***FOR VIRTUAL TOURNEYS: Case sharing is allowed and encouraged for any and all online tournaments in order to account for potential connection issues to no fault of the students. My traditionalist viewpoint, however, remains, and I will not look at your case document(s) if your audio is clear. Also, per NSDA, 8 min. prep will be enforced.***

Tech > Truth aside from blatantly obvious lies. Any grey area will err on the side of flowing through.

Tag team cross is fine as long as both teams are okay with it.

Tag team speeches are not. I will actively ignore anyone who tries to speak for their partner out of turn.

No discrimination/ harassment (i.e. race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age, etc.).

Anything and everything is debatable... except the NSDA guidelines

Quoted From Michael Stone

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=83347:

"Event-specific paradigms

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.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl."

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

PF:

I will honestly follow the flow more than anything else. I will be listening to the evidence, and if a team is caught twisting or clipping evidence I will vote down on that. I also enjoy a round that is fast and arguments that are assertive but I will not tolerate abusive and straight mean behavior. This is an event for everyone, and I don't tolerate when people are forced out of the event.

LD:

I am a rather traditional judge. My main voter is almost always the value and vc clash. I prefer argumentation that is rooted in philosophy and morals, but I understand when we need to have some practical and evidence clash. Be polite but make your points.

CX:

I have both done and judged CX in the past. I can flow speed and don't mind theory in the round. Although I am still a rather traditional judge. I do not appreciate rude behavior in the round. You can be assertive in making the points, but it is still about the educational discourse and teams that abuse that will be knocked down on the flow.

I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

Offer a good story that contains harms and a plan of action to resolve the harms indicated in the story. I think it would behove you to provide a framework for evaluating competing stories for me to determine who has done the better debating.

Role-play or don't. Either way, be persuasive.

Debate how you'd like, and I will be an active listener in the conversation.

Bias: I have a personal conviction to praxis that is grounded in theory which makes the concept of "theoretical praxis" far less persuasive to me.

I did PF in high school, graduated in 2019. I was assistant coach at Salem Hills for a year, but it's been a while since I've been in the debate realm. I should be able to hold my own just fine in any round, but let me know if you have any specific questions about my paradigms.

Good luck in all your rounds!!!

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

Justin Peng (he/him)

Rowland Hall ‘20 -- Columbia '24

Add me to the email chain please: justinpeng15@gmail.com

I haven't judged any rounds on the NATO topic yet so please explain any topic-specific terminology or acronyms you use

What I say here isn't set in stone and can be subject to change depending on what happens in round.

TLDR:

Do whatever you do best. I’ll do my best to evaluate any arguments unless they’re racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed (although both at the same time is always a plus)

CX is binding

K affs/Framework:

I definitely think that K affs hold some strategical and pedagogical value in debate, but I think that debating the topic is probably a better model. That being said, if you do end up reading one it should be related to the topic somehow. Be prepared to defend your model of debate.

Framework should be well articulated and nuanced - I'm not a fan of teams who speed through blocks and dump 20 shallow DAs on framework or just impact turn everything

K v K:

I probably have the least experience with these types of debates.

I'm not a big fan of these debates in general, as a lot of the time, they get really messy. I think that there are definitely some strategic Ks to run against K affs like cap, but reading Baudrillard against Bataille gets you nowhere with me.

Theory/procedurals:

Condo is good and it’s also the only reason to reject the team. (Dropped theory is too and for me to vote on condo there has to be an egregiously unfair abuse of it)

You can go for a 2-second ASPEC blip you hid on T and didn’t flash in the 1NC, but I won't be a big fan I’ll be more lenient with new answers.

T:

Affs that are untopical should lose.

Affs that meet the neg’s interp should not lose. I think that just going for a we meet is cool.

Competing interps/reasonability - I’m 60/40 on the side of competing interps but that doesn’t mean don’t go for reasonability. Just convince me why it’s better.

CP:

No solvency advocate < generic solvency advocate < specific solvency advocate < solvency advocate from 1ac ev/author

Counterplans should be able to cheat at least a little, but the context of the round and literature determine how much they get.

I’ll judge kick a CP for you if you tell me to. The neg should start the debate in the 2nc/1nr and the aff should start it in the 1ar.

DA:

Zero risk possible but you have to prove it

I love case turns analysis when it’s nuanced and specific but don’t know what you mean when you tell me “the DA turns case because it causes nuclear war”

Impact calc/comparison is essential.

K:

Good Ks have links that are specifically contextualized to the aff.

Don’t rely on buzzwords. I probably don’t know what they mean and usually, you don’t either.

If you kick the alt you must definitively win framework and that the K turns case

Framework – I think that the aff probably should be able to weigh their impacts against the K and the neg should probably be able to read their K - this is what most framework debates resolve to - but you can convince me otherwise

I think impact turns are fantastic

FIAT double bind isn’t an argument

Hey I’m Jazmine.

(Updates for clash debates will be loaded by 1.20.23, the below is still relevant)

Yes I want to be on the email chain: futurgrad@gmail.com

Had a long paradigm from 3 years ago most of it word vomit so I’ll keep it simple.

I know I’ll be in clash debates. Most will think I lean on one side of the "fight" which is probably true but anyone who claims neutrality is lying to ur face. So I’ll say that I have predispositions HOWEVER, I DO NOT AUTO vote on the K or vote against fwk since as a coach I develop arguments on both sides. Don’t believe me? Well check the wikis;). MY Rule of thumb is if your logic is circular and self referential with no application to what is happening in the debate or how these competing theories (Debate as a game, state good, etc. are theories so you’re not out of this comment) structure how I should be evaluating top level framing and the ballot then yea I’m not your judge [FOR BOTH SIDES]. Point out the tautology and implicate it with some defense to solvency or have it lower the threshold for how much you have to win your competing interpretation (or interpretation) and let’s debate it out.

K on K, I’m smart and pick up on levels of comprehension BUT make it make sense. The buzzword olympics was cool but I want to see where the LINKS or POINTS of difference where ever you are drawing them from so I know what does voting AFF mean or What does voting NEG mean.

like I said simple. I appreciate the linguistic hustle and am into the game, but play the damn game instead of stopping at intrinsic statements of "Debate is a game and that presumption is valid because that’s just the way it has to be because MY DA’s! :/" or "This theory of the world is true and since I entered it into the chat I win..." IMPLICATE THE PRESUMPTIONS with solvency thresholds, framing thresholds PLEASE!

THanks for coming over.

Email: nadia.sabry.155@gmail.com

Debated for three years at Bingham HS ‘19

General:

-Be nice, have fun

-I am very expressive so you can probably tell how I feel about whatever is going on at anytime

-Disclosure is important

T

I like T a lot but that means I have a higher threshold for it. I’ll evaluate through competing interpretations.

K Affs/FW

I usually lean neg on these debates because I consider fairness to be an impact and debate is a game. I love topic specific Ks that the debaters are passionate about. I see debate as a game, but you can convince me to vote otherwise

DA

Not a huge fan of politics. The more specific, the more I like it. If you are winning the counterplan, the lower the threshold I have for a link.

I like clear and thorough internal link analysis.

CP

I love cps that steal from the aff evidence. Explain what the perm is. Neg fiat is good.

K

I think framework is one of the most important things here. I’m familiar with many identity based arguments and enjoy postmodernist literature, so read whatever you want. Explain your alts.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Email: sydanneward@gmail.com

Likes:

- Soft Left AFFs

- Framework debates

- Pre-fiat solvency

- When you use your 1AC/1NC cards throughout the whole debate

- Theory debates

Dislikes:

- No organization

- When you don't interact with their specific arguments

- Being rude

Other:

• 3 years at Salem Hills High School
• Now studying communications at BYU