Who Am I? My name is Joseph Serrano. I participated in Public Forum for Bingham High School. I graduated in 2017, My sibling participated in debate from 2018-2020. I accept any and all pronouns, (barring it/its) I enjoy Fighting Games, Cars, and Photography. I have been involved in the debate scene as a judge longer than I was involved as a debater, I love this community and what it means to me. My coach was Hannah Odekirk née Shoell

Paradigm- General for Debates (Cross Ex, Weighing, Preferences)

Flowing is probably the most important thing about debate, Winning on the flow is pretty much a guaranteed win for me. Keep your ideas organized, I like to see you flow speeches, yours and your opponents. Defense on your own case is undervalued(back up your own ideas, shut down attacks from your opponent.)

I like CX, anyone can read their cards from a laptop, it takes good understanding of the subject matter to be able to answer questions in the crossfire/cross ex. I will flow questions I think are great in Cross Ex/Crossfire. If you had a great answer or tripped up your opponent in CX, bring it up in your speeches.

Clash is one thing that I see missing from most rounds, its like two ships passing in the night. I'm here to see good debate, challenge each others arguments directly. If you ignore things you don't have an answer to, I count that as flowing through on their side. It

I'm fine with Speed if your opponents are, less fine with Spreading but I understand its' purpose . If it gets too fast I'll let you know a few times before I have to stop flowing.

I'd prefer it if you'd time yourselves but I will also have a timer up to see if you're going over during speeches. I will give hand signals, if requested

I'm cool with swapping evidence Off-Time but if it takes longer than what should be necessary, it will cut into your prep time. (For example: if you read the card in the 1AC/1NC, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to find where its located.)

I don't carry a copy of the events rules, but if I feel something is abusive I will look into it. I have been trying to get more involved in Speech events, and I do not know many of the small parts of the rules yet, still working on it.

I do ask for cards that I think might be suspicious or if I just want to see the stat in front of me rather than hear it.

Paradigm- PF

If your argument is only good bc of a highly specific framework within your case its not that great of an argument in my opinion. I don't really care for conflicting definitions that do the same thing, if you only 'win' arguments in your case by using a specific/abusive definition from a non credible source, I don't buy into those things as a judge. Both speakers are important! Do not let others tell you otherwise.

Paradigm- LD

Utah has this weird mix of Traditional/Progressive LD debates. I'd say that most judges will buy into Progressive arguments here in the state. I feel like I'm more Traditional leaning when it comes to LD. I value morality, rhetoric within speeches, and more of the philosophical why. I have and will vote Progressive but neither form of debate is a guaranteed ballot.

Paradigm- Speech/ Congress

Speech and Congress is a nice change of pace from when I judge debates- I'm super lay and relaxed and really care most about delivery and if you seem like you're having fun. Speech events are hard because its all about who shows up on any given day- you can't really prepare in the same way as you do in Debate.

It's ok to take a breather if you feel rambly. For Impromptu I'd rather you end your time early than try to fill it with repeating the same thing multiple times.

I'd appreciate Trigger Warnings for sensitive topics for the sake of your fellow competitors but I will be ok as a Judge. The single trigger that might make me emotional is Sibling Death.

Speaker Points.

Speak loud enough so that I can clearly hear you but please don't yell / strain your voice. Be respectful in and out of round, If I see or hear something super offensive in or out of round, I will be letting your coach know. Banter between schools is fun but keep it civilized, nothing directly harmful to each other personally. Respect people's pronouns please!

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, It is best not to say something you'd regret in round or make something up, concede the point and move on.

Being respectful is also a big thing for me, you can be aggressive in rounds without sounding condescending so if I hear you being a little too snappy to your opponents you'll probably get docked a bit

I have no preference sitting or standing during speeches, I will provide reasonable accommodations if asked of course.

I do flow online. It will always be in the individual comments section of Tabroom after round so you can see what I did and did not understand/ get from your speeches, Please don't assume that I'm not paying attention or that I don't care about what you're saying, I just don't make eye contact much during speeches.

(serranojoseph99@gmail.com)- for email chain in Policy/ if your coaches have any questions.

THANK YOU!

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

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.