Though I have extensive experience directing high school debate teams, I keep considerable distance from coaching and judging. Nevertheless, circumstances are such that I occasionally find myself in that world. That said, keep in mind that my familiarity with the topic is going to be less yours.

Explain your positions clearly. Consolidate your arguments in final rebuttals. I'm not afraid to ignore something because I don't get it.

Speed is OK but with critical arguments you'll need to help me out. My comprehension of such things isn't great.

Be kind to one another and have fun.

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.

Abe Griffiths

Highland High School 2012-2016

University of Utah '20

Please add me to your email chain: 10abesg@gmail.com

I debated competitively in policy debate on the national circuit for four years in highschool. I am equipped to judge your debates fairly with knowledge of the structure of policy debate, but without any explicit knowledge on the education topic.

I was primarily a K debater and read kritikal arguments on the aff and on the neg. That being said, I debated in a circuit that was primarily policy-oriented and have experience with both 'types' of argumentation and can educate you on how to execute them well.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever you want in front of me, and I will make flow-oriented decisions about how to evaluate those arguments.

Here are some plagiarized details on how I view debate and my role as the judge:

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.

General broader preferences:
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when the email is sent.

- I guess the biggest thing is just to be clear. That means make it clear why your arguments function as they do, be specific when necessary, and argue in an order that makes some sense (usually just point by point down the flow).

- Emphasize framework and impacts. If I don't know why and how I'm voting then the whole thing becomes kind of futile, so those are definitely key.

- I'm good with pretty much any kind of case, including anything progressive. I'm can generally manage speed as well.

- The more creative the case or at least the round, the better. Stuff that's really out there always makes for a more engaging round, but if you have a serious/standard case, I won't hold it against you and will still essentially judge based on the quality of the debate.

- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Pretty simple.

Brock Hanson

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

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

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

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

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

I forgot to update this, so apologies in advance if it caused any issues.

I mostly did LD throughout high-school, and a bit of a mix between progressive and traditional. So, with that in mind, here's generally how my paradigm boils down.

I don't really care much about what you run between kritiks, DAs, etc, so don't be afraid to read those in front of me, but understand that I likely haven't read the literature you're reading, or may not understand hyper-specific jargon, so it is in your interest to guess that I don't know what you're talking about and give an understandable statement as to what it all means. I care more about how you tell me to vote than anything; make the round about what you want to discuss (hint: this makes it easier for judges to make a decision, which prevent situations where debaters get pissed at the judge. It's harder than it looks!)

In regards to speed: I can handle a decent amount, but the main problem is that clarity is often disregarded by debaters. If it's really bad I'll call clear a couple times, so please just make it good from the beginning. Also, keep in mind that since I graduated I've barely even thought about debate (because I'm finally free!) so it is probably in your best interest to not go at your max speed. I'd like to be included in email chains so I can follow along, but don't take me reading your case as an excuse to sacrifice clarity: whitmanhoward@gmail.com

Furthermore, I'm not versed basically at all in the over-the-top technical stuff. I don't even know exactly what examples to give as I never even had a round with stuff like that, so unless you can succinctly explain what it means in your speech, you should probably avoid it.

Aside from all that, here are just a few preferences:

1. Be relatively nice. There's a difference between assertion and aggression, and the former is always better.

2. You can sit or stand, I don't really mind, but know that standing is better for airflow, forces your blood to stay pumping (which is good for your brain, quite basically), and makes it easier for me to hear you.

3. PLEASE give clear signposting and tags. Simply saying the order at the start isn't enough if you never again indicate where you are on the flow, and speeding through tags will get me lost quite quickly. In addition to slowing down, change the tone of your voice a little when switching between flows, reading tags, or emphasizing certain points.

4. Try your best to have fun. I know this is a typical statement from younger judges, but it's really painful to see other debaters get too stressed out, as I've been in many of those situations. Realize that debate isn't everything: it's a learning experience at the most fundamental level, not a system of grievances and grudges (though this seems to be the case for many kids)

If you have questions feel free to ask before the round, I'll do my best to answer.

 Conflicts: Park City

PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued

Things that make me happy:

-       Great signposting

-       Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

-       Lots of evidence

-       Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

-       Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

-       Jokes

-       Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

-       Improperly citing evidence

-       Miscutting/manipulating evidence

-       Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere. 

What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you. 

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.

CPs/’Advocacies’?

Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.

Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.

Speed?

Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.  

Other technical things: 

-       I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

-       If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

-       I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

-       I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)

Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

                     - pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent

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.

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0