Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

For the debate round, I would like to see people broadening their case and explaining it in detail. Clearly format your statement so that I and your opponent can understand you. Evidence is highly favored to either side. Don't interrupt your opponent keep it respectful. Expand your value and how your upholding it. Tell me why you won.

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.

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!

The clash

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.

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

I did debate for three years in high school, pf all three.

I'm okay with speed, just be sure you're clear so that I can understand you.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost. if you don't I won't know where you are, so I won't know where to flow, and if I don't know where to flow I won't be able to flow, and then it might look like you dropped arguments when you really didn't. Moral of the story; it'll make everyone's lives a whole lot easier if you just signpost so we all are in the clear.

I don't flow cross ex, but I do (mostly) pay attention. That being said, don't rely on me to write down anything important that comes up. If you think it's important and you want me to have it on my flow, bring it up in your speeches.

I like clash. Note that there is a fine line between clash and being a dick; don't cross it.

Please time yourselves because I don't want to. It's a good idea to time your opponents as well, but that's up to you.

GIVE ME CLEAR VOTERS/IMPACTS. By the time it gets to the final speech, there should be a couple clear reasons on why I should vote for you, lay them out for me clearly. It makes it a lot easier to decide who to vote for when the main impacts are clearly given to me at the end.

Progressive judge and previous progressive debater. Have 5 years under my belt for judging and debating. I am open to almost any style of argumentation. (Minus really xenophobic / racist stuff). I will almost always look at Theory before a K or any other arguments on the case, this assumes that you don't tell me what to do, if you weigh them or give me reasons for why I shouldn't I will just follow your lead. Read anything you want in front of me, if you're reading anything that is very high theory or very nuanced (IE: D&G, Baudrillard) you should probably slow down and just explain the thesis of the K. Minus that, the debate space is yours, do whatever you want. Sing, dance, talk at conversation speed, spread. If FW is not that important to you, then make sure to do your impact calc.

Experience: 3 Years (Local and National Circuit)
I am fine with anything, as long as its well warranted and impacted throughout the round.
As a debater I favored the K, I'm not a fan of theory but will vote off of it if the abuse scenario is clear.

Plans, CP, DA, T- all are perfectly fine
Ks- Love a good K, prefer the K to be specific rather than general. Slow down on tags and alts. Dont assume I know every weird philosophy.
Theory- Default competing interps and no rvi. Slow down so I can understand the shell. I prefer abuse thats already happened.

Things I like-
Sass, Specific cases, comprehensive overviews and good roadmaps.

Things I don't like-
Needless hostility, Racism, Sexism, Xenophobia, Polls, Disclosure Theory

Have fun :)

I am a lay judge but I have judged before. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Please do not run theory or Ks and explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please define important acronyms that the average person would not know. And please be polite to each other and have fun!

Hi, I'm Ryan! I’m a former captain and the current coach of the East High team in Salt Lake City, Utah. [Insert obligatory High School Musical reference here.]

I’m totally open to any argument. Seriously. Ks on either side are fabulous. T is fabulous. Performance is really fabulous. But please don’t assume I’m familiar with the lit. Always explain what you're talking about and treat it like it’s, you know, the start of something new. Also: I value analytics and explicit voters over massive card dumps.

Utilitarianism is not a criterion if you don't explain what "good" you’re providing the greatest amount of people.

Speed? Great! Word vomit? Not great! C’mon, you’ve gotta get’cha, get’cha, get’cha, get’cha head in the game.

I give speaks for presentation, creativity, and HSM references. Break free! Don’t stick to the status quo.

Disrespecting your opponent will result in the intervention of a very unhappy judge. Respect is not debatable. You gotta work this out.

TL;DR, use your best judgment, and you’ll bop to the top. I know you can! Bet on it.

Please add me on the email chain: audrey.rice@voaut.org

Hi All, I am a parent judge, history of competitive debate in HS (100 years ago). I am familiar with the topic, but if you are a highly competitive team strike me. I will judge based on truth over tech because I am not fluent in all strategies/techniques. I prefer to judge policy oriented debates. Consider striking me if you are a kritikal debater. Spreading is ok at 50% speed. Be respectful. Thanks.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

I flow and consider values and criterium. I also flow cross and will consider the overall value of the evidence, and voters would be appreciated on final speaks. I have done Public Forum debates for three years at Bingham High and know my way around an argument. I will not be biased toward a topic; instead, I will consider all arguments regardless of my beliefs.

Aaron Tanuvasa

I was in debate for all of high school. I did policy for 1 year and LD for the rest. I loved them both but LD is my favorite. Unfortunately this combo has left me with an odd judging paradigm.

LD SPECIFIC:

Progressive cases- Because of my background in policy I can enjoy a progressive case WHEN IT IS DONE WELL! In LD you do not have as much time to establish the needed ground for a lot of K’s and other obscure arguments. Obviously you have to take the risk and be sure you can have the needed ground.

Solvency- No matter how traditional you are you still have to have solvency within your case. If the AFF provides a plantext and the argument against that is “this is LD and we don’t have to provide a plan”, the neg will likely lose. The NEG job is to say no to the AFF(as long as the plan is within reason).

Voters- Voters are one of the most important parts of your rebuttal. If you do not have voters I will assume that you do not care how the round ends and that everything should be weighed the exact same. This will not work out in your favor. Take at least a minute to explain why you should win. It shows an investment in the round and an actual desire to win.

Framework- Value and Value Criterion are what set LD debate apart. In a sense it is your opportunity to showcase knowledge and creativity. It is pretty easy to tell when someone put a lot of thought into their value and value criterion. If you value morality I will assume you are a boring debater and you will most likely not win the framework argument. LD is about morality, the whole goal is to prove morality. It is too vague and is already implied in the form of debate. I weigh heavily on this portion of the debate. Direct clash is good but if you and your opponent have the same framework you can still argue who better fits the framework. Do not just assume this doesn't matter because you have the same framing. Tell me how the debate should be interpreted, don't let me do that on my own.

Flowing- If you don’t flow I’m going to have a very hard time taking you seriously. Less than 10% of the population has a photographic memory so it’s not likely that that is you. Even if it is, you should still flow.

Speed- If you are spreading, you must also be clear! If you are unclear I will not be able to flow what you are saying and it will not help you in round. Slow down for taglines and anything of extreme importance.

GENERAL:

I think debate should be fun. I’m a fairly laid back judge who will vote on most anything as long as it is logical.

You should always be civil to your opponent- rip their case apart not them. Personal attacks are an absolute no. If a personal attack is made speaks will be dropped. I’m all for a super competitive clash filled debate as long as you also have good sportsmanship.

Cross counts for your speaks, not towards the win or loss.

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.