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.

I am a former high school/college debate participant in policy and extemporaneous speaking. I also coached debate at the high school level back when evidence and speeches were on paper and I am currently an assistant high school coach.

Policy

Arguments should be balanced with evidence and logic. Speak clearly and road map for me. I prefer impacts or benefits to be quantifiable but I’m flexible if strong enough arguments are made.

Individual Events

Speech competitors will see a higher ranking if they are articulate and tell me why their topic is important. A strong conclusion is a must for a top ranking. Higher rankings for memorized speeches.

LD

I will judge the round based on persuasiveness of arguments. Strong connection of value to criterion is a must.

PF

Persuasiveness and ability to demonstrate an understanding of arguments is key. Please clash. Clarify voters.

I have been judging PF for several years. I look for logical reasoning, creative thinking and attention to detail when evaluating the participants.

I prefer the participants use reasonable references with regard to objective claims.

Cross can be a good time to show your strengths for both sides and I find that to be a deciding factor in many rounds.

Prep and teamwork become apparent as the round proceeds and I judge based on that as well.

Decorum, civility and respect count towards an essential requirement through out the round.

Traditional (conversational speed, please)

Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is hannahphel@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.

I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.

Competed in the following events from 2016-2019: Impromptu, Policy, Lincoln Douglass, Extemp, and Public Forum. I spent most of my time competing in Public Forum and in general I do enjoy debate events more, however, I find the speech events seem to be more of an art form. There are rules to follow if you want it to look proper but those rules can be broken as long as you know when, where, why, and if breaking the rule legitimately adds to your performance and does not take away from anyone else's ability to compete.

I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped. Pre-crafted arguments about what your opponent has said or dropped that are obviously pre-crafted because they're inaccurate for the round will hurt your overall score -- it demonstrates a lack of listening and adaptation.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

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.