Hi! My name is Josie Burke, my pronouns are she/her, and I did PF debate for 3 years!

Things I look for in a round are clash, professionalism, and evidence. If you don't say the author and year of a card, I will assume you made it up so please say those when you can. Be respectful of each other, and I know things can get heated in round, but please try and remain respectful of each other. As for clash, it is really important that you FOLLOW THROUGH with arguments, not just say "my card says X" "well my card says Y" and let it end there. Why is your card/point better?

I flow XX but if there is anything you want me to remember, please make sure to point it out during round. If your opponent drops a point I will have it on my flow, but PLEASE point it out. It is your job to note that and it shows that you were also paying attention.

I also keep time. If we all time there's less chance of us messing up, but let me know if you would like me to give time cues or anything, I would be more than happy to.

I don't do great with speed, I know should probably be better by now, but I'm just not :P If you do typically speak faster, it's not a big deal, but just let me know before you start.

Also, make sure to have fun! We're here to learn and become better debaters and if your opponent is making you feel bad or being disrespectful, let me know immediately. Also if you have any other questions, ask! I would happy to answer anything :)

I did policy and extemp for two years in high school and LD and HI my third year. I have been judging ever since then. Because of my experience, I flow like a policy debater.

I do not accept topicality arguments. There is never a good reason to have a topicality argument.

If you want to run a K, go for it. That being said, YOU HAVE TO RUN IT WELL. I have only seen a K run well in LD once, and a handful of times in Policy. So beware.

I am okay with speed, though I do not prefer it. You should be able to do everything without spreading though. If you look at past NSDA winners, they do it without speed. I know you want to go to the TOC, but listen, is it really worth it? The TOC comes at what cost?

I will prefer any arguments that have to do with leisure theory and workforce safety (OSHA). This is due to my education at the University of Utah studying Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, and Occupational Safety and Health.

In LD, there is nothing I hate more than a Value of Morality. You are smart kids, you can come up with something else. Morality is too ambiguous and everyone has a different view of morality.

I don't flow cross examination. If something happens in cross and you want it on my flow, bring it up in your next speech. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DONT LISTEN TO CROSS, just that I don't flow it.

Please time yourselves. Y'all are adults, and I don't want to babysit. I trust you. That being said, if you clearly abuse this, I will stop flowing.

In all debates that I watch, I want to see civil discourse. That being said, I do want to see clash in the debate. Just be polite to each other, and we will all have a good time. If I don't think that you are being polite to each other, I will take away speaker points (even if you are clearly the better speaker).

For Debate Rounds:

I enjoy flowing rounds. I expect debaters to speak to be understood and to forward their arguments with meaningful warrants AND impacts. I caution the use of spreading. I should not have to read your case in order to be able to track your arguments if you are speaking to be understood. Evidence that is left to speak for itself carries less weight for arguments than evidence that is contextualized and explained how it is being used within the argument as well as the round. I focus on how well debaters utilize Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Your delivery (respect for opponents, and connection with the judge) and use of evidence fits under ethos. Your pathos increases when you are able to explain how what you are arguing matters--don't just state that it does. Logos implies logic, so make sure that you make sense. Finally, don't hide and gloss over your definition of the resolution. I need to know what you are debating. Regarding speaker points: speakers who are respectful during CX to their opponent, who roadmap and signpost their speeches, and who speak to be understood are awarded higher points.

For Individual Speaking Events:

Utilize your voice and body to convey your message to the judge. Contextualize your sources as you cite them orally. Roadmap and signpost your presentations. Regardless of the event, make your topic matter for your audience. 

I leave my bias at the door. I do not flow arguments. Do not spread in the round. You can argue just do not personally attack their characters.

Hello 2022 Utah State 6A Debaters. Congratulations on making it to my paradigm. I hope you are having a nice time at this tournament. See my thoughts below from 2019. They are still valid. You may notice that this is my first tournament for this year. I thought I might have been done with judging when my son didn't debate this year but I was asked to help with this tournament. So, here I am with all my oldness and such. I understand that there are some very detailed paradigms out there. This is not one of those.

Here in 2019 I am judging policy debate for the first time in many years. In a prior life (like 20 years ago), I judged regularly in policy and assistant coached in policy for Murray High School. I was a policy debater in high school and debated for Southern Utah University and for a very short time for the University of Utah. I am a lawyer and practiced primarily administrative law where I often argued individual's disability cases before administrative law judges (these were very much like mini trials). I was frequently in other courts primarily representing individuals. I don't practice law much now and am running a local business.

I view my experience in debate as critical to my personal development and the main reason I became a lawyer (unfortunately). I see it as vital preparation for doing important things later in life. While I consider myself open to all types of arguments, and very much appreciate a robust and vigorous exchange of ideas between the parties, debate is still grounded in speech and persuasion. This means that you can let 'er rip in the debate round, but you still need to appropriately communicate and persuade me. This is what is required out there in the "real world". I think it is a mistake to allow communication that is barely understandable, behavior that is rude or just plain out of control. But, despite having said that, I don't want to see a lot of arguments about the other side not being fair, speaking too fast, or the like. Stick to the issues. Also, I am now in my 50s. Sometimes I struggle to keep up with you amazing debaters. So, think about being kind to me and slowing down when you read your tags and pause at other appropriate times.

If you don't properly sign post, I can't properly flow your arguments. If directly contesting an opponent's arguments, you should directly attach your argument to your opponent's through reference to their signposting and then create your own signposts (if you don't know what I mean by signposting, ask your coach or you can ask me at the beginning of the round). Tell me exactly where to put new arguments, overviews, underviews, etc. Please don't jump all around with your arguments. Make them in the appropriate place and move on.

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.

A little bit about me: I'm a junior at the University of Utah, studying sociology and ecology as a member of the Honors college. I also work as a paralegal at a divorce law firm. I'm so excited to judge for Cesar and Cicero because during my junior and senior years of high school, I competed in PF and LD and this was one of my favorite competitions!

POLICY PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa & Policymaker. My background is not in policy, although I've judged policy rounds before. I consider myself a tabula rasa judge along with a policymaker because I'm going to let you all decide what's important for me to know, BUT I also feel like the debate should address how to constructively improve the world in some way. I will flow your arguments, but mainly to keep track of what I'm hearing. My interpretation of policy is that it's meant to be applied to the real world, so I'm going to apply real world logic and reason to your arguments to decide a winner. This means that I will drop arguments that are not sound or valid, and I will drop rebuttals that don't make sense. Conversely, I will flow arguments and rebuttals through that are sound or valid, especially if they are defended properly in the face of refutation. Please remember to explain confusing terms or policies so I can better understand your side. Also, another little thing is that I LOVE a good cross-examination (even though I won't flow it)! If you ask good questions that help your case, I'll give you good speaker points. Ultimately, these are questions I'll ask to determine a winner:

Which team gave me a better survey of the topic at hand and clarified what I needed to know to begin the round?

Which team better established their side through valid evidence and sound arguments?

Which team better refuted the other's side?

I'm one of those people that needs to hear what you're saying to judge what you're saying, so please speak clearly and with some emotion (aka not too fast or monotone). I appreciate well-researched cases, but I appreciate even more the ability to communicate your arguments in a logical, rational way. I will probably look down on a case that misrepresents evidence or arguments for personal gain or is too aggressive - so play nice please! Always remember to be respectful toward your opponents and judges because debate is meant for constructive discourse, not for peacocking. Your goal should be to debate well, persuade me, and leave me feeling like that was a good round. Don't be too stressed about my paradigm because I'm super chill. I can't wait to see some good debates!