My background is in two years of high school debate and university Model UN. My approach to judging policy debate is tabula rasa. While I know that spreading is typical of Policy, I’m not a big fan. I prefer a few well-developed arguments and strong communication skills. Counterplans are interesting if done well. I’m not big on K’s.

I debated policy all through high school. I'm currently one of the coaches for Cedar Valley HS. I don't have a problem with speed.

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.

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for their own agreeegisnes.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.

I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.

Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.

AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.

T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.

K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.

CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.

DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.

REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!

-Consider me a lay judge, never did debate in highschool, but have been judging for couple of years. Primarily debates. (mostly policy.)

Policy

- I don't need to be shared on the email chain.

- neg should spend time defending their arguments as well. If you only have offense, but none of it is upheld in your speeches, I can't flow it through.

- Don't Tell me that because your impact is bigger then the other team and that's why you should win the round, unless you give me why you won the warrant battle first. Warrants give you access to your impacts, so if you lose the warrant battle, the impact does not matter.

- I have dealt with enough spreading to get by, but if you are terrible at it, I probably can't understand what you are saying, so I won't be able to flow it.

- Sometimes, new debate jargon still confuses me. If you are using jargon, don't just assume I know what it means.

- as a lay judge, it's easier to kind of rap my head around on case arguments a bit better. I will weigh K's and theory, but Its a risk to run them with me. ( Oh, and I hate when people use the"I'ts bad for the debate space" argument.

-honestly, I'm pretty chill with most things. Just have fun.

This is my first virtual debate meet and I am excited to see how it goes. I respect the time and energy it must take to debate in this type of setting.

I now work in higher education and was an avid debater in high school. I focused primarily on PF and IE's. I greatly appreciate reasonably paced speaking. I like to know that you have knowledge of your evidence and sources. Please be respectful of one another, I know it can be hard not to get heated, but remaining calm comes across as professional.

I will not disclose who won the round at the end to give myself time to debrief and think more clearly.

Thanks for debating and good luck!

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

*Updated for 2023*

Experience:

2018-Present: Policy Coach at Rock Springs High School

2007-2011: NPTE Debate at University of Wyoming: Highest national ranking: 4th; 4x national qualifier for NPTE; attended NPDA/NPTE 6x’s (between both tournaments); highest placing at National Tournament: Semi-finalist; Between 2009-2012 ranked top 20 in NPTE points receiving First Round Bids.

2004-2007: Debate at Rock Springs High School in Rock Springs, Wyoming

Approximate number of rounds judged per year: 35+

Please add me to the email chain: etcheverryj@sw1.k12.wy.us 

Note: Over the past seasons, I have seen numerous teams use the ‘small schools’ argument on theory and procedural positions. Moving forward, I will not listen to, flow or evaluate these types of arguments. Being from a ‘small school’ with limited financial resources and limited ability to travel nationally, these types of arguments suppose that we as competitors have also a limited ability to intelligently evaluate and present competitive arguments due to our position in the community. Utilizing these arguments in order to establish a model of debate based in assumptions of limited abilities of teams, such as ours, is marginalizing our ability as competitors and individuals, it also places unrealistic perceptions of who we are as policy debaters, thus please refrain from reading these arguments. Fight against, what Brian Delong of IU calls "The Cult of the Card". Taking no notice of this position in round can effect speaker points awarded.

Note 2: NO NEW OFF-CASE POSITIONS IN THE 2NC, I WILL NOT FLOW IT!!!! (unless warranted by offensive language/actions, ethics violations, far-reaching 2AC abuses/skews)

Paradigm:

Average Speaker Points: 28.5

Spreading---X--------------------------------Conversation

Spreading is fine, speed is important but clarity is more important. Slow down on analytics, include them in the email chain. Also slow down 20% on tags and authors. Differentiate between tags and the internals of your cards. With the online format, make sure that you are either decreasing your speed on analytics or you are sending them out in the speech doc. I have noticed in cases that some analysis can get missed with the tubes of the internet.

Tech---------X---------------------------------------Truth

If it’s conceded it’s true; I'll pic out of really terrible arguments (racism, sexism, otherization, etc.), also reading more cards that aren’t true, doesn’t mean I will prefer.

Policy-------------------X---------------------Ks (Aff or Neg)

I am good with either a policy debate or K v. K debate; just make sure to explain your argument thoroughly.

Analytics---------------------------------X--Evidence

Analytics have their place, however they should be based in the literature, this also includes theory and theory blocks. Speaker points check...cite literature as an argument and I will bump up .5! (make sure I hear it!)

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

Conditionality is generally good, but I could be persuaded otherwise. This is a vote down the team theory approach.

Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP good--X------------------------------- Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP bad

The CP is an essential tool for the Neg, all are strategic. That being said I am open to theory objections and if won by the Aff, I will reject the argument (if indicated). For Courts CP, run them, but be able to clearly articulate how the Courts would be able to hear the Aff plan; be it a test case (include your test case, or be able to defend the timeframe deficit awaiting the next available test case) or defend SCOTUS using a Writ of Crit to rule. Also, it would be wise to include the basis of ruling within the text of the CP. Args directly questioning the mechanisms by which the CP functions and can be very persuasive for me.*

Politics DA good------------------X------------Politics DA bad

Read the appropriate Tix DAs and you’re good, however, as in 2020, reading Prez Tix DAs two days after the elections is frustrating. DO NOT DO IT!

1AR gets new args--------------X----------------------1AR doesn’t get new args

I will give the 1AR room to present new extrapolations of the Aff positions and to respond fully to the block, however running a new position/link turn/mpx turn or a new response to a Neg position isn’t the best and it’s probably too late in the debate to truly develop said position.

UQ matters most-----------------------------X---Link matters most

A solid link into an argument is incredibly important, no matter how unique an argument is, if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply!

Love T-X---------------------------------------------Hate T

I love T!! Evidence again is very important and please read it. I will prefer your standards if you have evidence supporting. Explain your mpx, violation and why you should win. Make sure that if you are going for T, either send a doc with analytics or ensure that you are clear.

Limits------X----------------------------------------Ground

Generics solve your ground claims, all though they might not be the most in-depth or educational, they do provide access to clash, and even if they are generic, there is evidence that supports those claims which is still educational. Limits, however, means that the Neg can produce in-depth arguments due to having a limited research burden and lit base.

Fairness is an mpx--------------------------------X-----Education is an mpx

Debate is a game, but, it is a game is which the motive is academic.

Reasonability------------------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Reasonability opens the door for judge intervention, what I believe is reasonably topical and what the next person does, is inherently different. I’d rather hear the mpx of topicality weighed as a net benefit to the presented interpretations.

Longer ev--------------------X---------------------More ev

Whatever way you want to present your evidence is up to you. Your evidence represents your argument, not the tag, if the tag is misrepresentative or an embellishment of the ev then that argument will be given less weight in the round*

"Insert this rehighlighting"--------X---------------I only read what you read

I will only evaluate only what is read during the speech act, unless told to evaluate a rehighlighting (should be sent in the doc) or told to evaluate a card vs. another card.

Durable FIAT solves circumvention--------------------X---Durable FIAT is not a thing

There are a number of ways that a position can be undermined that FIAT cannot account for. However, FIAT would protect teams from args like “plan doesn’t pass”.

Secrecy-----------------------------X-Disclosure

A team doesn't need to hide their argument or not disclose their arguments, not disclosing makes for a sloppy debate and a bunch of people not knowing what is going on.

Analytic Perm-----------------------------X-Evidence-based Perm

The words "Perm Do Both" (or similar analytics) mean nothing to me unless you explain how it functions, what level of competition the perm is testing and read evidence indicating a net benefit to said perm. BTW...I love the perm debate!

Existential Mpx---------------X-----------------Systemic Mpx

Tell me how to vote and what mpx to evaluate. This is also more of mpx weighing analysis, not framework. Framework is how debate should be or included within the realm of debate. Mpx prioritization is a question of the specific magnitude of that mpx.

Letter of the Plan Text-X------------------------Intent of the Plan Text

In regards to construction of the plan/counterplan/advocacy/permutation texts, I have a high threshold for properly written texts, meaning that text must do what is indicated that it will do. In a number of rounds, I have found that teams seems to misunderstand or misrepresent what the letter of the text actually would do. This can be as easy as using the wrong diction, syntax and/or semantics...for example using "apart" meaning not a part of vs. what is intended "as a part of" in the text. Just the simple change to this verbiage means that the functional implementation of the policy would be drastically different and not uphold what the solvency advocate intends. Prior to the round please evaluate texts, and the opponent texts as I am willing to vote/reject on miswrote texts in round, however it does have to be on the flow for me to vote.

cutespeech@gmail.com

Paradigm for beehive bonanza 2023

B.A. in Anthropology from University of Utah

M.M. In Music technology from Southern Utah

What I find debate is a very intellectual, knowledgeable sport. what I find unique about high school debate is that if I can understand what you’re saying then I’m more likely to vote for your team if I find something interesting or unique then I’m going to have to take more time to evaluate it; dress for success.

Anyone can debate and push an argument my dilemma is as a judge is considering where you stand as a professional. I think that having the desire to uphold professionalism is important and doing that with confidence to your practice is what orients you toward a passionate career.

I invite you to keep your dialogue relevant.

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

I have a Masters Degree in Psychology and have practiced in the social science field for twenty years. I appreciate debaters who flow correctly and offer a clear path to their arguments.

It's your round.

He/Him/His/They/Them

I've done forensics for 4 years in a lot of different events. I competed 3 years in high school and one year in the collegiate parliamentary circuit. Overall, I'm familiar with the mechanisms of debate and comfortable with procedurals and critical arguments.

Send Files to jeremylm21@gmail.com

Specifics:

Speed:

My first language isn't English and have severe ADD, so if you spread too quckly or are unclear I will not be able to flow you. I won't flow from the file you send me on my computer, I only do so to check evidence. Although, I will "clear" and "slow" you a few times before I stop flowing. Overall, you can go fast as long as you're clear on tags, and if you're not then I will clear/slow you. SLOW ON TAGS AND CITES. I would also prefer if you didn't spread in rebuttals.

Make the round accessible to everyone, I won't accept spreading if it's used to create a barrier against those who aren't familiar with speed. Slow or clear when your opponents ask you to.

HOW TO GET CRAZY HIGH SPEAKS:

Most of my formal debate experience comes from collegiate parliamentary where cards and evidence are not used. This means a couple of things: first is that I heavily value analysis and strong warrants, second is that I'm terrible at flowing citations. In your constructive speeches it is very important for you to label each part of the argument (i.e. uniqueness, links, impacts) in each position which makes it easier for me to flow. Thus your extensions should look like "Extend the link analysis on advantage 1," instead of "Extend the xxx card."

Theory:

My threshold for theory is relatively low compared to formal policy judges. Just like all most arguments, if you can warrant it, I will flow it. The same condition applies to reverse voting issues as well. When answering theory I use standards for measuring abuse in-round, so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them and be thorough in the voters. I'll leave the evaluation debate up to you.

Kritiks:

I think K's, K Affs, and Performance Affs are intriguing and awesome. However, I am not familiar with most of the literature base with the exception for basic critiques, like Capitalism. The best way for you to win critical arguments with me is to include an analysis that treats me like I'm 10 years old. Referring back to the Speed section, my first language isn't English and I have ADD, so when you use intricate vocabulary while speaking quickly, I probably won't be able to follow your speech.

It's important that your framework is strongly warranted. My unfamiliarity with critical literature makes it so I default to a policy framework if the framing of the K isn't explained well. You'll also have to convince me the alt is better than the plan, it's usually not enough for me to vote on the K as a linear disadvantage.

Side Note: Please don't run identity criticisms without being a part of the specified marginalized identity that you are using unless you have a specific method to engage in the discussion. Commodifying the struggles of a marginalized group won't win you the ballot.

In/Out of round conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS (sexual assault, violence/gore, racial slurs, etc.) AND TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THEM BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS. I will not stand for malicious actions towards other competitors, if you fail to use someone's correct pronouns on purpose, call them racial slurs, or blatantly disrespectful, I will reflect it on the ballot. I understand that in-round aggression is inevitable, but please keep it to a minimum. I view debate as a safe space for debaters to voice themselves in ways they otherwise wouldn't have outside of the activity, please treat it as such.

I don't care if you sit/stand for cross. If you take too long to flash evidence I will count it towards your prep.

Unless told otherwise, I usually disclose at the end and give critiques. I also save my flows for the day, so if you have questions outside of round I'd be happy to answer them or give feedback.

LD:

Everything that I wrote above applies in this event, if it's a progressive round. Although, it's important to mention that I do not think that specific debate formats should be limited to a single style of debating, thus progressive or traditional methods of debating are both fine with me; if you want to treat an LD round like a Policy round, then go for it. I'm not super familiar with the format of LD debate so please time yourselves. Additionally, you will have to warrant the hell out of your Value/Criterion and tell me why it's more applicable to the topic and why it's better than your competitor's, I expect a lot of clash in this area.

Overall:

Speak clearly, warrant your arguments, be respectful, and have fun.

Updated 10/1/20 for UK

nicholasjlassen@gmail.com please include me on the email chain- you're also welcome to email me for any other questions as well

I debated in high school and college and I am the current head coach at Bingham HS in South Jordan, UT.

College Topic: I am well versed in debate but relatively new to this topic. Please explain important acronyms the first time you use them.

High School Topic: I have several tournaments on this topic already and I am pretty familiar with the literature base.

Theory - I really enjoy a good topicality debate. However, my expectation for the negative to win is that they can clearly define the impacts of the argument i.e. how has the aff been unfair to you directly, what grounds have been lost, why is your model for education better? I dislike time suck theory that you are never going to go for-i.e. things like incredibly thin pics such as capitalize the L in the word lands and disclosure theory. The important thing to keep in mind is that if you want me to vote on theory, you have to be good at articulating the impacts.

CP's - I believe that counter plans really need to be mutually exclusive either through actor or avoidance of a DA or something or else, otherwise it's really easy to buy the affirmatives claims of the perm. The permutation should be a test of competition towards the counterplan. In the plan v counterplan debate it is important to prove why your side is net beneficial either through some DA story or winning some solvency mitigation towards the aff or the CP.

DA's - My expectation on the DA debate is really articulate the link story. I think a lot of generic da's are easy to non/unique out of. As far as the link story goes, I need a good internal link chain. Please make sure that I can see how we get from the aff to point b and then point c.

Politics - I have a strong tendency to default to more recent evidence on politics disads. This can definitely create a research burden but if you want to run politics then you should know that this means that a lot of the time, it boils down to a recency/card quality debate.

K's

Aff - I want to know that your K aff means something. I am much more likely to buy into your criticism if there is some sort of personal connection. Make sure you are ready for the framework debate. I need to know why your framework is better for education than the negative or why I should choose to recognize your role of the ballot versus theirs.

Neg - I am open to most K's on the neg. I know it practically impossible to have hyper specific link cards for every aff. But with that in mind, please articulate how the aff links through a thorough analysis. Please make sure that you articulate the alternative well if you want to go for it -I want to know what the world of the alternative looks like and what happens when I sign my ballot neg. If I am left confused about what the world of the alt looks like, it will be hard for you to win the debate.

Method v Method

The one point I want to make here is that I have a higher threshold for voting on the permutation then i do in a plan v cp debate. I hold the aff to a similar burden as the negative, I would not let them just stand up and coopt your advocacy so I most likely wont let you stand up and just say perm do both and gain 100% access to their advocacy. I want the competing ideologies weighed against each other and to know why your world is "better" then the opposing teams.

Please don't be rude, disrespectful, racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. I will doc your speaks and most likely drop you. It's not welcome in debate or in society overall.

I debated policy for four years in high school and once on the national level. I'm a sophomore at the University of Utah. I've seen pretty much everything and will listen to almost any argument. I've seen super traditional and super progressive styles, so I'm pretty cool with whatever.

I run off of a policymaker framework. You're presenting a plan/bill/course of action to me. If your arguments aren't realistic to the world at large, it's a waste of time for all involved.

I'll respond well to T's, K, CP's, DisAd's, and theory, if you're running something well out of that scope, you need to tell me what's going on or the whole argument means nothing to me. EDTI: after seeing the K's run here, do not attempt running one unless you're going to put real effort on it. If you present one, it is going to be one of the bigger voting points.

You have to signpost where you're at and where your cards start and end. If I can't catch your tagline and date, it's not getting counted as an argument. It won't go on the flow. Any argumentation about it is not going to be followed.

I can handle speed, but the moment I can't understand you, nothing is getting put down on your flow. If you're desperately and loudly gasping for air between sentences, I will stop you and ask if you need medical attention.

If I look disinterested or bored, I'm really not. I just want to be neutral on face so no one goes ham on an argument I accidentally nodded to.

I really love seeing passionate and strong debate, but you're both people. Be aggressive, but be nice to your opponents. Inappropriate conduct (yelling, screaming, snickering, pointing, stomping, hitting, ad hominem, etc.) will greatly count against you. It doesn't matter if it happened during your opponent's speech or during prep. It's okay to be upset or mad, but don't make it obvious or take it out on anyone else. I don't tolerate those bad vibes.

Have fun! I loving judging policy!

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

Updated: Buffalo Battles 2021

This will be my 11th year in the debate community. I competed for 4 years in high school, 2 in middle school, and three years in college. I've done various judging and coaching jobs since. I'm not familiar with the literature on this years policy topic at all.

When it comes to a preference of arguments I really am open to anything as long as it isn’t morally repugnant: sexist, racist, homophobic ect. arguments.

I ran pretty much every type of argument out there. I have a preference to Kritikal debate. I have a low threshold for T. I have a deep love of performance debate. Give me reasons why you aren't going to debate the topic if you're going to ignore it. I'm super game for that type of debate but I need to see the reasoning behind why your performance should supersede the topic. Given that policy has a year long topic I'm very receptive to arguments that talk about the importance of this tournament or location of tournament. That said I have a love for traditional debate as well. If you want to give me a plan on counterplan debate I'm absolutely open to hearing it.

I evaluate the round through framework. Just because you lose this part of the debate does not mean you lose the debate as a whole. As long as you can prove that you fit the winning framework better than your opponent I will give you the ballot. In fact I find kicking out of arguments to be an extremely effective way to win debate rounds.

VOTERS!!! At the end of the round please give me voters. When I sign the ballot I don’t generally write that one person just won everything on the flow. Give me a couple options as to why I should vote for you instead of going over everything. You could lose all but 1 or 2 arguments but as long as you can show me that that argument or arguments outweigh when looking to the framework I will still pick you up. I love impact calc. Please do the work for me; I don’t want to be left at the end of the round trying to decide whether econ collapse outweighs 10,000 people dying. Tell me specifically WHY yours outweighs. Probability, Timeframe, Magnitude typically are the way I've seen this done.

LD Specific
Traditional v. Progressive. I really don’t have a preference as to which form of debate is better. As long as it is organized and well developed I believe anyone can beat anyone regardless of their form of debate. I love to see a good value value criterion debate. Though a poor one makes me really sad. As above, winning the framework of the debate will be extremely important to how I view the round. I find that LD debaters tend to forget to debate the framework even though that is what separates LD from other types of debate is it's specific focus on framework.

Speaker points. Most of the time I give high speaks based on how well you debate in your particular style. For example if you are a progressive debater I probably won’t be judging you too much on eye contact. And the same goes for the other side, if you are a traditional debater I won’t be judging you on how many cards or how fast you go. Across the board as long as you’re making great arguments and debating your style well you will get high speaks.

Graduated high school five years ago. Only did debate my senior year but I won most of the tournaments I attended and received two bids for nationals, thus don't change your case to appease a lay judge--I definitely know what's up.

I like passionate rounds; tell me why you (and consequently I) should care.

Please follow the flow. DONT DROP ARGUMENTS. On that note, no judge kick: tell me what you’re going for.

No card clipping.

I’ll vote on both tech and truth so tell me why I should value one over the other in the round.

I love intonation in voice. Also make sure you slow down and emphasize tags.

Best things you could do to win the round: be respectful to your partner and your opponents, clear impact calc, and (if you haven’t picked up on it yet) tell me WHY you win the round.

PSA: incorporate Beyonce into your case and there's a better chance you'll win the round. Let's have fun with it.

Good luck snitches.

BIG PICTURE

I’ve been out of the activity for a bit but have 20 years + experience with policy debate. Participant (high school and college) and coaching at all levels and all events.

This will be my first tournament on this topic so avoid acronyms etc. that might be too specific. I’m sure my flow is a bit slow coming back too so if an argument is important make sure to make that clear in the round.

I try hard not to interfere in your debate for you.
I have more experience in traditional policy debate but am open to voting on anything that is well argued.

I need to have clear reasons to make decisions.

Please clarify voters and do impact calculation for me.

CX-The foundation of my philosophy is that debate is a game. This is important in that I believe strongly that everyone who wants to should be able to play. That means that treating each other with respect, and sportsmanship are very important. If you lie to me, or your competitors or do anything to intentionally belittle anyone's efforts you will awaken my wrath. You should always debate to the best of your ability but if you are debating a team that clearly isn't up to your competition level please try to make it quick and painless. If you don't need to use all your speech time don't and in those situations because I am a coach I tend to reward debaters who are kind and helpful to those who are still learning.

I appreciate debate as forum for education and expression and believe that my role is simply to try to do my best to evaluate the round through whatever method you effectively present to me. I have been participating in this activity in one way or another for 20 years. That has benefits and disadvantages to you. I am willing and able to evaluate any style of debate and my preference for what you choose to do doesn't exist as long as you do your thing well. Because I have seen so many debates, I do appreciate creativity in argument choice, and strategy.

I am not as good at flowing as I used to be so signposting and clarity are key. If the round comes down to whether you uttered one sentence or not somewhere in the round that is not a position I would trust my own flow in so debate better than that. If an argument is really important you should flag it as such.

My understanding of most philosophy/philosophers/Kritiks is very basic. So, you need to be clear in your explanations of any positions that involve these things. My own debate preference was theory, D/As, and C/Ps as a result those positions are easiest for me to evaluate. While I often very much enjoy performance/identity debates they are the most difficult to evaluate as I find they often call for judge intervention. Because I believe debate is a game (your game not mine) I do my best to just follow where you take me in a round. That means anything goes. To answer the typical questions: speed is fine (being unclear can cause you problems), tag team is fine, playing media is fine, anything you can justify through argumentation is fine.

Specifics on my experience: 3 years high school policy TOC qualifier, 4 years college policy debate (CEU, Georgia State, Weber State) NDT qualifier. 12 years various coaching positions. Have coached TOC qualifiers in all events.

Have fun! Please ask if you have any other questions.

LD- This event has changed dramatically since I first started judging and coaching it. I am up for anything you can argue well. If you are not going to follow the traditional format please plan to explain what your voters are, and give me a methodology for evaluation.

Email:kamiromeike@gmail.com

She/Her Pronouns

Email: nadia.sabry.155@gmail.com

Debated for three years at Bingham HS ‘19

General:

-Be nice, have fun

-I am very expressive so you can probably tell how I feel about whatever is going on at anytime

-Disclosure is important

T

I like T a lot but that means I have a higher threshold for it. I’ll evaluate through competing interpretations.

K Affs/FW

I usually lean neg on these debates because I consider fairness to be an impact and debate is a game. I love topic specific Ks that the debaters are passionate about. I see debate as a game, but you can convince me to vote otherwise

DA

Not a huge fan of politics. The more specific, the more I like it. If you are winning the counterplan, the lower the threshold I have for a link.

I like clear and thorough internal link analysis.

CP

I love cps that steal from the aff evidence. Explain what the perm is. Neg fiat is good.

K

I think framework is one of the most important things here. I’m familiar with many identity based arguments and enjoy postmodernist literature, so read whatever you want. Explain your alts.

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

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. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

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

30-99%perfect

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.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Feel free to add me to the email chain: mike_simpson@rocketmail.com

Former high school policy and 4-year NDT debater (West HS, Highland HS, and Loyola Marymount in the 90’s), now a debate dad. Call me anything you like (Mike / judge / male pronouns).

Debate is a game of persuasion. Any argument is winnable if you do it well enough.

I vote on LBL and won't make arguments for you

Core Biases (which I’m open to changing if you challenge them effectively):

Debate is an academic game with only a few rules that I won’t let you argue about (time limits, order of speeches, a resolution that I’m expecting is relevant, no biting, etc.).

I vote based on the arguments presented in the round. Won’t ever intervene beyond enforcing time limits unless something rises to the level of kicking you out of the tournament.

If you drop an argument, you lose it.

If you act like an ass, I’ll probably ding your speaker points.

Clash is key, thus (non)topicality trumps impacts, and generic critiques of society that aren’t germane to the topic will be viewed skeptically. I don’t expect debate to be ‘fair’ and won’t go beyond the arguments presented to compensate for a broken society.

I’m liberal in my personal life, but will vote for any argument you can win, my political opinion aside.

Speed- is fine, so long as I can flow your tags and sources, and your cards should be comprehensible. I’ll ask once or twice by saying “clearer” if one of us is struggling. If you don’t take the hint, you risk me missing things. 01/24/20 is/was my first tournament on this topic, so define your acronyms for me the first time you use them, and don’t assume I’ve heard your arguments before.

Topicality – always willing to vote on it. Please don’t go for ‘the’.

Counterplans – fine. But so are multiple permutations.

Theory – potential abuse is hard to win. Actual abuse is somewhat easier. Being faster, smarter, better prepared, or having a specific identity doesn’t constitute abuse imo but winnable if you argue it right on the LBL.

Performance – Everyone is performing something the entire time we’re in the room. It can help or hurt your speaker points, but I vote on the line-by-line of my flow.

K- Specific links to clash-able critiques with well defined impacts will be weighed against the impacts to everything else, and can definitely win a round. I’ll assume we’re deciding each round based on the hypothetical world where the aff can fiat federal legislation, with hypothetical pros and cons, unless you can establish otherwise. Throwing out buzzwords or asking me to vote on identity isn’t going to get you anywhere,. Prove why it matters and what happens if it's not weighed.

Tag team cross-ex is fine, but give your partner the chance to answer because it's your prep and you should both know the arguments well enough to coherently answer questions.

I usually stop prep when the flash comes out or the email has been sent.

If you have any questions about what's on my paradigm or something that's not in it, feel free to ask!

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

Add me to the chain at zeeht@duq.edu or use SpeechDrop.

At the outset, I debated three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (Utah), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L year) law student at Kline.

At a high level,I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth, and a well-developed technical debate with in-depth analysis is always encouraged.

As far as arguments and "unconventional cases",arguments are arguments; performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

I love critical evidence arguments (huge speaker points here), whether it's arguing a team's evidence doesn't say what the team claims it does, a parallel compression between two pieces of evidence, or even a comparison of the persuasiveness of the authority behind the evidence. You gotta go further than, "their evidence is power tagged ... next!" No no, explain the warrant as to why it does so.

On topicality, ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. As a prior issue, you must actually prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.

Next on the K, I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I generally analyze the round through framework. Each side should have a well-warranted framework argument as to why I should view the round their lens (e.g., policy making over epistemology, ontology over individual resistance, or even government fiat over subject formation). I will filter the rest of the Kritik through the lens of whomever team wins framework. Oh, and I frankly have no opinion on whether alternative fiat's a thing.

Finally, the DA/CP. I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a negative ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are great, while well-developed analyses on actor CPs with warrants are even greater.

On LD and PF, the inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell. PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.