I am in my second year of Judging Debate. My son started last year, and am so inspired with any student who is willing to compete in debate. It takes skill, preparation and ample amount of courage. I volunteer because I want to learn more about debate, and when I see a quality debate it is fun and engaging. I consider myself a naturally neutral individual. I will not favor a side because its what I believe, but will favor a side because you convince me to.

Speed:

I understand there is a lot to cover in small amount of time. This said, I prefer a clear concise style of speech. I believe this allows for a more persuasive and all around better style of debating. The faster you speak the more clear and concise you need to be. If i can’t track your argument because your speaking to fast then you didn’t make the argument.

Evidence:

I want to hear evidence that links well to argument. Does the evidence truly support your stance. Is the reference relevant to time period. I will buy the evidence if its clear, all conditions met, and it makes sense, and it actually proves a point. I will refer to reference if I feel a need to, but that means it wasn’t clear to begin with. I also like to hear multiple references to validate your argument.

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.

Hey y'all,

I participated in Public Forum debate throughout high school on the state and national level, and have considerable experience judging various types of debate.

I am comfortable with speed, as long as it's accompanied with clarity. I judge primarily off a balance of flow and impact calc.

Be respectful!! And have fun!

-Jonah

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

Choose clarity and emphasis of points over speed and volume of words.  If you are speaking so fast it is difficult to understand you OR if you are not separating your points when transitioning from one point/sub-point or between contentions, this will impact your speaker points.

Be respectful but control your time.  IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED A QUESTION, do not interrupt the person asking it.  If you interrupt, you will loose speaker points.  IF YOU ARE THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTION, this is your time.  You can interrupt once your question has been answered OR if the person you are asking goes off topic... you are encouraged to do this (as long as you do it in a respectful manner).  If you don't do this and you allow the other person to take over your question, you will loose speaker points.

Once your time is up, finish your statement and be done.  If you continue beyond that, I'll let you know your time is up and you will loose speaker points.

Happy debating!!!

I did debate a long time, just have fun! I actively encourage (respectful) pushback and disagreement with your opponents, and don't lie about anything. Feel free to ask any questions about anything specific.

I start my speaker points at 23 and move up, please don't spew/spread and speak loudly so I can hear you.

For some background on me. I did debate for 3 years in high school. I dabbled in Extemp and PF, but I mainly did LD the whole time and was reasonably successful in it. I graduated in 2020. I am currently a history major at USU.

I can follow spreading, K, and theory, but I am not well-versed in it. I generally prefer traditional debate.

Questions Policy Debaters always ask me:

yes, I do allow for tag-team/open cross ex

no, I do not flow cross ex

put me on the email chain. I don't want to use flash drives. skmayers@gmail.com. please do not abuse access to my email.

General

tech and truth, probably heavier on the truth.

biggest takeaway: nothing is true until you tell me it is true. I don't have to evaluate theory before case unless you tell me I do and you explain why. these explanations don't have to be long, but don't assume I understand the arbitrary "rules" you have invented in your head for debate. this goes for all arguments, not just framework. If I need to argue evidenced arguments over non-evidenced arguments, tell me why, etc. emphasis on Tell Me Why

if no analysis is given by either side, I default to theory>framework>kritik>case>. I am telling you this for the sake of transparency, not because that is how I think you have to debate.

Ethics

Here are some ethical issues that will probably get you dropped automatically

• falsifying evidence
• being racist, transphobic, or otherwise making the round an unsafe place.

Here are some ethical issues that I don't like, but aren't a deal-breaker

• spreading. We all know this makes the round inaccessible, even if no one has written a good K for it
• being rude in CX. interrupting, not giving clear answers, etc
• using inaccessible language and not defining genre-specific terms
• any kind of blatant trauma porn
• PICs

remember debate does not exist in a vacuum, your opponent and I are both real, living people, who will walk out of the round impacted by the things that are said, for good or bad. This impact goes for both the things you debate about and the way in which you discuss them.

Argument

here are some things that I love to see :)

• Linking back to framework. Remember, your impacts only matter if you link them to a value system that says that they matter
• Well-organized points. I want to be able to flow and group your arguments easily
• I think performance Ks are super fun, and honestly think they should be used more, but make sure you have really solid framing.
• solid plan implication, a good picture of what the post-fiat world looks like. You don't need to have an itemized budget but I would like to know what I am voting for
• being able to give information about your authors and source in CX (publication details, methodology, education, etc)
• really unique contentions/arguments.
• well-run theory. honestly any theory at all, but obviously don't use it if the round doesn't actually call for it. I think theory arguments are super interesting and can add a lot to debate if used appropriately

here are some things that I hate to see :(

• dropping/kicking out of arguments
• contentions with multiple arguments that don't really go together
• lack of evidence/authors
• ignoring your opponent's claims/ lack of clash
• Saying "they basically didn't address this argument" when they definitely did. remember that I am flowing too.
• when I can tell that someone definitely wrote your case for you, and you don't really understand it personally

Presentation

• please be clear on taglines/headings, make it easy for both me and your opponent to flow
• I love confidence
• make sure you don't rely too much on a showy, confident presentation. I want content too.

overall, just try to make the round enjoyable, educational, and fair for all parties involved, including yourself :)

I have judged LD and Policy before. However, if you are going to do something make sure to explain it fully to me so I can understand it.

• Please do not spread, speak so I can understand and flow the debate
• I value traditional logic and persuasion over any kind of technical, rule-based, or theoretical argument. I will rarely give a debater a win based on a technicality or a rule.
• I don't punish debaters for not filling time, if you have said everything you need to feel free to conclude your time without penalty.
• I believe cross is important and weigh it in my decision.
• Please tell me where to vote and why you win, make sure you signpost as well so it makes it easier to flow

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

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.