Hi, I was a debater in high school but I focused on Speech events (IE, Oratory, Ect.) Though I did policy and congress as well. Now I am a Sexual Assault Program Coordinator at Safe Harbor Crisis Center in Davis county. My focus is on if your argument is comprehensive and presented well.

I am technically a lay judge but have two sons who have participated in debate for years and have taught me the basics of flowing. So i will do my best to evaluate contentions, see which survive, then do overall weighing. You may speak quickly and I will do my best to follow. I will also do my best to judge solely on case merits and arguments versus extraneous factors, but please be cordial and professional.

If a fact or source seems suspect, I will rely on your opponent to challenge the card (in which case I might ask to see it). If it seems VERY suspect or fabricated, then i might ask to see the card myself, but in general, I recommend the teams handle the challenges themselves.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I have a lot of experience with LD and PF. I am a traditional debater and I don't do well with spewing. I'll try my best to follow you but if I cant understand your arguments then they'll be lost and won 't be tracked on my flow.

Tell me how to vote and why. What are your impacts?

I look for total flow coverage and impacts when deciding around.

I debated PF and Policy for four years and coached PF for one year. Treat me as an experienced PF tech judge.

I vote off the flow.

Things I like

-Impact calculus and weighing. Don't yell buzzwords at me; show me direct argument comparison.

-Voters. Choose what to go for and what to drop.

-Roadmap and signpost. Side note: every time someone says "brief off-time roadmap," a small part of me dies.

-Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want to split your time as 2 min. offense and 2 min. defense, that's your choice. On the other hand, if you want to spend all 4 min. on offense, that's fine too. Strategize.

-Please time yourself. If I have to time you, it will distract me from flowing and listening to your arguments.

Things I don't like

-Shadow extensions. If you want to extend a contention or warrant, explain the significance of that in the round.

-Giving me a generic framework and doing little to no weighing and expecting me to vote for you on the framework

-Post-rounding me. I shouldn't need to say this, but don't argue with me on my decision after the round. I'll talk to you about it and answer any questions you have, but trying to change my decision will just tank your speaks.

-Rudeness. You can be aggressive, but be civil.

Misc.

-First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but should extend turns/offense.

-Evidence-reading is not on prep time, but don't abuse that.

-I'm good with speed as long as it's clear. I will give one warning if I can't understand, and then I will let you know that I've stopped flowing.

-I try to be visibly responsive during the round. If you see me nodding, you are on the right track. If I'm making faces, I am confused. If I have stopped flowing, you're probably repeating what you've already said and should move on to your next point.

-If you want me to look at evidence, or if I'm just curious about it, I will ask to see it after the round.

Speaker Points

(copied from tournament guidelines)

30: Sheer perfection

29: Surpassing excellence

28: Quite solid and good

27: Okay

26: Needs a bit of work

25: Needs a lot of work

If you want me to provide feedback right after the round (time permitting and based on tournament rules), I’d be happy to. If not, feel free to email me.

Email: andrea.thompson@ccsdut.org

CX

I'm a fairly traditional former CX and PF debater and current debate coach. I do not mind some speed, but I would like if debaters at least slow down for taglines so we can all keep track of where the debate is taking place on the flow. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. I really enjoy stock issues debate/on case argumentation. DA's and CP's are alright, too -- just adequately connect them to the case at hand! Theory and Kritiks are okay as long as you can explain them clearly and convincingly, and you actually link them to the case. I have voted for NEG on T's before, but I'm rather skeptical about them as a whole -- if you legitimately think the AFF is kind of untopical, go for it, but T's shouldn't be used as a mere time-suck. Conditional NEG arguments are dicey to me. In the end, I always use my flow to determine who has won the round. I'm excited for some beautiful policy fun!!!

LD

I'm a fairly traditional current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I love framework debates when debaters really weigh values and connect their contentions to their value and criterion. As a whole I'm not a huge fan of kritiks or counterplans in LD, but if you can explain it clearly and convincingly, you could definitely still win a round running such a case with me as judge. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. LD is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.

PF

I'm a fairly traditional former PF debater and current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I appreciate framework debates (whether practical or more LD in nature) and on case arguments, but I am not a fan of counterplans/topicalities/squirrely PF cases. I'd prefer if debaters debated about the topic rather than about the game of PF itself. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. PF is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.