Experience

I am a head coach and a former assistant coach with three prior years of coaching and judging experience focused in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum Debate. I am also a high school English teacher. My educational background is in Political Science, History, Communication, and Education.

Rate of Delivery (Speed)

I prefer a typical conversational speed, but rate of delivery is not a primary factor in my decision. I believe a reasonable speed allows for a more a more quality debate. In other words, I am more concerned about what you say than how much you say. It is your burden to make sure your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument then you did not make it.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigms

I feel that value and criterion are key elements of the case, and these are a major factor in my evaluation. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and a bullet-point analysis of your case. I also prefer to hear voting issues as you move down the flow. The use of evidence is somewhat necessary, but I will look more at how you use that evidence to prove your point. If you offer a piece of evidence without explaining how it ties back to your key arguments, it will have little significance to me. I write down key arguments and some detailed notes throughout the round. When making a final decision, I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round, as well as who persuaded me more of his / her position overall.

I have had the opportunity to judge debate tournaments starting in 2019. My primary experience has been with Lincoln-Douglas debates, however I have judged other formats as well. My main goals as a debate judge are to give the participants my full attention (while taking notes), and to provide useful feedback. I appreciate debaters who are mindful of any time constraints and are courteous to themselves and to the other participants.

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

about me:

did pf at hunter high school for 2 years and i really liked it

general stuff and stuff i like:

I like smaller scale impacts.

Weighing. weigh impacts please. weighing is also only useful if it is comparative weighing. don’t just weight impacts but weigh warrants too. Also meta weighing like probability vs. magnitude

really good analysis. good analysis beats a bad card 1000% of the time. calling for cards is off time. dont steal prep.

only do a road map if you are gonna do something really specific. Don’t waste time

im not good with speed. share cases and speech docs with me if you want. hit me over the head with things im kinda dumb

debate is an activity about communication communicate to me clearly why you are winning or should win. say something funny, rap, have an actual good round. just dont bore me to death and make me stare at the ceiling and beg for it to end

if its not in summary it cant be in final focus

people don’t extend stuff for some reason. reading a tag line or the author and year is not an extension. actually explain the arg Please have consistent extensions and don’t shadow extend

im more forgiving to first speaking teams. I’d prefer if you would front line in second rebuttal as much as you can at the very least respond to turns

i dont know how i feel about theory and Ks in pf yet.

im really generous with speaker points

if i can do anything to make the round more accessible let me know

stuff i dont like:

somethings don’t have to be said

definition debate is stupid

i don’t like cross. use it for whatever you like. dont use it to be annoying and scream at each other

supplement cards with analysis dont just read tag lines without the context of the debate

dont run framework if you are just gonna drop it in rebuttal. 99% of the time framework is dropped in like the second speech and if it is flowed thru to the end its inconsequential. if you are running framework warrant it. framework is bad for debate if you run some bizarre framework to cheese your opponents it makes it harder to judge. I much prefer you frame individual arguments.

dont pull some goofy garbage or ill drop you (up to my interpretation)

dont be rude if it is to much ill drop you. Civility is prereq to any positive educational debate round and I hate meanies there is a clear distinction between an intense round and just being mean. be nice to novices

dont break the simulation. debate is a game

in conclusion:

my paradigm is just a frankenstein of stuff from paradigms i like. hold each other accountable and use good fundamentals to win. if you have any questions about my paradigm ask me in round

tldr just be nice, have fun, weigh, and dont be annoying

Feel free to email regarding a round or help with stuff. always glad to help im married to the game.

bustamante78554@gmail.com

Email: awesleycarter@gmail.com

Background: I debated LD and policy. Currently coaching.

Paradigm: I don't have any strong preferences regarding style; I'll vote on any K, theory, or stock case if you're winning the flow. I think K's are fun to watch.

- Stock: I love a good policy debate. Weigh your impacts. Tech>truth.

- Critiques: Interesting K's will always have a special place in my heart. I'm happy to vote on any K you want to read although I might not be an expert on the lit base.

- T/Theory/Framework: My threshold is pretty reasonable; I will pull the trigger if you can prove in-round abuse or if you're clearly winning the flow. The more organized your speeches the easier it will be for me to tell if these conditions have been met.

Other Thoughts:

Speaker Point Scale:

_29-30: Excellent

_28-29: Pretty good

_27-28: Hmmm

_25-27: Needs work

- I default to the assumption that debate is a game and fairness is a voter. I can be convinced otherwise, but I think both sides should have a potential path to the ballot.

- I believe that disclosure is good for debate.

- Prep time should stop running when you are ready to speak (speech doc is uploaded, flash-drive has left your computer, email is sent, etc.) I'll trust the debaters to time each other.

- Flex prep is great.

- Far-fetched link chains do not always let you weigh high-magnitude impacts. If your internal links are flawed to the point of being meaningless the impact scenario is no longer offense for you.

- I'm a sucker for a good overview.

- The Speed K is a great argument whose time has not yet come. I'm down to vote for it if you do it well.

I was an LD debater for three years in High School. I ran a generally traditional style of debate, but don't have any major biases against against progressive debate with an absolutely clear link to the topic.

I will vote on T and Theory, K's are less attractive but I will vote on it if the argument is clearly linked and well explained. I honestly have a hard time buying non-Topical Narratives, so it's not your best strategy to use, but you can try it if you want. THE LINK IS PARAMOUNT.

I love solid topical debates!

Voting issues are key. Tell me what to vote on. If you leave me a mess to judge you may not like how I choose to vote. Make it easy for me to give you the win.

Spreading is okay, but if I need to read what you are saying to understand it you are going too fast. I will judge only based what I hear and understand in the round. I will say clear.

I keep a flow. Dropped Args are huge. EXTEND THEM! Show me their impact.

I will weigh the round based off of the weighing mechanism presented in the round, V and VC are default if nothing else is presented.

If you have any questions I am happy to answer them before the round. As well as give appropriate feed back after the round. Debate is the best! Let's try to laugh, be respectful, and learn together.

As a judge I come into the room the least educated person in the room- waiting to be informed and swayed. In LD debate, fiat in an important principle for me- I want to hear the argument for WHY something should be done- not if it CAN be done nor do I care about a plan or counter-plan. Evidence and definitions are also key and something I listen for in making my decision.

FIAT

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I watch for a professional presentation, including courtesy toward all competitors, diction, enunciation and speaking just fast enough so the facts presented are understandable. It is better to eliminate thoughts than spew facts.

Winning entry is determined by the actual argument presenting convincing facts and sources.

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD my last two years of high school, and had a LOT of fun with it!

I am personally a fan of traditional LD, but that doesn't mean I'm not okay with a progressive case. Please don't expect me to understand every kritik, explain it to me. I want to understand your case as well as you do, so make sure you help me understand.

I am okay with spreading, just make sure to slow down on Contentions and Contention Points so I can flow with you. Possibly even slow down on important pieces of evidence if you think it will be important later.

I think that Value and Value Criterion is very important, and you need to make sure all your contentions connect back, but don't overdo the criterion debate. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, move on to why your case fits it better.

I think the last speech is the most important. This is where you tell your judge exactly why you won the round instead of your opponent. Don't waste that time. I don't flow cross-x so if you think something is important, bring it up in your speech.

I have done LD before, but do it as you want to do it! I have my preferences, but it's only to help me understand. If you can do it in a different way, that's not gonna be a problem. I'm not going to make you lose the round if you don't follow my entire paradigm. I'm going to make the decision on how you debate in round, and if you prove to me that you are the better debater, specifically that you have the better case.

This is one of my favorite resolutions, I studied this a lot hoping it would be one of my resolutions, and I'm excited to see what you guys come up with! Have fun!

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I have a pretty traditional paradigm. I prefer normal speaking speed and good evidence-based debating. In events such as Lincoln-Douglas debates, I do not particularly enjoy progressive debating (i.e. arguing about definitions instead of focusing on the topic and points made by the opponent). Just good old-fashioned debates!

Hi, I’m Ana (she/her)

background:

I debated for Copper Hills for three years. I did a little bit of everything debate wise throughout my high school career, but mostly did LD.

tl;dr

• if you read arguments about sexual violence in any context please provide a tw *

• please include me on the email chain anastacia.tennant@yahoo.com

• tech > truth; any arguments that require judge intervention will probs get you dropped

• depth > breadth is great in 9/10 instances

• flex prep is fine

• cx is important. i will flow it but if you want to win on an arg from cx, definitely bring it up in future speeches

• pls sign post. it truly makes my life easier

• in your 2ar/2nr write my ballot for me, tell me why you believe you should win. what does a world with your name on the ballot look like. in other words, please be completely clear as to why you are winning.

• you can run pretty much whatever argument you’d like to in front of me. i enjoy a k debate (if it’s done properly), performance debate is my fav, but i’m also down with some traditional ol’ args. [with that said, power differentials / power protected rounds happen sometimes and if you can tell you are more well versed than your opponent and are belittling, i will deck your speaks. it doesn’t help anyone and debate is supposed to be an inclusive space]

extended version:

• my fav debates to watch are performance (but if you do this, make sure to carry it through and explain why you’re winning on it, this is especially important in LD where with such short speech times, the important things can get lost), a properly done K debate, pretty much any kind of theory (unless it’s obscure and is a waste of time for the aff team - these debates get boring to watch)

* i also dig traditional debate as i did a lot of it in hs but if you’re gonna go traditional, please try to make it interesting :)

so, essentially

CPs/PICs/DAs/plan texts:

cool beans

K debate or performance debate:

extra cool beans

• tech > truth extended: this is my outlook to an extent, if you abuse the tech bit (this especially goes for the locals) by having way too much breadth > depth and then belittling your opponent for not catching it all, that’s super meh

• flex prep is actually super interesting, you can definitely use your prep time to ask your opponent more questions, especially if this helps you get into a position you need to be in for your next rebuttal

• on that note, as i mentioned before, cx is super important in a debate round - definitely try to use it to get yourself into a better situation in the debate round. you should probably bring up things that you ask in cx in your rebuttals if your opponent answers the way that you want them to. also, please finish your thought even if the timer goes off mid-answer or mid-question

• don’t be exclusive in the debate space continued: a lil bit of dominance in round never hurt anybody, but nobody gains anything by extensive unnecessary aggression or making the round inaccessible to your opponent in any way (whether it be using jargon that they obvi don’t understand, going at a speed that they can’t process, using a highlight color that they can’t see, using demeaning language, or other things along those lines). you just look mean and that’s one of the many reasons that people leave the community

personal things:

• i don’t think it’s necessary for you to make eye contact if you’re uncomfortable with it, i will not dock your speaks

• on that note, i’m not very expressive unless you make a super solid point or say something i absolutely do not buy. thus, looking at my face throughout the debate doesn’t do much as far as predicting the ballot

• definitions are usually super unnecessary, i can almost guarantee that your opponent and i are familiar with the words “should, “ought,” and “nuclear”

• i could not care less where you sit in the room as long as you’re comfortable

• i’m happy to answer any questions about my decision after the debate is over / give further critiques if needed - but after we all leave the room, email me about it

This shouldn’t have to be said - but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or I will drop you and substantially deck your speaks.

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

I am a parent judge :)