Take a breath, be courteous, have fun.

Talk Slowly!!

Please signpost

I don’t like Ks, Counterplans, or anything super progressive. They should stay in policy.

Less on the framework based debate and more on the actual topic.

I vote on argumentation, more offense than defense.

Please have evidence in your cases, I won’t just take your word that something’s true, please have something to back it up.

I don’t vote/pay attention to cross examination, if something happens that you want me to vote on, say it in your next speech

If this paradigm is a little unclear to you, you can always ask me questions before the round begins.

Put me in the email chain if you're doing one: bevan.michaela@gmail.com

Lil bit about me: My pronouns are she/her. I have a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University in Political Science with minors in Communications and Political Strategy. My focus is on public policy and state government. I primarily competed in LD and speech in high school. Graduated from high school in 2018 in Idaho. Judged lots of LD/Congress 2018-2019 season, but I'm competent in PF too.

There aren't any arguments I'll automatically drop/not listen to. Y'all are the ones who are supposed to tell me what matters and what doesn't. Just use your best judgement on if what you're saying is reasonable/justifiable.

I'm a tabs judge/flow judge. Every argument should either fit in your link chain or attack some part of your opponents' (be it the actual links or impacts of the links). Please crystallize in the final speeches unless you really think a line-by-line is the best way to address the round. I love framework in LD: if you can't explain to me why you win the V/C debate, it's really hard to vote for you. If you don't give framework in PF, I assume cost/ben and impact calc.

I'm totally cool with kritiks and theory/topicality arguments, but keep in mind that, since I competed in Idaho, I'm not the most well versed in uncommon ones. Please make your alt's in the k something I can actually vote on (reject the aff only goes so far). I can usually follow along and get the jist. WITH that said, I'll never dock you for running something I've never heard. I really don't like Baudrillard but I will hear you out:)

Go ahead and spread if you want. But, if you're gonna spread through everything, I'd appreciate a mail chain. I'll dock you on speaks if your spreading is bad though (excessive mumbling). thx.

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

Traditional (conversational speed, please)

Olivia Kavapalu

Debated for: Bingham, UT in CX and LD

Please add me in the email chain: ojkavapalu@gmail.com

Overview:

Y'all haters corny with that illuminati mess

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh

I'm so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin')

I'm so possessive so I rock his Roc necklaces

My daddy Alabama, momma Louisiana

You mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bamma

I got a hot sauce in my bag, swag

I see it, I want it

I stunt, yellow bone it

I dream it, I work hard

I grind 'til I own it

I twirl on them haters

...

You know you that bitch when you cause all this conversation

Always stay gracious, best revenge is your paper.

- Queen Bey

Line-by-Line:

Tabula Rasa. I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. I will vote on K, T, CP, case, FW, performance, theory, DA's.... whatever. I personally enjoy hearing a good K debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on this genre of argumentation especially if the articulation/construction is handled poorly. Down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I can handle any level of speed, but be clear.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email.

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot in your 2NR/2AR.

To LD:

In addition to what you should have read above, I'm big on the FW debate. You could have the most glorious plan/K but if I think the FW articulation is lacking, don't expect to win. Stretching the resolution is fine but know that I expect a strong T debate.

Side notes that may be worth your time:

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

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

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.

Honestly, I copied most of this stuff from other coaches wiki's (names given here) - Mark A. Hernandez Sr., Hannah Shoell, John Shackelford?

Hmu if you have any questions or want to hear my thoughts on Beyonce and Jay-Z latest collaborative album or analyze the conditions that lead to the low concentration of Pacific Islanders in debate. I'd love to chat.

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

My background:

I did debate for 3 years in high school. (LD, policy, Pf) I am currently on a college debate team. I am completely fine with speed & “progressive” cases in all three events.

Ways to impress me

•Don’t say “umm”

•If you are spreading & I can’t understand you... I will say clear 3x. After that read at a normal pace.

•Clear flow. GO LINE BY LINE.

• Be clear & specific about your arguments. I will ask to see cards if necessary.

•Be polite. Everyone loves a salty round but the brightline is set between being a smarty pants & a total jerk.

TLDR: I'll vote for anything that is well articulated, the debate is your space. I try to be tabula rasa. Spreading is great, but don't be abusive. Theory spikes are cool. I love a good theory debate. I like Ks and K affs, but keep in mind I may not know all the lingo on your specific author, so as a general rule simplify the Continental philosophy for me.

Quick BIO: I Debated for three years at Layton High school. Competed in Policy and LD. Competed on the Nat circuit and in local circuits. I am cool with Trad or Progressive. I am currently the Assistant coach at Layton High school.

Things I like:

Being polite, sharing ev, and being a cool person.

Solid Frameworks and Role of the Ballot. If you win this I'll probably vote for you.

Signposting and a road map

Good impact Calc.

K's I like if run well: Nietzsche, Language(Wittgenstein, Kripke, etc.), fiat-bad/fiat-good

Things I do not like:

-Rudeness and sass

-Exclusivity arguments ie: "my opponent cannot talk about X..."

-Poor articulation while spreading

-Abusive theory. for example (5+condo, multiple worlds theory, floating PIK)

-Purposely sloppy flash docs. Show respect to me and your opponent, do not bomb us with 50 cards. Please send me what you are actually going to read, I do not want anything else.

If you want Extra Speaks:

-make puns.

-be well articulated and have good strategy. Make it easy for me to sign my ballot for you.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years.

Do not say untrue or imprecise things about the economy. I know how it works.

I’ll do my best to flow, but can’t guarantee that I’ll get everything if you are speaking too quickly

I understand minimal debate jargon. Don’t use it.

Make my life easy - provide clear extensions of your arguments and tell me why they matter.

Don’t lie. I won’t like you if you lie.

Don’t steal prep time - it is massively annoying.

If you are late, your speaker points will probably be lower.

I do not like it when debaters are rude. I get that you have to clash, but there is a line to walk, and it truly is not a fine line. It is not hard to not be rude. Do not mansplain or be condescending. Do not laugh at your opponents. I am less likely to pick you up if you do.

Don’t make bigoted arguments. I may not be as “woke” as my younger judges but it will not fly with me.

Ideally, please use the chat or file share for sharing evidence! I need to see it and it's weird for me to be on email groups with teenagers. These in-app tools are provided for your use.

I am a traditional judge. Please do not speak too fast.

I attempt to judge objectively. Do what you do best, I will try to leave predispositions at the door. It is not my position to tell you how or what to debate. Generally I think cases should be in the direction of the topic, instrumentality however is up for debate; just make sure you do a good job otherwise it could be a hindrance to you.

I am a philosophy major so the moral framework is very important. I want the framework spelled out. I don't want someone to tell me about the moral 'Ought' and end it there. Spell out that the moral 'Ought' is a form of Deontology stemming from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperitive, and that it tries to negate Utilitarianism. Just walk me throught the framework saying some choices are morally forbidden or some actions need to be preformed regardless of their concenquences. I like terms to be clairified. If a term is central to an arguement, then it better be defined. Ambigiuity is an issue.

The main point is the argument. Ethics and frame work is important to your argument. Make sure you explain your words like moral and justice - they are vague words so tighten them up and define them. Polish is important, but if the argument is weak I am not opposed to doing an occasional low point win. Arguments trump period.

I prefer more traditional LD debate including a strong Value/Criterion debate. I am willing to follow most debates competitors give. I prefer arguments that say something matters. It is not necessary however if you can make the other team or individual lose that works for me too. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards.

I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense.

I do flow and like easy to follow debates. Don't bounce around. Signpost are important. Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.

It is better to go somewhat slow when speaking. I can keep up in most cases, but it is harder to flow. If I can't flow your argument it won't count. Not to mention many people sacrifice clarity for speed. If you want to try speed I will queue you in to nonverbal signs that state I can't understand your speed prior to the debate.
Be professorial. Attack the arguments, but don't attack the person. I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or slippery slope arguments. I don't mind giving constructive criticism and perhaps adding a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas.