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.

Assistant Debate Coach Skyline High School UT (2011-present)

Update: 11/14/18

[justinbaker006 gmail com]

I evaluate debate argumentation before evidence. Unless you specifically tell me to look at x,y,z evidence first, it's unlikely that I will hinge the debate on the evidence. I prefer voting off of the flow, but will look to substantiate evidence comparisons through the evidence.

I heavily favor debates that actively encourage clash. I find this notoriously lacking in small circuit policy v k debates. For the kritik, I like concise overviews and additional link analysis.

I prefer contextualized theory debates, over flow heavy theory debates. Resolution and round specific analysis carries more weight on my flow than the number of your turns to topic education.

I try to follow a speaker point system with median 28 and deviation .5. In this system a 29.5-30 reflects top 2% of speakers on the national circuit.

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Jamie Cheek 
Weber State 

Updated for 2015-2016

I have been involved with college policy debate for over 10+ years. This is my fifth year coaching at Weber State University.

General Issues: 

1. Impact assessment and comparative analysis of the debate are necessary. I will rarely call for evidence.
2. I think one smart analytical argument can take out several warrantless cards. Also, I am not as involved with the research-side of things anymore, so extra clarification about topic-specific things might be helpful. 
3.I like to keep track of prep time, and I will get cranky about prep stealing. 
4. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing at the first beep.

Specifics: 
Theory – I have few biases about theory. I think all theory is debatable, except probably dispo bad; I will vote every time that dispo is not bad by itself. I’d prefer if you’d just say it’s conditional. If you want to go all in on a theory argument there are a couple things you need to have: 1) a link 2) an impact 3) a justification that is both a reason why you should win but also a reason why what they did is enough to cost them the round. Also, Ben Warner once told me, “Everytime I see someone go all in on theory because they think they have to, they usually didn’t.” So keep that in mind, I think it is sound advice. I also think the phrase "Status quo is always an option" doesn't actually mean anything, just saying conditional. 

Topicality – Everyone always says they love a good T debate; I also fall into that category. I will tell you my default is competing interpretations. The hardest part about T debates is that teams are unwilling to impact their interpretation. This makes it very hard to evaluate, and forces me do that work for them, which I don’t like to do. 

Framework – My whole debate career I was definitely on the side of "Policy Debate Good." However, I am willing, and have voted for, other types of frameworks. I think the most important part of this debate is that there needs to be an interpretation, but also an impact. Not just link arguments or “fairness important,” but what your framework means for my ballot. I think framework debates often boil down to a card war with no analysis as to how I’m supposed to evaluate the round based on the framework that “wins”. Make your framework offense to help you win the round. 

K’s – Here is an area that I am very unfamiliar with. I’m not saying “don’t read the K in front of me.” I’m more saying “I probably don’t know exactly what X author says.” I understand a lot of the strategy involved with this type of debate, it is the more specific nuances that I am probably the weakest at. For example, any high theory K's are going to be a struggle for me, especially if it has complicated terminology that is specific to the lit base. Also, you can read whatever aff you want in front of me, as long as you have a reason to vote affirmative. Talking about the topic is nice, but not required. I also think that impact turns to FW are a reason to vote affirmative.

CP’s – You got them, read them. I think cp’s that result in the plan no matter what are abusive. I think tricky cp’s shouldn’t be too tricky that I don’t get it. I also think at some point during the debate their needs to a be a moment where there is a clear explanation of the CP and how it solves the aff and why it is competitive. Also, for me to revert to the world of the SQ in an instance where the aff wins a permutation, this needs to be clearly set up and articulated by the 2NR.

DA’s – I think there should be more disads in debate. However, as much as I read politix in college, you should not be fooled. I will not be up on the newest scenario, so maybe a little overview in the 2nc would be nice. I also think the impact turn is a bit of a lost art, aff’s should do this more often to disads.

Ryan Cheek

Assistant Director of Forensics

Weber State University

***Updated for Wake 2015***

This is my 12th year in college debate. I would like to be included on your email chain (ryancheek@weber.edu). For me, debate is the intersection of community, paraprofessional training, and gaming. I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you. That being said, after eight years of judging, I’ve come to realize some of my own quirks and limitations more fully:

1. Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
2. I can sometimes be facially expressive and I don’t think my expressions are counter-intuitive. If I give you a confused look, then I’m probably confused. If I give you a skeptical look, then I’m probably skeptical of what you are saying.
3. Debaters that can maintain eye contact and deliver a compelling speech are very impressive to me.
4. On occasion, and particularly in debates with a lot of perms, I will correct you in cross-ex in regards to what the perm texts I recorded you saying are.
5. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.
6. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
7. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
8. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
9. Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot, but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
10. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
11. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
12. I’m not a fan of two-person speaking. This comes in many forms. Debaters talking over each other in CX, partners prompting each other through extended monologue, performative elements that make it difficult to tell who is giving what speech, teams prepping very loudly with side commentary while the other team’s speech is going on, etc.  Please, one person at a time.
13. I like to keep time. When your timer and my timer are in conflict, mine trumps.
14. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
15. I don’t want to adjudicate ethical challenges. If I have to do so, then be aware that presumption is on the side of the accused.

Finally, I love debate and the community that it generates. Competition is fun, but is ultimately secondary to the communal nature of what we do. I don’t treat my job as a coach/critic much differently than I do my job as a teaching faculty member. In both spaces, pedagogy is my primary responsibility and I promise to do my best to live up to being the educator you deserve. 

I've done every form of debate, and I've made it to Nationals in LD and PF. I started as a very traditional debater, but moved to be one of the most progressive debaters in my circuit. Don't be afraid of running what you want. As far as LD is concerned, I want an actual comparison of values. Show me why yours is more important, or why they can't achieve theirs. Without suitable clash in the round, it is up to the judge to intervene, which is something debaters never seem to like. So don't make me do it.
Asside from that, I know LD is typically high end philosophy and confusing your opponents with big words and philosophy jargon. 2 things as far as that's concerned:
1- Base your philosophy in reality. If your advocacy is unobtainable, there's no reason to vote for it in my opinion. No matter how perfect it might be.

2- If you use one of your fancy words and assign it the wrong definition, I'll know, and it won't look good.

Debated in High School from 2010-2014, Judged and coached from 2014-2019. I may need a bit of time to adjust as I haven't judged since then, so bear with me. my email is dylan.paul.frederick@gmail.com for any questions, and for adding me to the email chain.

I've seen a lot of stuff, please feel free going with any debate style you prefer. Try to assume I don't know a ton about what you are reading.

If you want to win in front of me, please try to go top down - what is the framing I should look to at the end of the round, what is the most important impact/voting issue/whatever, and what is the link to that offense. I pretty much look at what offense is there for me to vote on at the end of the round, and try to sort out which offense wins. You can't go wrong with more depth on your link arguments in front of me, as long as there's a reason to vote for those links.

I don't have strong opinions either way on theory arguments, critical affs, T violations, ect. Do what you like and convince me what the debate should be about.

The debates I like the most are ones where you play to your best strengths, and debates with plenty of actual argument interaction. I have ADHD so the best way for me to disengage from the debate or miss an argument or just not care is to read blocks at each other and not make any explicit, direct challenges to your opponents arguments. If you're not going to actually debate, it makes me want to flip a coin, because you're leaving me to decide which arguments were best myself (I'm always trying my hardest to be fair, but I'm not going to give good speaker points if I'm left trying to compare two ships passing in the night)

If you have any specific questions or concerns, feel free to ask me.

Rowland Hall '14
George Washington University '18

In high school I was the 2N/1A for the first 3 years, I was the 2A/1N my senior year and in college.

tldr: You do you. I will do whatever I can to evaluate what you give me.

People I think similarly to/shaped how I debate -- Mike Shackelford, Greg Zoda, Brian Rubaie, Brett Bricker, Jordan Foley, Tasha Jhangiani, Ethan Arsht

Debate is a game, but unlike a lot of other activities there aren't a lot of set rules. This is your activity so I think that you should make it what you want it to be. The rest of this is how I have viewed debate in the past but my opinions are constantly changing, and I've found myself enjoying both policy v. policy and k v. k rounds.

Prep time and other logistical things - Prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer. I believe that clipping is a serious problem in the community and if there's an ethics challenge presented I will immediately stop the round and evaluate the recording (I'm abiding by the NDCA guidlines on clipping to determine if there has been a violation). If I conclude that the team has in fact clipped it will be an automatic loss and 0 speaker points. I never thought I would have to say this but when you start the timer I expect the next either 8 or 5 minutes to be filled with you talking, in otherwords you cannot take prep in the middle of the speech.


Things about me – I don’t like calling for cards because I believe that evidence should only be given the weight in decisions that they were given in the round. That means that if you tell me to vote on a specific piece of evidence but don’t explain it you shouldn't be surprised when I don’t evaluate the 17 awesome warrants in the card that you didn't talk about.


T – I think this can be a good option and I love watching these debates when they’re done well. That being said, I think you need to have either in round abuse or very specific potential abuse. Why should I care if you don’t get the spending DA? Do you lose critical CP ground? Why do things like ground and fairness matter? Those things are just internal links to impacts so make sure that you win why your rules for debate are good.


Theory – A lot of what I said about T applies here. I probably err aff on CP theory and neg on things like conditionality. That being said 2 condo are fine, 3 can be ok if they don’t conflict and 4 is pushing it but anything can be justified.

Case debate - When done well this can win the round for either team. I believe that impacts can be reduced to zero risk or negligible risk. Sidenote: I really love well done hege debates because this is essentially what I'm studying in college.

DAs – Aff-specific links and external impacts are key here. Impact framing is key and I think a strong DA paired with an advantage CP and some case defense is a great strategy.


CPs – The more specific the better. I can go either way on competition. I tend to err aff on cheating CPs and I need a strong competition story, otherwise the 2A that sits on the perm is going to do pretty well.


Ks – Often one of the best options, I find that whichever team talks about the aff the most is usually the one that wins. For example, let’s say the aff reads a heg aff and the neg read Baudrillard’s critique of power. Instead of reading generic Baudrillard indicts, the aff should defend their epistemology and knowledge production. On the other side, the neg should make turns case args and not just throw around jargon. I’ve read a lot of the lit so there is a good chance that I know what you’re talking about. That being said, my prior knowledge doesn’t mean that I expect a lower level of explanation. I think you need specific links to the 1AC, not just to the resolution as a whole. I also differ from some judges in that I don’t think that you necessarily need an alt to win the K because if you win the K you have presented a reason the aff is bad so they should lose. Given that, I think to win that debate when you're neg you need to win a framing where only things in the round matter rather than just the fiated implications of the plan. You should note that it will be very hard for you to get me to vote on an aff framework interpretation that says that there shouldn't be ks in debate.


K affs – I have read everything from heg affs to affs without a plan text. I think that the aff should probably be related to the resolution in some way but I can be convinced otherwise. I think that you need some type of more concrete impact. I feel like a lot of K affs assert something like “cap is bad” or “conventional knowledge production is bad,” but that idea is never totally explained and gets lost in pure theory. Make sure you use your K tricks well and do what you want.


I feel the need to add a small section on role of the ballots. I feel like a lot of teams confuse this with the method debate. Even if the other team concedes that I should vote for the team that best does whatever it is that your aff does I still believe the debate is a question of competing methods and who has the best one. Essentially I find self serving ROBs annoying and probably won't give them a lot of weight in the round. 


Framework – This can be a good strategy against affs that say nothing or do nothing. I often find myself believing the basis of framework arguments that limits are good and that the topic is good. The major problem I've seen in framework debates is that people assume that things like fairness and decision making skills are impacts in and of themselves. Instead, these things are internal links to things like education. Tell me what you’re going to do with your decision making skills and why we can only get them in debate; otherwise, I’ll be easily swayed by a 2AR that gets up and says that something like decision making is inevitable. I also find that many people don't have a specific defense of their limits or their view of debate which is where the team reading fw generally runs into trouble. When you’re aff against framework I generally think that impact turning is the way to go and that calling out an impact-light 2NR is the easiest route to victory.

Speaking style and other random things –
I've found that my speaks tend to range from 27.6-28.9 with most debaters falling between 28-28.4.
Don’t talk down to people but I appreciate sassiness. Be funny if you’re funny (I like frozen and jokes about time being linear). I want to hear the text of your cards not just the tags otherwise your speaks will suffer. Efficiency is measured in arguments per minute not words per minute. I reward good technical work and good strategies. It also may help you to know that I'm studying international affairs with a focus in economics and security policy, and gender studies in college. Do what you will with that information.

**** You may or may not receive a small speaker point bump if you make Elliot Kovnick or Jaden Lessnick jokes

The time has come for my yearly overhaul of my paradigm

Crystallegionaires@gmail.com

Debating
Weber State University- 5 1/2 years included attending the NDT and breaking at CEDA
Alta High School- 3 years

Judging
Judging and helping at West High- 5 years
Current Judging for Weber State

"I know in your heart of hearts you hate [policy arguments] but you also vote for that stuff all the time."
-Mike Bausch

The more I judge, the more I find that the way that I debated and the way that I judge are fairly different. I love kritik debate and I find it to be some of the most educational debates and research that I have found personally with inserting and forefronting real life impacts and experiences into debate especially for me as a disabled transgender woman. I also find that "kritik" or "performance" or "nontraditional" teams or what have you are bad at answering policy arguments from framework to simple extinction outweighs. It's incredibly frustrating but despite my reluctance, leads me to voting a fair amount for policy arguments. Let me make this clear though, I'm not a great judge for your super technical line by line on a politics disad though I won't be opposed to voting on that for you if you win.

One of the main reasons I present this with a caveat is because I have a **sensory processing disorder.** If you want to spread through and get as many arguments out no matter what, I will be unable to keep up with you and I will tell you to slow down. It is in your best interest to do so. The more time I struggle to hear the less I'm hearing and writing down. Furthermore if you refuse to slow down, **I will stop writing down arguments and start removing speaker points.** I'll tell you to slow down 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Further speeches will have 1 warning before that happens. Whatever speed I lower you to, go one lever below that to account for speeding up in the speech later. Trust me, you don't need that last argument more than you want me to understand the debate. 1 card I do understand is way better than 10 cards I don't. I almost never read cards unless necessary or if I'm looking for feedback so reliance on cards won't get you that far. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, it needs to be on an important part of the debate that can't be resolved otherwise and needs to be impacted out.

I'm a truth over tech judge one good/"true" argument can beat ten terrible cards. However, that doesn't mean you can't get me to vote on tech, you just have to impact it out more. If there is a strategic messup by your opponents and you explain why that should grant you and argument eg if they concede a permutation and you go for it even if it doesn't make sense outside of debate, if you explain it, I'm willing to grant it to you. You need to explain your shit. Cards and dropped arguments aren't inherently true and round ending. You have to tell me why all your shit matters for me to weigh it. I find teams are especially light on their impact level of the debate and on the solvency of their arguments so I would make sure to have emphasis there.

Postmodernism, psychoanalysis and the like aren't my cup of tea. I often spend these debates trying to wrap my mind around the terminology rather than the argument in question which can be a detriment to the debaters in round, just how my mind processes new information. I won't straight tell you I won't vote on it but I also find these arguments struggle to have applicability that can be explained in the "real world."

I believe there can be zero risk of impacts. I don't believe in assigning .1% risk of impacts to extinction. Either way the impacts go you need to tell me why that is the case.

I also don't believe that you just saying so means that you solve 100% of the aff with your counterplan. You need to explain in depth why that is the case

I default that the ballot does have meaning and that debate isn't just a game. I can be persuaded otherwise but I feel you need to explain why the community and activism that happens in debate is more of a side effect instead of debate actually having meaning

I think nontopical affs are often really cool and bring extra insight into the topic. For framework teams, i can be persuaded that these teams are cheating if it's impacted out and the education is bad but there is often a lack of legalistic warrants or topic specific education warrants to these arguments which needs to be present. I generally think it is better for the aff to be resolutional eg if it's an immigration topic, talk something about immigration but I won't penalize you for not doing so.

If you run a nontopical aff, you need a disad to the topical version of the aff on framework. I can't stress this enough. Many of my decisions have been made because the TVA solves the aff meaning the offense goes away or the aff forget to extend offense or impact out that disad. This is THE point that I find myself voting on over and over again on framework/t

I do find the evidential debate on disads and counterplans especially to have unique education and debate benefits that don't exist elsewhere and look forward to how debaters utilize them

I think theory debates are really useless. Everyone runs condo and severance perms and it's more of a flow check. I have a high threshold for a theory argument and there better be a damn good reason why you are turning the debate into a theory debate. I also find debaters being exceptionally bad at impacting out theory and explaining the standards. For these reasons I don't see myself voting on theory in the near future. Exceptions to the rule are 50 State fiat, world government fiat and other ridiculous multiactor counterplans and possibly utopian fiat on absurd kritiks.

I think "performative" arguments are really important to the activity and bring pathos that the event often badly lacks. Because of this, I often find myself giving better speaker points to performative teams. I don't think it is cheating or undebateable for someone to bring in their or other experiences and I look forward to these debates. That being said, I can often be persuaded to vote on framework because performative teams often struggle with what to do with their performance once they have performed.

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

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hendricks%2C+Jordan

Judge-Rhyder Henry, Pronouns (He/Him) Paradigm (Short and sweet Version Copper Classic)

Experience-2 Years High School @ Hillcrest High School/NHC

Positions- 1A/2N (I have a slight biased and idea of how I like to see both of these speaches conducted)

TLDR: Summary How to get my ballot- Debate how you want to debate, and give it your all.

1-Debate is a game, and educational, I lean more towards Structured impacted arguments that are extended.

2-Case Aff Notes: DEFEND SOLVENCY!!! Neg Notes: CASE TURNS!!!

3-T/FW- They are distinct. If you impact framework as T, I generally will lean aff on things like reasonability, Even if you won your framework arguments. Topicality, is Contextual and specfic, Framework is a tool to help me evaluate arguments, methodology, ETC....

4- Ks- Always a good option, I am familiar with most lit. Feel free to run them as long as you can explain them and explain why its a reason to vote neg, Things i dont like on k debate is. Alt=Reject aff or something similar? If you are rejecting the aff then explain why rejeciton is a neccessity to soving the mindset your challenging.

5-DAs, Generally go off of who mitigated whos impacts more, And reasons why the DA should O/W the case!

6-CP Specfic Cps go very far for me, It almost always gaurentees competition. I like Conditions, Consults etc.. Just explain it well and prove solvency.

7-Perms, Not an advocacy more of a test of competition. I was never a fan of multiple perms but you do you!

Things I enjoy seeing in round.

1-Humor is always nice to see

2-K Affs are pretty creative and enjoyable to engage with.

3-I have a soft spot for good theory debate

4-Respect

5-Respect and Intensity, Can work well together. That being said you can still be intense and aggressive while still being respectful.

6-Cross ex is your chance to prove to me you understand and have an interest in your arguments!

Notes: May Result in a Small Speaker Point Increase.

1-I like the Red Balloon Emoji, Do with that what you will!

2-I enjoy Political Satire/Humor/Comics.

3-Orcas are awesome #Savethewhales

4-Tell me what can go through the Green Glass Door?

Follow this link for my super extensive paradigm: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Henry,Rhyder

Hey everyone,

I like good debate. I debated policy at the TOC in high school and for a few years at Northwestern University. In high school, I mostly debated the K, and in college I debated more straight up. I'm fine with speed and most arguments. These days, I don't judge as frequently, so I'm never deep in the topic literature or the most trendy arguments, so don't assume I know all your acronyms and lingo. However, you probably won't surprise me.

One pet peeve - excessive amounts of down time/stolen prep relating to computer issues. Get your act right. If you take too long, you'll lose speaker points, some tech emergencies withstanding.

General tips for persuading me

-Specificity is best. Make your links specific, cite and clash with your opponents evidence, and explain your arguments as they apply in this round - not the overview you pasted into a speech doc.

-I prefer depth over shallow, blippy arguments. I can keep up and will vote on dropped theory, but I would much rather see a good debate than cheap shot tactics.

-Impact all your arguments. Debaters do good with this on DAs, but not so well on topicality/theory standards, or author/evidence indicts, or weighing links and link turns.

-Focus on the nexus questions. You rebuttals should focus on the most important arguments of the round, not whichever arguments you like best or are winning on. Too often debaters misallocate time and leave crucial aspects of the debate undecided, without much clash or ink on them. Cross-x is also a good time to flesh out nexus questions, but don't forget to make the argument in an actual speech as well.

-Most importantly, don't be a *#@$. Aggressive questioning is fine; being rude is not. Attack arguments, not people. If you know the round is a crushing victory, make it quick and clean, fun, educational for the opponents, or maybe all three.

taylordlayton@gmail.com

Joseph McPherson
Debated 3 years CX at lone peak HS
Currently a sophmore debating at Snow college
Rounds on the Topic 8

Over all philosophy

• Debate is a game - I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t run, I will try to be as open to anything as possible, so have fun and read what you like, just make sure you are explaining it well.
• If it isn’t in the 1AR or 2NC/1NR I will do my best not to evaluate it
• Prep ends when the flash drive is out of the computer, or the email is sent.
• I'm fine with tagteam but overwhelming your partner will be reflected on your speaks.
• If you are going to record a debate/speech you must get permission from the other debaters being recorded.

Specific things

Theory – I have a avarage threshold for what constitutes a good theory argument. A very specific Multiple Conditional Worlds or Pics Bad argument will go very far. "Reject the argument, not the team" is usually enough for me not to vote on a theory argument besides specific examples of inround abuse, The more specific the violation and standars are to the debate round the more likely I will agree that there was abuse. If you read your theory block at 100% speed I will probably not flow it and be annoyed. In round abuse scenarios are preferred, but I will vote on potential abuse.

Topicality – I enjoy well explained and in depth topicality debates, but often feel this is lacking. I'm not a huge fan of generic "substantial" interpretations. I prefer you have a very specific interpretation and violation with the intent to define. i usually default with resonablity unless there is specific examples of inround abuse not just "education, grounds, ect. In round abuse has a lot more weight than potential abuse. Buzz words like “limits” “fairness” “predictability” aren't impacts, but rather internal links.

Disadvantages – Specific case arguments and a well-written disadvantage is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch. A specific disadvantage with up to date uniqueness and relevant links to the Aff will go a long way with me. Generic disads like “Spending” aren't as interesting, but always willing to vote on them if the link and impact are clear. I love a good politics debate; this includes evidence comparison and impact interaction. On any Disadvantage you need to have a clear scenario of how you get to your impact, especially extinction impacts. Just because you say "extinction" doesn't mean it is going to happen, prove why it matters or should be something I evaluate.

Counterplans – I will vote on any CP if it has a clear net benefit and solves majority of the affirmative. Reading through the CP text at full speed probably means I won’t know what the CP does and you will start behind in that debate. I will not kick the counterplan for you if it doesn't solve.

Kritiks - This seems to be the type of debate I participate in more as my debate career continues. I have participated in all types of these debates, from high theory to identity debates. You should feel comfortable to read whatever you want and have me be able to understand it. I think this type of debate is strategic and i'm eager to listen/vote on different kritiks. All I ask is that you make sure you explain it well and make the link/impact very clear. There should be a clear role of the ballot or role of the judge articulated by both teams. If you are reading a K aff I prefer you actually relate to the topic, but there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. Also, that doesn't mean I wont vote for you if you don't. To get my ballot with a non-traditional aff you just have to justify why your discussion is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution. Also, I find impact turns to most arguments a strategic decision that most teams don't take advantage of. 

I currently debate for Weber State. I have competed in CX for 2 years. 

When I jugde a debate I tend to let the debaters do all the work. I don't really have a specific arg that you should run in front of me or args that you shouldn't run. I do ask for you all to be respectful to one another and do what you do best. 

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.

Nov 2023 update:

If you spread your analytics like you do your cards, I will not be able to flow your speech. Your best bets are either send your analytics or slow down.

Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com

Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place? Although it doesn't really matter if I end up flowing everything as debaters tend to drop 80% of arguments by the 1AR anyways as I have noticed ( I have only seen like 3 teams not guilty of this in the past year). I usually end up understanding what's happening in the debate by the 1AR. But again, I'm pretty rusty, tend to lean more towards truth over tech (unless its something really bad like a dropped perm in the 1AR), and the best way to get me to vote for you is to make sure there's like 3 clear voters why you win, a very very clear internal link chain scenario or well fleshed out link work and impact calc, and overall just confidence that it makes more sense to vote aff or neg. CLEAR INTERNAL LINK CHAIN SCENARIOS ARE THE EASIEST WAY TO GET MY BALLOT.

P.S. I like jokes.

Recent voting decisions worth noting:

Voted aff on condo when Peninsula LL went against 11 off.

Voted neg for against condo as the 1ar claimed it was dropped but the negative ran 1 off so I ended up not buying the argument as I'm more of a truth voter rather than tech. It really came off as more of a cop out to because the aff got out debated on the k flow which to me just made an aff ballot that much less persuasive to me.

Voted neg on econ disad in octos at meadows simply because I felt the neg did good enough solvency takeouts on case with better internal link chain scenarios. Both teams didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the evidence mentioned in the 2NR/2AR so I even went through the effort of reading the evidence and then applying it to the arguments made in the debate.

Identity:

I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. Former policy debater for Weber State 2016-2018, I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke. (Seriously, extra speaker points opportunity here folks).

I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, and my favorite hobby is freestyle street dance.

Experience:

High school: 2 years.
Started with PF, went to the WSDI 2015 (Lab leaders: Mike Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk.
I mostly ran straight up policy arguments, played around with Marx and Bleiker near the latter half of the year.

College: 2 years.
I did decent in open, only ever making it to open quarter finals at CSUN my freshman year. Won finals in JV a couple times. My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.
Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.

Procedurals:

I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 15% every time I say "clear"

Flex prep is fine.

Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.

Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.

Argument preference:

I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.

I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.

However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.

I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:

- When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.

- If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).

- If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.

I usually vote aff when:

- It makes sense to me what the aff does

- I buy the permutation

- I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense

- I don't buy the negative's link work

- I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff

I usually vote neg when:

- I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff

- I buy the alt solves the K/aff

- I don't think the aff actually does anything

- I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

Please do add me to your email chain: Phanhenri@yahoo.com

Experience First then Paradigm.

This is my first year in Colleigate Policy Debate, for Weber State. I have debated Public Forum throughout my High School Career. I have judged Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and, a few, Policy debates for High School tournaments.

Do note, I am not very familiar with this topic so a little more explaination will be needed compared to someone who has judged this topic before

Short version: my paradigm is that I'm basically fine with any argument you want to run. My idea is that debate is what the debaters make it, so I will roll with whatever you want to run, granted that you are clear and concise in explaining your evidence and why I should perfer you over your opponents. I will flow the round and base the majority of my decision on the flow.*Side note: Impacts are very important for how i weigh the round, so extend the impacts and explain them clearly.

Longer Version:

Aff: Since I came from a Public forum backround, I am fairly used to the entire "Straight up" Affs, but don't let that dissuade you from running a K aff. As long as you can clearly explain your K Aff and why I should vote, that will be sufficient. 

Neg: As mentioned from the Aff, I am used to "Straight up" Affs, so I really do enjoy when a NEG team tests the AFF through, DA, and CP. Again don't let this persuade you into only running these kinds of arguments. However, I lately have enjoyed listening to K's and the insight it provides.

MISC: If you want to run framework in round please do, just remember to extend the impacts to the end. T is fine with me, but there should be a clear reason to everyone in the room of why the AFF is stacking the cards in the favor of themselves.

Points: I generally don't give lower than a 27, unless you are extremely disrespectful, racist, sexist, or ableist. That in mind, I do understand that debate can be a competetive place, but there is a very clear distinction from being competetive and being uncivl, at the end of the day we are all humans that deserve respect.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Experiance:

I have debated for 4 years - 2 in highschool and this is my 2nd year debating college. That doesn't sound like a lot but I fell in love with policy debate the second I started and dove right in learning as much as i could. I am currently a debater for Weber State University.

Style/ways to improve your speaks:

I'm great with speed as long as you are clear - you must slow down on tags, i will attempt to flow them but if you don't it makes it harder for me and you will probably lose speaker points. please say something like "NEXT" or "AND" to indicate that you are going to your next card. Don't just tell me "next off" I or "1st off, second off," Tell me T, or onto the kritik. tell me what the page is supposed to be.

Kritiks:g

I have no problem with you debating kritiks - I wrote and ran a critical cartographies aff my senior year of high school and am running  - and am pimarily a K debater. so I am no stranger to complicated arguments. This does not mean that i wont vote for Policy teams. It just means that you should debate the way that works best for you, and don't be afraid to debate the k or against the K.

Straigh up:

I do not have a prefrense for you reading straight up plans and neg strats or a full blown kritik based debate. Please just run what you feel comfortable with. Don't try and run certain kritiks or strats just to impress me, it will do nothing. 

Topicality/Framework:

It's really hard for me to vote on these when they aren't impacted, or that the impacts are not explained well in the last speech.

How I will Judge and voting tips:

I will judge the round on how the debators tell me to judge - with that though, for a good debate you shouldn't leave anything up to me, i will not do work for you. If your opponent makes a contradictory argument every time they open their mouths, it is the opposing teams job to call them out on it and punish them for it.

Please don't forget the 1ac - bad debate is debate in where the affirmative team only reads the aff in the 1ac and thats it or in just the first and last speach.

Explin yourself - chances are i know what your kritik is about, but it's your job to show me that you do. Too many times I see teams who are just running an argument that their varsity or alumni has giving to them. In the end, if I don't know what you are talking about, then I better by the end of the debate.

I will not tolerate offensive behavor that personally attacks another team - i will drop you instently and award you zero speakerpoints. 

In the end - give me a good debate and you do you

FAQ:

Yes I allow tag team cross ex.

Yes I'm okay with spreading, just be clear, slow down on tags, say "AND" or "NEXT" between arguments.

Normally no I don't care to be on the email chain or to be flashed the evidence, if you have any reason you want me to be on it (like you have an acent or are sometimes hard to understand) I'd be more than happy to get your evidence to help me follow along. I have done this in the past to help a debater be able to be understood by me and would do it again in a heartbeat.

I have never called for evidence and I hope I never need to. That means that means you should be clear with your warrents and if cards are powertaged, make sure I know and convince me that they don't say what the other team is says they do.

FGC (Frequently Given Critiques): remember these are on a case to case basis and may not apply to everyone.

(Neg) Don't go for everything in the last speech, pick a winning strat and sit on it.

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.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will be ahead in my mind.

Clean and clear speech, good tone and pacing will always win the day.

Must make the point clear, Why is the status quo wrong or right. If you have a piece of legislation you have to have a compelling reason why the status quo is not working, i.e. what are the harms.

Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)

Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist

Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University

I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.

Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.

Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.

Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.

For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.

Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.

Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.

Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.

Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.

Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences

--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards

--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.

--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX

I would like to be on the email chain – misty.tippets9@gmail.com

I was a policy debater at Bingham High School for 3 years, graduating in 2016. I was a 1N/2A, and was a more traditional/straight up debater. Keep in mind I'm unfamiliar with the current topic. Run whatever you feel comfortable with and what you are good at, I'd rather see a good debate that showcases your abilities vs. you fitting to my paradigm / preferences. I will judge off of the flow.

Stylistically - I'm fine with speed, just be clear. If I can't understand you I'll probably say clear. It's probably bettter for me to get everything you want on my flow vs. reading a ton cards and I only get a few taglines. 

Please do proper impact calc and impact framing at the top of the flow, or shortly after your overview.

Affirmative

Affs w/ plan text and that use the USFG - I should be fine with whatever you read. Just make sure you can clearly explain the plan/plan mechanism and how it engages with your advantages. If it is unclear, I give more weight to link/IL take outs or solvency deficits. I'm fine nuclear war scenarios. I dislike warming debates, I find them to be really boring and you'll probably loose on the timeframe argument... 

K affs - If you read a K affs read your K aff. I'm not super familiar with K literature, and will not likely understand all of your jargon/buzzwords. The only experience I have with K affs is reading FW against them. As long as you can explain why I should vote for you, and that matches my flow, we should be good.

Negative

DAs - You need to win a link to the aff - prefer aff specific. I like a good DA that can o/w and turn the aff. I've ran a few squirly DA's, I don't really mind as long as the ev is credible.

PTX - I love ptx, that was pretty much the only 1NR I ever gave. You should have multiple links to the aff, prefer plan specific in the 1NC. Evidence comparison goes a long ways. Be sure to extend the actual warrants of the cards - and explain the narrative of the DA. 

CPs - In general they are fine, I like them. Make sure you include a full CP text in the speech doc. CPs that solve the whole aff should have a net benefit beyond "we do it better", like ptx...

Process CPs - they are probably cheating, but strategic and should be ran. Make sure you can defend why debating process is good and you should be fine.

Ks - I'm familiar with most generic Ks. Explain the lit, and how it engages with the aff and the affs impacts. I like to see more links than just "They use the state, state bad." (Bias) I probably give more weight to the state can do good in some instances, the aff is an instance of the state being good/doing good. If you are reading links specific to how the aff approaches the topic, or uses the state I will still vote for you. Note, you must explain the alternative and how solves or attempts to solve, I hate vague alts, I need to know what I'm voting for. 

T - I like T. At the end of the day I view it as a debate of Fairness v. Education. Engage on the impact level, who access those impacts best, which one is most important, what turns the other etc. Once you've concretely won one of them you need to impact it out to the round/ how does it impact the debate round or community, etc.

I'll vote for FX/Extra T. You can loose the normal T debate and still go for one of them independently, I view them as seperate, just don't try to be sneaky and hide it in a standard, and in the block be like "Surprise," that's just annoying and not good debate. Make it clear and at the bottom of the T-shell, not a seperate flow.

Theory - I will vote for in-round abuse, theoratical abuse will only be voted on if it's dropped completely. I think condo is real, if it's dropped in the block I want to hear 5 minutes on condo in the 1AR. Though a 2A should be able to make strategic concession/decisions. If you can demonstrate abuse great, but I'd still rather see a real debate.

Have fun, debate well. Be nice to people. I like Friends references, and love capitalism (don't go for cap good, cap is great).

haydenlw4 [at] gmail. com

Include me in the chain without asking me.

Judge philosophies are terrible to read because they all read the same and aren't true. I will try to make mine as useful as possible by being descriptive of how I think that I differ from the community standards.

Background:

I am the head coach at Bingham HS. I have been involved in high school debate for over a decade. But the fact I am a head coach means that I rarely am actually judging so my flow speed is below average and I will need adjustment at the beginning of rounds. This is true for national circuit debates only. I am still capable of flowing local circuit rounds. This also affects my topic knowledge. I will have some knowledge on the topic but I am thinking about it on a weekly basis not a daily basis.

General

I personally care a lot about politeness. I will start with warnings, then taking tenths of points off speaker points but if the lack of politeness becomes unbearable I will drop the offending team. I will not do any warnings while I am on a panel but I still very much care for politeness.

I try to be a very expressive when I judge. If I'm liking your arguments then I want my face to reflect that so you can adapt on the fly.

DA's

DA and case debates are some of my favorites to judge. I will look first at the link level before the impact level on these debates.

CP's

I am aff biased for cheater cps (consult, process, delay, etc). I try to not buy the negative analysis that "1% risk of a net benefit is a reason to vote neg" for those types of cps. Because of my thoughts on DA's it makes me more willing to vote on perms and defense.

K's

I have less content knowledge of the k's that have become more popular recently. That would be afro-pess and settler colonialism. I will stick to the description of the K that happens in the round. I don't know how poems are arguments. This leads me to barely flow poems.

T

I like T more than most. I think that if you are good at T my threshold is quite low. But I have noticed myself not voting on T because I didn't think that negative did enough smart work. I enjoy TVA's, perms on T, explaining why the aff does not meet their C/I or are not reasonable. The T debate that I am most persuaded by is accurate descriptions of the flaws of the topic and why your interp helps solve the flaws of the topic.

Theory

If I were to construct rules for debate they would include: 2 conditional worlds, no floating piks, aff's/cp's must have a solvency advocate.

K affs vs T-USfg

My historical tendencies (when I was younger) is towards liking K affs. I still love to listen to a fun k aff 1ac that is very topic specific. But I wasn't very active in debate from 2014-2016. The k aff seems to have proliferated in that time. I have been leaning more towards the negatives fairness claims since I returned. I think that the best way to describe my preferences at the moment is that I am in the middle waiting to be convinced in the round. BUT my voting record is currently leaning towards framework.

Prep:

Prep stops when the email is sent or when the flash drive comes out of the computer. I will give grace period because I understand computers are weird sometimes. But if it takes more than a minute to resolve then I will hate you.

Speaker point scale:

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-28.9 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.6-28.7 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.2-28.5 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.9-28.1 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

To help with speaker point inflation I will give .1 speaker point bonuses for things that I want to reward. These rewards will only happen if you explicitly ask me about them immediately after the round and before my rfd.

Rewards for:

-Good flows.

-Good disclosure practices (great cites / full text).

-Making the debate round pleasant (humor or kindness).

-Utah Jazz and stand-up comedian (Kumail Nanjiani, Hannibal Burress, Eugene Mirman, Bo Burnham, and John Mulaney) references are appreciated.

Assume I want to be added to your email chain: andre.d.washington@gmail.com

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

IMPORTANT CHANGES: After 5 years of judging a wide range of debate styles, I think I've come to the conclusion that I just can't connect with or enjoy the current iteration of HS high theory debate. Being able to act as an educator is an important reason for why I judge, and I don't think I can offer that in your Baudrilliard debates anymore.

This will be my sixth year with the program at Rowland Hall, and 10th year of debate overall.

I love debate and want students to love it as well.

Do what you want, and do it well. ---

Kritiks: Despite the revision above, you absolutely should still be reading the K in front of me. I am fine with the K. I like the K as it functions in a greater neg strategy (ie, I'd rather judge a 5 off round that includes a K than a 1 off K round). However, I went 1-off fem K in highschool for many rounds, so I am genuinely pretty accepting on this issue. Given that I don't spend a great deal of my time working through K literature, I think it's important that you explain these to me, but that's basically what a good K debater should expect to do anyway.

Disads: I cut politics every week. I love both sides of the politics debate and can benefit you as a judge on how to execute these debates well.

Counterplans: Counterplans of all shapes and sizes are a critical place to form a strategy and I enjoy these debates. Theory is to be argued and I can't think of any predisposition.

Topicality: I think that debaters who can execute "technical" args well are enjoyable enough to watch and judge, and I think I can probably benefit as a judge to any technical debater. I think that any violation, on face, has validity and there are no affs that are so "obviously" topical that they cannot be beaten on T.

Kritikal affs: I am not ideologically opposed to K affs at all and even enjoy these debates, although I primarily work on and with policy affs so I would say explanation is still key.

Framework: I find that good framework debaters know how to make the flow accessible to the judge. I think that there are a number of compelling claims and debates to be had on framework, and they can be just as strongly argued as anything else (including your kritik or kritikal aff).

I view my role in the round, is as a critic of the debate. Therefore, I rely upon the four competitor's to tell me how I am to evaluate the round, what's important in the round and where I am to look, to evaluate the round. I will fiercely defend my role as a critic, as I will not connect the dots, or complete incomplete arguments to the defense of teams.

these rounds are safe spaces

Policy Maker Paradigm

Stock Issues primary importance

Old-school approach

Rudeness is death

I did policy debate for my entire high school career, and I have judged debate for about two years.  I will not tolerate oppressive or harmful speech.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge, and I am comfortable with most arguments.  I prefer k's over straight up debate, but I will weigh framework arguments prior to kritiks. 

Communication matters more than speed.  Spreading is fine, just make sure that I can actually understand you and make sure that your arguments make sense.

Evidence is important, but so are analytics and extensions.  You need to extend cards and explain your args if you want my vote.  Please ensure to do impact work and clash with your opponents.

How I vote is entirely up to you.  It's your round, your framework, your theory, and your work.

I did policy debate for four years at Juan Diego Catholic High School, twice qualifying for the TOC.

What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas. Therefore, I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible when evaluating a debate. I think this has two important implications:

   1.  I highly value meta-analysis from debaters, especially in the last two speeches. There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.

  2.  I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made.

On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy.

Lastly it is worth mentioning that my experience with the latest topic is limited so I may not know some of the core acronyms immediately.