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.

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

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

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

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

Experience:

I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.

I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.

Everything Important:

I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.

Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.

The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.

Some more specific stuff:

K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.

NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!

KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.

DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.

THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.

Please reach out with any questions:

email: k.brad130@gmail.com

(pls include me in any email chains)

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

My preferences:

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

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

Be civil.

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

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

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

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

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

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

Spreading is fine.

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.

In terms of experience, I have been coaching for 2012 and am comfortable with just about anything you can throw my way. For policy, I will vote on anything from topicality to a kritik provided that I've been given enough reason to do so. For LD, I like the framework debate to be carried through the round, but if it's dropped by both competitors, I can evaluate the debate on a contention level.

Policy

While I don't mind tag teaming, know that a natural consequence of this practice is immediately highlighting which team member is stronger. I understand that one partner may know more about one subject area than the other, if that person is never required to answer/ask his/her own questions, he/she will never improve. With regard to spreading, I don't see this as a good strategy, and furthermore, I find it problematic in that it frequently privileges debaters who can afford to attend expensive debate camps or schools with well-funded debate programs. It is not the judge's job to parse evidence--it's yours. I typically evaluate the round based on impact calculus at the end and value clean line-by-line argumentation over evidence dumps. I'm much more swayed by your ability to make cogent arguments than your ability to speak quickly and power tag cards.

LD

As an LD judge, I value unique framework arguments. LD has been taking on many of the characteristics of policy with a preference for evidence over analysis. I don't fault debaters for this shift, but I do like to see LD debaters prioritize the elements (like framework and philosophical principles) that make this event unique. As with policy, I will vote on whatever the competitors show me I should vote on, but the debate will be cleaner if you narrow the focus of clash so that there aren't two distinct framework-level and contention-level debates. See above notes on spreading.

I disclose*

*Disclosure provides an opportunity for debaters to ask specific questions about the round. Saying, “But didn’t you hear when I said...” or “But why didn’t you vote on...” are not questions intended for learning, and I won’t answer them. Yes, I did hear you and you did not win for the reasons I just said.

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

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.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.