I competed in Policy for two years in high school. I've been away from debate in general for about two years. I am not familiar with the common arguments in this topic, however I am familiar with general policy debate arguments.

POLICY PARADIGM

SPEED: Send me your case. Clarity over speed. I am not a big fan of spreading. By slowing down, I think it allows for a more intricate well-thought out debate. However if you choose to do so, it is then your burden to ensure your speech is clear and understandable. Slow your taglines. If I miss a argument or a tagline, then it was not made. If I have to say clear more than three times in a speech I will stop flowing.

Flowing: I will flow all arguments I hear. Please tell me how many arguments you will have before you start as I will be flowing on multiple pieces of paper (this applies mostly to the first negative speaker and on. I reiterate, IF I have to say clear more than three times in a speech I will stop flowing.

CX: I will listen to CX, however I will not flow it. You have to bring it up in your speech for me to flow it. Be professional and be polite.

T/Theory: If developed correctly, these arguments can make for an intriguing debate. Please make the violation and impact very clear.

CP: Be specific. Solvency is very important in this argument. Prove the argument that the CP is better than the aff.

DA: Yes. Impact calc and the link, are the two most important things in a DA argumentation. Be sure to explain the impact calc, why should I care? BUILD OUT YOUR LINK. I should not have to guess the link or why it matters. That is your job.

FW: Framework. Framework. Framework. Tell me what arguments should matter the most to me, as the judge and why. I will not fill in the gaps.

Kritiks: I was not a K debater in high school, as such I will very RARELY vote on a kritik argument. If you are going to run one, build out the link and do not assume I know your argument. Explain it well. Do not let it become a theory debate.

K affs: Make sure your framework is clear.

I like Solvency, inherency, and impact arguments, however as long as you build out and explain other arguments well enough I will vote on basically anything. Structure your rebuttals, don't jump from AFF to NEG to DA back to AFF. Signpost in your rebuttals. I will not time you unless you tell me you need it. Keep track of your own time.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

I was primarily a PF competitor with background experience in Policy and Mock Trial; though, I am generally well-versed in most speech/debate events.

General Debate Paradigms:

-When judging, I will look at the flow and consistency of contentions and points, but I value competitors weighing your points, evidence, and impacts over hitting the line by line. Both are important, but I recognize that the time limits make that difficult.

-I appreciate both good case prep and noticeable arguments based on what has happened in the round. I don't mind fast speaking as long as it is clear and coherent (exceptions made for policy), and I also don't mind passionate debate and clash as long as it remains based on the case and resolution, not character arguments. Don't be a jerk.

-Please signpost. It will help me flow and compare arguments and help you organize your case.

-I will pay attention during CX, maybe even take notes, but I will not consider CX as a part of the flow. If you make a point in CX, make sure to bring it up in your later speeches if you want me to consider it.

PF Specific Judging:

As I am most familiar with PF, when I judge it I am looking for a couple of specific things.

- Public Forum should be exactly that, public. If a person of reasonable intelligence walks in with no background in the topic, they should still be able to understand your points and arguments.

- In addition, I am typically tech over truth (no matter what I know or believe about the subject, I will only judge based on how you present your case), at least in terms of cards or evidence you bring up. But if there are blatant falsehoods, or you claim something questionable with no cards to back it up, I will not weigh it in the flow.

TL;DR: Walk me through your impact chains and warrants step-by-step, and don't lie or make questionable claims without evidence.

If you have any questions before the round about me or anything in my paradigm, feel free to ask.

In addition, if you have any questions about ballots or want elaboration of critiques, you can contact me at: meilanidowns@gmail.com

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).

Speak slowly and clearly. Be civil to each other.

Graduated policy debater

If y'all are flashing I’d like to be included. (fontenot.adrienne1220@gmail.com for email chains) If not I reserve the right to ask for cards.

tab/tech over truth (However, if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ablest, etc. I will automatically vote you down and give you low speaks. if it's severe enough I will stop the round completely.)

Ks- I'm fine with K and theory debate. I'm well versed in common kritiks but make sure you can explain your theory in an accessible and understandable way. Frame the debate and make me understand why I should be voting for you. Framework debate is my favorite thing to do and to watch. A good framework debate is a good way to get a good ballot.

Impacts are EXTREMELY important if you can’t weigh your impacts it’s going to be hard for me to vote for you.

If you can’t use independent thoughts to back up your cards your cards are useless.

Tag teaming in CX is fine but don’t talk over you partner please. I probably will pay attention to CX but please bring up the points you made in your speech or I won't vote on them.

If it’s not your turn to talk BE QUIET. I don't care if you whisper to your partner but you should NOT be talking in a way that distracts from the speaker.

Don’t steal prep, don’t ask questions after the timer went off for CX, and don’t be condescending please.

Speed is usually ok but if you are talking too fast I will tell you to slow down. If you continue to talk too fast I will stop flowing.

Have fun and enjoy what you're doing I promise it makes all the difference.

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

I currently use they/them pronouns, and wish for you to respect them, regardless of your view on gender as a whole. Thank you!

Hi there! My name is Jake Garrard, and I'm currently attending Utah State University, majoring in Law and Constitutional Studies. In high school, I mainly did Congress, so I have a lot of background in critiquing both speaking skills and debating skills; as a general rule, I value both of those things in all events (minus a few speech events where they both aren't quite relevant). Speech and debate made me into the person I am today- because of that, I hold the sport in very high regard. But onto the stuff you're here for:

Public Forum

You're at a debate tournament, so act like it. PF is a debate event, but I want to see how you present your ideas just as much as I want to see the ideas themselves. A more catchy argument will, however flawed, stick in a judge's mind better than a boring, drawn out recitation of a perfect argument. I flow rounds pretty well and will track arguments as they transform over time during your rounds. Don't let one fall in order to more thoroughly defend another. Prioritize your entire set of arguments and utilize your time effectively.

Your topic for this tournament has quite a few...red herrings, I'd argue. Avoid getting trapped in semantic arguments, and point out if the other side is arguing a point irrelevant for the debate at hand. Finally, avoid buzzwords like the plague. I don't believe I can go into specific details here, but this topic invites quite a bit of mainstream attention and colloquial terms without clear definitions. If you must use a casual term for a more complicated subject, DEFINE THE TERM.

Above all, enjoy yourselves! Debate is supposed to be fun, so please have fun! Don't get too stressed out over this. You're improving skills that will last you a lifetime. That alone is worth the effort!

Good luck!

LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

PF - I am a traditional judge, do not favor progressive PF. See above.

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

I am a sophomore at the U of U. I did debate for four years at Summit Academy HS. I started out with PF and ended with LD so I am well versed in most debate styles. Don't be afraid to run what you want. I don't flow cross so if something comes up make sure to bring it up in your next speech. If you do spread add me to your email chain @omarfkhan14@gmail.com.

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.

Congress: Clear contentions, stated clearly, well supported by citations. (ie, Contention 1 or My first Contention). Do not make me try to figure out what you are wanting to say. If examples are used, back up the example with a legitimate source. Ask intelligent, to the point questions. Answer questions efficiently without a bunch of fluff. If you don't know the answer or don't have the support for the answer, I will know it. Don't waste my time or yours bluffing around. Civility is paramount. Do not talk over each other, that is rude.

Currently a sophomore at Vassar. I did pf and ld for 4 years at summit, but I've competed in every debate event including BQ, as well as numerous IEs.

Tech > truth

As a general, I don't care about speed but or general aggression but be respectful. I will not tolerate rude behavior, slurs, racist or homophobic statements, etc. Also, please read a trigger warning for sensitive topics such as sexual assaut and other forms of violence.

For PF:

Evidence and analysis is what I look for most in a public forum round. I look for clear, correct citations combined with solid analysis. Don't just spew out cards, I need the reasoning behind it as well. I personally don't have an issue with speed or anything progressive, so you can do whatever you want in terms of that. I will flow. However, I will not flow cross examination. If there is something said in cross that you want to be on the flow, make sure to let me know.

For LD:

Similar to PF, I like to see a lot of evidence and analysis. However, I am okay with less evidence and more philosophical based arguments when it comes to LD. In terms of theory, I love theory and enjoy judging it but make sure your shell isn't abusive. Also, if you run T be sure to commit to it, don't just drop it mid round. I'm also good with Ks, counterplans, etc. Anything you want to run is fine by me.

For Policy:

You can do whatever you want when it comes to policy. I'm comfortable with you running everything, so just enjoy your round. However, as stated above, I am a very evidence heavy judge. At the end of the day however, I will take good analysis over evidence but please don't make me come down to that decision.

If you have questions after the round you can email me at mae.long.2016@gmail.com. Have fun!

Hi my name is Bryn Montierth. I am currently a Political Science and Film Production student at the University of Kansas and I'm familiar with all levels of debate from traditional high school to collegiate. I competed primarily in LD through high school, though I have done most forms of Speech and Debate at one point or another.

Add me to the email chain brynelizmoti@gmail.com or let me know the speechdrop code if you use either

For SPEECHES:

DUO-

My RFD will be which team presents characters the best.

HI-

My RFD will be based on both humor and character.

OO-

My RFD will be based on speaking skills, confidence, and body language. I will not judge based on content of your oratory, but I really like interesting speeches.

SPAR-

I will judge based on who presents the most clear line of thinking.

For DEBATES:

CX-

I will judge based on who flows through most stock arguments. I will weigh harms the most on the flow. Additionally, I really like to see clash.

LD-

I will judge based on which criterion and value flow through the round. Simple as that.

Hello, I am a Freshman at the U. I Competed mainly in Extemp but also have congress and debate experience.

Philosophy for debate: I am a bit old fashioned and traditional but can follow any speed/ theory if that is where the round goes for pf/cx. As for LD I am a bit more strict and believe k's and spreading don't belong here. For the most part, I'm cool with whatever just be respectful and don't make it just all about your evidence I want to hear your own words/ arguments.

Philosophy for speech. Speach is about Speaking so do that well. Put it in your own words add that personal touch.

Extemp: I am most versed here so I know and am looking for proper structure and correct sighting of evidence.

Other IE's: Be engaging speak with power and passion I care about that more than your words.

Congress: Please know what you are talking about, don't speak just to speak have a purpose with your speeches/questions. It is apparent when you don't know anything about what you are speaking on and that will hurt your rank. Also, be respectful there is rarely a need for break-in debate.

Throughout my entire competitive career, I believed that the judge is always right and there is always something you could have done for the round to of ended more favorably for you. With that being said please ask questions and know what I am looking for and adapt to that, judge adaptation is a huge and often overlooked aspect of Debate.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I'm a big fan of framework in PF debate, I want you to give me the reason why I should be holding your impacts above those of your opponents. And no, impact calc is not a framework its the point of PF debate. That being said, if you don't do any impact calc I will not vote on your impacts. Unique and interesting arguments welcome but they better be well researched and have strong internal logic. I don't flow cross but I am paying attention to it, make it productive. I expect everyone to be professional and kind. Grace periods are ok down to like a couple of extra seconds but please don't abuse it. Also, I don't disclose or provide feedback after rounds but I try to write the most I can on the ballot.

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

My paradigm is good sportsmanship is key to winning. Please be respectful of your competition. Don't talk over your fellow competitors, don't roll your eyes or other rude gestures. Poor sportsmanship will cost speaker points and may be the tipping point for choosing the winner in a close contest.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.