and during their scoring summary explain how NEG has failed to attack or prevail on each of the stock issues.  

NEG's should always ensure they have sufficiently attacked each of their opponent's stock points and demonstrated specifically how AFF has failed point by point. NEG should negate / address / critique AFF's H.I.S.S.T. or address stock points through their Counterplan but provide a brief roadmap before beginning.

Suggestions

1) PROFESSIONALISM & CONDUCT: Be polite and professional at all times. You should greet your opponent(s) cordially and get whatever sharing is needed out of the way as soon as you sit down (e.g.thumbdrives etc.). 

a) Do not talk to your partner during opponent's argument - you should not  not be heard  while an opponent is presenting their case, passing notes is ok, typing is ok, etc.;  b) Your diction and language should be professional at all times. Try not to use words/slang such as: like, you know, whatever, bull, umm, hell, and any other words that you shouldn't / wouldn't use in a professional setting; d) Do not smirk or make any facial gesture at opponents.

2) SPREADING*: You should speak NO FASTER than your words AND meaning can both be understood, Any faster than about four (4-5) words a second (about 250 pm), at least for me, is testing the bounds of at least my comprehension. 

3) LOGICAL FALLACIES: Watch out for what I call logical "leaps." An example of this would be when you arguing a position and you use a citation for "more" than it stands for;  this is unacceptable in either direction, keep your arguments simple, tight and intelligble. Then provide a scoring summary that reflects those arguments and provides a brief overview of your view of your opponent's shortcomings.

4) THEORY: I have a high threshold for theory and don't consider it a voting issue.

5) SCORING SUMMARY: Each side should provide a two - three minute Scoring Summary, unless you think you need more time to address issues that arose during cross -  that details their accomplishments and their opponents failures; thus AFF should cover how they supported their H.I.S.S.T. and how the NEG failed to address or conflict their evidence while the NEG should point out specifically which H.I.S.S.T. points the AFF failed to support or address, or/and then why their counterplan offers better H.I.S.S.T.  

GOOD LUCK! Debate is by far the best thing you can do to advance yourself in school, college and life.

CX-

I am pretty tabula rasa, I dig everything from Cap-K's to stock issues. I can handle spreading if you are decent at it and I can also support a K or any other counter plan you can run. An automatic down vote will be coming your way if I don't have a road map or taglines to follow THROUGHOUT the round, whether you spread or not. I will dock you more if you are under time rather than over, and I LOVE lots of aggression.

PF-

Basically the same as policy but I will give you an automatic L if you spread or use a plan.

***For both events, I like to see that the work between partnerships is equally distributed. For example- when I used to do debate my judges would always write on my ballot that I was too aggressive compared to my male partner, and that I should let him do all the work. With that being said, if you identify as female, PLEASE show me how much butt you can kick with your words. Overall just make sure one of you isn't carrying the burden.

IE's-

These events ARE NOT meant to be serious. With that, please be entertainin. Be dramatic, humorous, loud, even throw yourself on the ground if you have to. If you do not use all your time, give roadmaps and taglines, or follow my paradigm I will rank you last.

CX-

I am pretty tabula rasa, I dig everything from Cap-K's to stock issues. I can handle spreading if you are decent at it and I can also support a K or any other counter plan you can run. An automatic down vote will be coming your way if I don't have a road map or taglines to follow THROUGHOUT the round, whether you spread or not. I will dock you more if you are under time rather than over, and I LOVE lots of aggression.

PF-

Basically the same as policy but I will give you an automatic L if you spread or use a plan.

***For both events, I like to see that the work between partnerships is equally distributed. For example- when I used to do debate my judges would always write on my ballot that I was too aggressive compared to my male partner, and that I should let him do all the work. With that being said, if you identify as female, PLEASE show me how much butt you can kick with your words. Overall just make sure one of you isn't carrying the burden.

IE's-

These events ARE NOT meant to be serious. With that, please be entertainin. Be dramatic, humorous, loud, even throw yourself on the ground if you have to. If you do not use all your time, give roadmaps and taglines, or follow my paradigm I will rank you last.

Curtis Wardle

curtiswardle@gmail.com

435-757-6164

TLDR: debate however you would like in front of me. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my ability.

Speed: 6. If you aren't clear, then it makes my job infinitely harder. If you spread through the standards on T, Theory, and other analytic arguments, I won't feel guilty if it doesn't make it onto the flow. I can only evaluate what I was able to flow.

K: cool

CP: Cool

DA: Cool

FW: Cool

T: Go for it

Performance: Go for it.

Over/underviews: Please

Non Topical affs

I am open to new uses of time, performance, and affs that are not topical. However, I feel it is the burden of the affirmative to provide solid framework telling me to evaluate the round differently than if I were a traditional policymaker.

Topicality I'll be honest here. As aff, I was frequently non topical and as neg I read T all of the time. I am okay with T hacks, and I won't punish an aff outright so long as they can provide ample reason why their aff would be preferrable to the topic. I will default to competing interps on T debates generally.

Debate authors: this is my pet peeve. Debate people are great for advice at camp, they're not gods on the T flow. Cut it out. "Don't use me in round," Steve Knell, 2015

Kritiks

I don't really feel like I should have to put a section in here for K's but, here we go. I was a K hack that read Queer Theory/Ableism all of senior year. I believe that the K is a valid argument, and provides great (if not real world value,) intellectual value. I am familiar with queer, fem, and ableism literature as well as biopower. If you choose to read other identity critiques or something that isn't a "generic K," I may call for evidence. I will evaluate arguments I am unfamiliar with to the best of my ability.

Perm

Most CPs are totally able to be permed. I require debaters explain how the permutation is functional first, and evaluate whether or not the perm harms the integrity of the kritik if that becomes relevant. I am happy to grant perms, but if you do not tell me how the perm would function, I will most likely conclude neg.

DA

Honestly, disads are my least favorite arguments. If you want me to vote for it, you're best going for a CP/DA strategy.

I was in forensics all four years of high school (mid-1980's) and debated Cross-Ex (policy) with the same partner all four years. By the end we became quite good and made it to semifinals in state our junior and senior years (but sadly never won). It is fun to be associated with debate again, now as an assistant coach and judge, but my how things have changed! Between spewing, spreading, flashing, even using computers instead of 4x6-inch evidence cards, policy is a totally different animal. I feel that arguments and discussions are more "wide and shallow" than "narrow and deep" these days. That's fine, but I rarely give the win to a team whose strategy is to "shotgun" and overwhelm the other team with so many (arguably superficial) arguments that they cannot counter them all. I much prefer a debate where there is actual thought and good arguments and clash over key issues/weaknesses (aff or neg) than both teams hitting the search button on their computers to find some pre-baked counter to each point. Good thinking, respectful clash, and killer non-BS arguments make for an enjoyable, satisfying debate.

Specific aspects of my judging philosophy/paradigm:

Stock issues: I think these are important, but they are not the sole determiner of my vote, and neg needs to bring up the weaknesses, of course. Solvency is an important one. The aff can show significant harms but if they cannot show (with evidence) that their plan will reduce or remove these harms, then it is hard to support the plan. But, the neg needs to point that out and maintain that throughout the debate. CPs etc will also be evaluated through the lens of policy stock issues to the extent that is appropriate. Keep things on-topic with the resolutions, as well.

Kritiks: You are welcome to run Ks, and I recognize that it is common that people have stock generic Ks they run against every aff case, but they will have to be very, very good to win with them; I prefer policy debate that sticks to real, pragmatic issues and... policy!

Speech sharing/flashing: I guess this has become the norm. Philosophically, I don't like flashing because it removes the burden of *listening*, which decreases the quality of the debate. You are free to flash, but try to be efficient. Most importantly, remember that as the judge, I do not have access to the files that you are flashing (and I don't want them). So, make it clear to me what you are discussing and referring to. If you say, "the card at the top of page three," I will have no idea what you are talking about.

Spreading/spewing:ItisfineifyouwanttospreadduringtheconstructivespeechesbutIaskthatyouspreadonlywhenreadingthecardandthatyouslowdownatinybitandsignpostwhereyouareinthestructureofthedebateandalsospeakclearlywhenindicatingthesource(authorandyear)ofyourevidencecardsifyouspreadthroughtheentirespeechthenitwillbehardformyoldearstokeepupandmyflowwillgetmessyandifIamnotflowingwhatyouaresayingthenitwillworkagainsyouIpreferthatteamsspendmoreenergythinkinganddevelopinggoodarguementsanddevelopatacticalstrategythantryingtoradtheequivalentofthebibleineightminutes.

Nuclear war: A few years ago I judged a debate in which the neg said that the aff's case to train dolphins to swim stretches of ocean with advanced sensors on their backs will lead to nuclear war. Really? Really?? Fortunately, the aff said, "Ok, folks, let's take a step back and acknowledge the absurdity of what the neg is postulating." The policy topic certain years might involve geopolitics and under certain circumstances nuclear war might indeed be a possible outcome. But please keep it real and reasonable.

Games, hypersensitivity, BS: The worst round I ever judged was actually at a state tournament. A female participant pretended(?) to take issue with a member of the other team using the term "you guys" during cross ex, saying that it was a manifestation of gender bias engrained in today's society and that her team was disadvantaged from the start because of this denigration of women. The other team should have ignored it, but instead tried to explain that historically cavemen were the food gatherers while the women stayed at home with the kids, and that helped establish today's societal hierarchy. It went downhill from there. Participants were crying, apologizing, another judge became upset with the frame of the arguments and huffed out of the room. I wish I could have given a loss to all involved. My requests: please stick to the debate issues and don't try to play games.

I'll close with this postscript to my high school debate experience: I graduated from high school over 30 years ago and today in my career I find myself working closely with and having to convince individuals, committees, national governmental agencies and international organizations to agree with my point of view and adopt policies or direct money towards the causes I am championing for. I'm pretty successful at that and credit the training I learned during cross-ex debate. It all comes down to listening, digesting, considering the others' perspectives and presenting arguments in a way that are digestible and enthusiasm-generating. Professionals have low tolerance for BS or insincere arguments, and the real world does not involve kritiks. (Imagine if the bank loan officer you were asking for a loan responded, "No, I will not grant your loan because that is supportive of capitalism that is the root cause of many of today's problems in the world.) As a debater, I encourage you to learn listening and critical thinkng skills, to not race through things and to step back and look objectively at the situation you are dealing with.

Thanks for reading.