If you are sharing files, I would like to be included.

I'm a varsity debater in my senior year of Highschool.

I know a lot of judges who had really long, picky, and specific paradigms, and that always bugged me. I'm going to try to stay as unbiased as I can. I want you to be able to run whatever you feel comfortable with. I want to see you as a debater, not what you think your judge wants.

Rebuttals are the biggest thing for me. Recap your case and tell me why you think you have won. Seriously, don't assume I already know what you're talking about. Explain your case. Warrant everything.

Tech over truth every time you can explain your warrant.

Speed is fine, as long as you're clear. You can tag team in CX, I don't care. With that, if I think you don't know what you're talking about, I might lower your speaks.

Speech: Greetings! Welcome to your first tournament! Speech is a great way to start of the day. Speech is meant to be fun and a way to relax. Good eye contact, speaking clearly, and using your time wisely are key points to having a great speech. These will also be the ways I will be judging. Have fun!

Policy: Greetings! Welcome to your first tournament! Policy if conducted with respect and kept civil is arguably the best debate there is! Good eye contact, clear information, and communication/prep time is key! This is also the main ways I will decide the winner. Tearing down your opponents case. Keeping it civil, policy tends to get heated and that is totally fine! However disrespect to me, or any other person in the room will not be tolerated. Be respectful, be kind, and have fun!

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.

DEBATE

SPEECH

A through line for the speech would be absolutely perfect. Whether that be a repeated metaphor or an overall theme. Don’t be afraid to play with the tone either, a boiled chicken might give you all the nutrients you need but that doesn’t mean it was a good experience. Add some spice, have some fun with it

Please add me to the email chain: cleomariemussettshaw@gmail.com

I am a sophomore at West High School, and I have been doing debate for two years now.

For Novice Policy

This is probably the only thing I will be judging, at least in the short term so here's my best shot at a Paradigm:

I think the most important thing in the debate is that you understand what your reading, don't try to read an argument just to get a competitive edge, if you don't understand what you are saying I probably won't either.

I am pretty much open to vote for anything so long as you explain your impacts and link story well, that excludes racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments, obviously.

I'm not sure how many of you will want to run Ks, but if you do a good job on the link debate and make sure you completely win the perm. I will vote on the K if you do a good job explaining it.

On Policy debate, I love it! Really just run what you are comfortable with, CPs, DAs, and Theory are all great for me.

I tend to lean Neg on Condo (if you know what that is, and want to run it) but I can be convinced otherwise.

I am okay with spreading, if you want to but please try to be clear.

PLEASE BE NICE. I'm okay with competitiveness in cross but please don't be rude to the other team or your partner.

Have fun, debate is really great so try to enjoy it!

Speaker Points

I will probably give speaker points in the 28-29 range.

Below 27: You have done something morally wrong, racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.

28-28.3: You probably needed a little work, but that's okay we are all learning!

28.4-28.7: I think that you did pretty well for a novice debater and are on the right track.

28.8-29: You should at least be in JV, really just an amazing novice debate.

Above 29: Why on earth are you in Novice Policy?

she/her

please add me to the email chain

email: anikaannrao@gmail.com

please disclose, especially if your opponent asks you to.

if you intentionally make me laugh you get 30 speaker points automatically.

don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

policy:

i think the most important thing in the debate is that you understand what you are reading. don't try to read an argument just to get a competitive edge - if you don't understand what you are saying, i probably won't either.

i am pretty much open to vote on anything as long as you explain your impacts and link story well.

i like k debates. make sure you explain the link debate and completely win on the perm.

policy debates >> i like cps, das, theory, etc.

i tend to lean Neg on Condo but i can be convinced otherwise.

i don't mind spreading but please try to be clear.

competitiveness in cross is good but please don't be rude to the other team or your partner.

public forum:

one thing i've noticed in pf is that there is a lot of falsification of evidence since you can paraphrase it. please make sure that you have the cards you read ready to send if your opponent asks for them.

1. actually have evidence to support your position. i like it when pf debaters read cards

2. understand your evidence and your opponent's evidence. cross apply it, analyze it, etc.

spreading: i'm good with spreading but make sure your opponent is as well in novice pf.

competitiveness is good, but don't be rude to your opponent or partner.

impact calc impact calc impact calc

make sure you understand your framework.

if you read a kritik it will melt my heart because pf needs them.

I debated for SLC West High School for 4 Years, and am currently a Second Year at Emory University

Please add me to the email chain: hanna.ricee@gmail.com

Big Picture Stuff:

Be nice to one another, I really value respect in debates (especially CX)

Read whatever you are comfortable with, I will judge based on the contents of the round- I definitely have more experience with Policy arguments though, so do with that what you will

Tech>Truth but you need warrants

Don't read death good or anything that could be deemed offensive in front of me!

T: I enjoy T debates with substantive and applicable interps/deep lit bases- try not to read contrived interps- I normally default to competing interpretations but reasonability is cool too

CP: condo is probably good- aff teams should read lots of theory against cheaty CPs- I'm a good judge for CP/DA debates- I like CPs with funky mechanisms/processes as long as you can explain them clearly and have specific solvency evidence

DA: super fun, have specific link evidence and tell the story of the DA- I <3 turns case

K: not the best judge for Ks- I understand basic K lit such as Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, etc, but reading any other K requires deep explanation and specific links to the aff and the aff's mechanism

Have fun! :)

Hey everyone!

My name is Sugar, I am currently an assistant coach at Davis High Debate. I graduated last year, after competing at Davis Debate for 3 years. I’m currently a freshman at the U of U. I love debate and judging it, so please reciprocate that energy.

I mainly competed in LD for all of my debate years. I qualified to nats in LD, all three years of my debate career and broke my junior and senior year. So trust me, I know what I am doing. You don’t have to treat me as a mommy judge. I also have a pinch of policy experience, so I am familiar with certain prog possessions.

LD

- Love LD with all my heart. Arguably the best debate event.

- Signpost. (can’t believe I have to say this but many people don’t know what signposting is so...here I go...tell me where you're at on the flow).

- I prefer trad arguments, but I’m ok with you running prog arguments. Just make sure that you know what you’re doing and it is accessible. If you run a far too prog arg against a novice that doesn’t quite understand what you are running, I'm sorry, but I won’t evaluate the arg. Please be as inclusive as possible.

- K’s. Not a fan unless it is specific to the round such as a speed k, extinction k, and so forth.

- CPs are ok. If they’re Mutually exclusive and outweigh. I am also swayed by CP Bad theory and will prob end up voting on it.

- Line by Line Judge. You win the flow. You win the ballot.

- Yes, you can time yourself.

- Ok with speed. Not ok with spreading. You should know the difference. If you spread and someone runs a speed k against you, you better start packin up cause you most likely just lost.

- Framework debates have become repetitive. If your value is societal welfare and your opps value is societal progress, feel free to just concede the fw debate and move on. It’s not as important as winning on substance. However, fw can be used to your advantage. I’m not saying its never important, it is the lens through which I view the round. If you are running something obscure that gets backed up by your fw then you should absolutely extend and argue your fw.

- Also I hate the way debaters are extending cards. I could care less if you have five authors that all make the same argument. If your opp attacks the main argument, then don’t get up in your speech and say “my opp dropped four cards extend the Johnson evidence which states…”

- You don’t have to give me voters. Voters should be incorporated into your rebuttals as you go down the flow.

- Feel free to collapse if you think it’ll win you the round. But just know that I do like to judge the round based on how many arguments were won.

- Please don’t run phil cases. I don’t wanna hear 6 min of Kantian ethics.

- Tech>Truth but why not be both

- I really like T, especially in LD. I don’t know why judges hate Nebel T, cause I abs like it. If you run it well, you could win my ballot.

- Please cut your cards correctly. If I catch you falsifying evidence you will receive an L with 20 speaks. To add onto that, make sure your claims are actually backed up by your evidence. I hate seeing cards that are like:

o Trump…wag the dog…tensions increase…lying to news reporter…only a matter of time…could lash out against the public…war is inevitable...numbers game… (if your card looks like this you’ll lose the round, I don’t care how you creative you are when it comes to cutting cards)

- If you run a nuke war extinction scenario. It better be really really really good. Cause I hate having to judge such a low-prob impact scenario. If you don’t take into account deterrence, motives, alt causes, international geopolitical stance, and so forth I won’t buy your impact.

- I usually like to fill out my ballot during CX but that shouldn't undermine its importance. I am still paying attention and yes CX is binding (why wouldn't it be binding). However, I don't flow CX if you want an argument to be on my flow you have to bring it up during CX.

-You don't have to use up all your time. Novices- it's ok to end a speech early.

Policy

- disclose prior to the round. AFF will lose every time if NEG runs disclosure theory and proves AFF refused to disclose. For those who don't know what disclosure is... disclosing is where you send out a copy of the highlighted and cut version of the 1AC at least 30 min prior to the round (or as soon as pairings come out). I'm a lot less stringent on NEG disclosure but I like the practice of sending out previous 2NRs. Now you may be asking yourself how do I send out my 1AC to debaters that I have no way of reaching out to. Allow me to introduce to you the policy wiki, it's a place where you can disclose your case and contact your opponents. Look into the policy wiki it's not that hard to learn how to use and its been used for a very long time now. You have been warned.

- 21ssantillan@gmail.com yes put me on the email chain. but I flow off of my ears and not my eyes. So if you don't speak clearly I won't take a second to go through the doc. If you could have the email chain set before the round I'll grant you an extra 0.5 speaker points.

- Spreading is ok. But be inclusive and be clear. Slow down on taglines and analytics. You should never sacrifice clarity over speed. Sadly most policy debaters can't do both.

- K's. um just be careful and run them correctly. Be inclusive.

- not a perf judge.

- High prob low magnitude scenario > low prob high magnitude scenario

-cut your cards well, please

-tag team cx is ok

- Analytics > Cards. By far. I could care less if you have multiple cards making one argument, if logic and analytics are sufficient to take down the premise you'll lose on the arg.

-signpost and give an off time roadmap. I can’t believe I have to put this in here but so far out of all the policy rounds I’ve judged in our circuit No one has signposted correctly. Please please please signpost.

For other events just ask me during the round.

(Here are some copied parts of other people's paradigm that I completely endorse).

Dawson Braxter (I've never met Dawson btw, I just really like his paradigm)

"Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing."

Head novice coach Rowland Hall

i will vote for you if I think you win.

mention club penguin = +.2 speaks

mention the office = +.2 speaks

mention arrested development or Brooklyn 99 = +.5 speaks

Please ask me for my email before the round as I do like to be on the chain.

He/Him

1) Right before the round? Read this: To quote Miles Gray: "Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team."

2) Procedural /meta stuff:

- I will not read along with the doc as you give your speech. If you want me to know how awesome your evidence is, you need to do it justice. If there is a card I am perplexed by, I may read it during prep time or cx.

- Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak before that minute. A huge pet peeve of mine are teams that are entirely absent until minutes before the round.

- Time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting.

- I flow straight down, and on paper. I appreciate strong communication habits.

- Debate is a game that plays with ideological flexibility, and quick critical thinking. To me, this means I am indifferent towards content and will evaluate nearly any argument. I reserve the right to draw that line on an ad-hoc basis.

- I believe tech over truth supports objective evaluation of debate rounds, but a fundamental aspect of human communication is that it is not objective. Your performance is as central to the game as the flow. It also doesnt make sense to me to regard truth and ignore tech because to even say truth > tech typically means there will be an answer via tech.

3) How do I decide debate rounds?

It is important to me that students know I will work hard to pay close attention to, and adjudicate the debates I watch.

I will look at my flow

1 - I will always use the path of least intervention. I find that each debate has a few key questions that typically determine the direction of the round. If one of those key questions is entirely conceded and there are no cross applications that sufficiently answer it (or if those cross applications happen too late) I will usually vote against the team that has technically conceded important portions of the debate. Please minimize intervention as much as possible by writing my ballot for me(tying it all together + using argument resolution)

I will look at my flow

2 - I will isolate those key issues of the debate and cross examine myself about how they happened in the debate. (what abouts, is this new, are there answers to answers unanswered, etc) In an ideal world, most of the thinking is done by you, telling me how to think about it. If you want to leave it up to me to think about it, be my guest.

Then I will look at my flow

3 - I will read evidence on those key issues to see how the evidence supports the answers.

I will look at my flow again

4 - I will pause to fill in speaker points.

I will look at my flow some more

5- rfd time

6 - QnA;

4) Speaker point guide

- If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks.

- CX is my favorite speech in debate, unfortunately, it's usually the one I find most disappointing. Sometimes less is more.

- I love debate! I smile, I nod, I shake my head. My eyebrows wiggle. This is not necessarily an indication of winning or losing the round/any particular argument, I'm just vibing. If you make me laugh, bonus speaks for you!

If you are antagonistic to your opponents, I am going to give you a 26. Full stop. I am not cool with being rude to opponents. By all means, be witty, sarcastic, sassy, humorous, I like that stuff. Personal attacks are uncool.