1. Speak clearly...if you are going to spread, then make sure I can still understand you.

2. Don't leave connections up to me. Follow through on arguments.

3. Tag Teaming is fine, just don't be rude to your opponent.

4. Speaking of rude: There is no other way to get dropped faster than to be rude. Use your words, not attitude.

5. I deduct the time looking at your opponent’s evidence from your prep. Don’t waste time.

Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

Experience: Debate for four years in high school in the western Idaho circuit (Idaho Gem of the Mountain) and later, four more years for the Boise State PKD Championship team the Talkin' Broncos. Three years of LD, five years of PF, three years of college NPDA (NPTE circuit) and four years of college IPDA. While in college I coached all four years with my last year (2019-2020) as the head coach of a team. While I coached, a responsibility included judging various forms of debate including LD, PF, CX and Congress.

Paradigm: I can follow any speed/argumentation that you have prepared to have. I understand that different regions, schools and coaches, cater to different forms of conventions of what debate "should" be. I am not here to tell you what debate should be. You have the round that you want to have and that you have been coached for.

I will often end up voting on who can best explain their link stories and argued impacts. I will vote on "the world will end tomorrow" if you can clearly explain to me HOW and WHY. I want you to explain the way that my vote results in your impacts specifically. I.e. if I vote aff exactly how will the world change tomorrow?

I will keep a pretty dedicated flow so make sure argumentation is able to carry through each speech. If something is dropped explain to me why it matters or I will assume it doesn't (and all your arguments should matter). That said, I am inclined to be a bit more truth over tech, you can play the game but if your arguments just do not make sense, hit, link or impact then your techiness doesn't matter.

Timing: No off-time roadmaps -- they shouldn't be that long. Evidence exchanges should happen either in down time or cross. Everything you do is on time because otherwise we risk sitting here forever.

That being said:

LD:

I would like v/c to be present in LD. I understand of the round does not focus on it.

I can handle any speed

Policy:

I will vote on T but you HAVE to prove abuse. If you can't prove abuse, you'll waste time and I'll probably vote aff. I do like a good K.

I can handle any speed, but will time flashing

Be kind please(:

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

I really think that paradigms are not particularly useful for several reasons. The first being that a vast majority of the time, students will ask me then blatantly ignore what I said. Though I am a veteran coach, you should still debate for me as if I am a lay judge. Don't assume anything. Crystallize, signpost and use impacts. Why should I care about your claims and evidence? Make me care.

Evidence-if you spend a significant amount of time asking for and looking through opponents, I will most likely vote you down. I want to see a debate, not the searching for and reading of evidence. I can Google that myself.

If I can understand what you are saying and you convince me to care about it-you win my ballot.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Who am I:

This is my 9th year as the head speech and debate coach.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok. Just make sure to communicate to me on why that is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate. Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large voting issue for me, so make sure I know why you've won on these issues.

K's/Theory

I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

Calling for evidence will use prep time. Ensure you need it and that you are willing to use prep time before you ask to see evidence. I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions, ask me in round!

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.

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.

I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case. DON'T SPREAD!!!

Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.

LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.

Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.

I am a coach for a large team.

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional debate but prefer traditional V/C and I'm usually not a fan of counterplans in LD. Either way, be sure to make your arguments and be clear. I won't make them for you and guess at what your point was supposed to be. Make all impacts clear. List your voting issues. If you run a K, it should tie to the resolution. I will flow whatever you put out there during the debate.

Enunciate if you're going to spread. Spreading is a tool. If you can't make it work in your favor (and most debaters cannot) then don't use it. If I can't understand what you're saying then I can't evaluate it and I won't try.

I'm fine with aggressive debaters. I am not okay with rudeness. It will count against you mostly because it makes you look insecure in your arguments. Your arguments should speak for themselves. If they can't and you try to overcome lousy arguments with pettiness and eye rolling then prepare to lose.

Effective cross-x counts with me. Ask good questions. Answer questions effectively. Don't spend the entire time arguing over cards. A pet peeve of mine is debaters making statements or arguments during cross instead of asking questions.

SternCH@nv.ccsd.net

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.