email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for their own agreeegisnes.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.

I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.

Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.

AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.

T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.

K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.

CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.

DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.

REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!

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.

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).

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

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!

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. 

Dear Debaters:

I am a new parent judge who just started judging this year. Please talk slowly and clearly so that I can grasp your arguments. I would prefer the winner to have the following characteristics:

(1) Speak clearly

(2) Win most arguments

(3) Remain respectful to your opponent

(4) Good eye contact if you can look into the camera - this is increasingly important for virtual meetings and competitions

Your goal should be to have a great experience and improve your skills. Thank you for allowing me to work with you!

Best Luck! Yuan

I like clearly made arguments, that I can flow. Please refrain from spreading.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I debated for Logan High School for 4 years and have a variety of events under my belt. I am most familiar with PF and Policy but look for the quality of the arguments over the quantity.

Speed:

Be reasonable about your speed, depending on what event you are doing this would differ but if you are spewing many offs to overwhelm your opponents you better have a clear understanding of each of them. It is also important to me that you aren't going too crazy as if you're just mumbling I will stop flowing. Make sure you slow down on Taglines and roadmap if you choose to go down a path that is fairly fast.

PF Specific:

Framework debate is awesome, please do it! It's important to either have a framework that everything you're arguing goes under or have a clear enough understanding of the topic to be able to argue/default to the opponent's framework. It's important everything links and the basis of my decisions will be based on who upholds the framework of the round better or whose framework is better based on the flow of the round.

Policy Specific:

If you're gonna go super progressive or super fast please start an email chain, or whatever they use now. It would help lots for everyone to have the cases to argue fine print if necessary. I'm also fine with tag team in policy as long as it's clear that both members of each team have an understanding of what is going on (One partner should not overwhelmingly contribute more than the other). Besides that, I'm pretty open to most things in Policy as I debated MMM in highschool.

Please don't hesitate to email me if you want further explanation on your ballots and/or questions!

Email: curtisliu4@gmail.com

I'm a pretty straightforward judge. Be clear and concise in speeches, carry your points and contentions through the round as well as your opponent's. Be prepared and professional, I prefer debaters time themselves and don't use gendered pronouns in referring to their opponent. Along with that, I urge for political correctness in the round, arguing something that is explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will not help your case. Beyond that have fun and take it easy.

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

Email: hema.emerald@gmail.com

**Please include me in the chain w/o asking.

Background:

-debated for 3 years at Bingham HS'20

-was a 2n my whole career

-i've read both policy and k affs

-i've gone for da/cp as much as i've gone for the k

General:

-SPEECH ARTS 2020: I haven't judged a round on this topic. If you're reading an acronym please say the full thing out at least once in your speech. This won''t cost you the round but it would be appreciated if you did.

-i firmly believe tech>truth

-reading any argument that is explicitly racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will result in low speaks if not an L

-i'm an expressive judge so my face will probably depict how i feel throughout the round

-i flow on paper so please give me time to write things down

-disclosure is important

K affs vs T-USFG:

-i've read k affs and i love these debates.

-i generally prefer that the aff is in the direction of the topic otherwise its easy to be persuaded by an interp that says you should talk about the resolution.

-the aff should probably provide some sort of action to resolve whatever they're criticizing (affirmation/method>kritik.)

-fairness is the impact i'm most persuaded by. that being said, the neg should not only be articulating why the aff destroys fairness but also why that's a bad thing.

-please don't just read your 5 year old framework blocks straight down for 8 minutes without contextualizing it to the aff.

-TVAs with good ev are lethal.

-case debate is heavily underutilized in these debates. presumption args are very convincing.

-k affs should probably get perms

-both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if i sign the ballot aff or neg

-clean framework flows make me so happy

-i like performances but you should have justifications for them.

Topicality (vs policy affs):

-i like t more than most but that means i have a higher threshold for how i evaluate these debates.

-competing interps>reasonability.

-impact calc is vital.

-i love caselists and perms on t.

-good t debate is specific t debate.

Kritiks:

-i'm most familiar with fem, cap, militarism, and orientalism

-i'm not a great judge for pomo debates

-i'll be annoyed if you make me flow the overview on another sheet. most of the content on the overview can usually be applied on the line by line anyways.

-in depth link debate is so important. you should have a cohesive link story.

-the alt should always resolve the impacts and links of the k and you should articulate why it does.

-state/actor links are annoying but i'll evaluate them. please don't read links of omission or root cause links. i prefer links to the aff/action of the plan.

-framework is highly important because it determines how i evaluate links + impacts in the round.

-please clearly articulate what the alt is and make sure you can defend it in cx.

Disads:

-i don't love politics

-turns case arguments can be deadly for the aff and i love them.

-thorough internal link analysis is so so important for a clear neg ballot.

-zero risk exists

-da+case 2nrs are some of my favs to give/judge

-i'll evaluate the link level before the impact level

CPs:

-neg needs to prove competition with the aff and why the cp is net beneficial to the aff

-i prefer cps w/ ev

-i only judge kick if you tell me to

-explain how the perm functions

My theory pre-dispositions:

-going for condo when they read 2 or less w/o conditional planks is annoying

-2nc cps are annoying

-3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks is annoying

-the aff should not have planks in their plan. period. maybe this is just a utah thing.

-cps with a bunch of planks and no solvency advocate are annoying

-i'm usually okay with perfcon but that means the aff gets to sever their reps for any perm

how to boost speaks:

-make a joke please. i promise i'll laugh at literally anything.

-clean flows

-good disclosure practices

Speaker point scale: (I stole this from Caitlin Walrath)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

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

I did Policy [2A/2N] and dabbled in DI in high school — the only thing in the center of that venn diagram is making opponents cry

• tech > truth

• speed is fine so long as it isn’t exclusionary

• Make sure your K/DA has a solid link chain

• I love FW/K debates. I also love K/K debates. I almost always went for Deschooling K on the education topic years ago

• Do impact calculus at the end of the round; give me reasons to vote for you — I won’t to do the legwork for you

• Roadmap/signpost

• Don’t be racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/rude

[JV/Copper-specific]

Hi friends! Kudos to you for reading my paradigm — you are going to do great things :D

• Answer your opponents’ arguments line-by-line — there is nothing more frustrating than judging a round with no clash. In round, say something along the lines of: “Our opponents argue X, however, cross apply the Boggs ‘97 from the 2AC. It clearly illustrates that Y is true. Boggs highlights how... <explain the warrant>”

• Do impact calculus to show how your impacts outweigh your opponents’ (why your impacts are more important than theirs)

• If you catch your opponents in a bind during CX, please bring it up in a speech— Ex) “During cross examination, our opponents conceded that X is true. This takes out the entirety of their first contention because it hinges on Y being true instead.”

What does impact calculus look like? Sample from last year’s topic:

The round comes down to the impacts of the affirmative which is the humanitarian

crisis and instability in the Middle East and the impacts of the negative’s alliance disad

which is nuclear Middle Eastern war.

The affirmative’s impacts outweigh for three key reasons:

1. On timeframe – the impacts of the affirmative plan are happening right now in

the status quo. From the time that this round started to when our judges give

their RFDs, 14 Yemeni children under the age of five years old will have died.

Our opponent’s impact is improbable and doesn’t have a set timeframe. They conceded this.

2. Probability – similar to timeframe, the humanitarian crisis and instability in the

Middle East are happening right now in the status quo whereas the probability

of nuclear war from Iran aggression in their Heinrich ’18 evidence is highly

unprobable.

3. Magnitude – since the impacts of the affirmative are in the world right now,

they have more weight than a hypothetical war scenario talked about on the

alliance disad

Have fun and enjoy yourself — if you have any questions or want shells, email me: haley.stafford@stanford.edu

Hi!

Email Chain: xumandi5678@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Highland ’20, Columbia ’24

- Summary -- > ex-debater, tech over truth as long as you’re clear; warrant & weigh

General:

· I did debate all through high school in Idaho. Policy for the first two years, PF for the last two with a bit of LD mixed in. Worlds at Nats’19. PF at Nats’20.

· I do flow, please signpost clearly though

· Tech over truth but just make sure you’re giving me warrants

· Speed is okay but please be clear

· Time yourselves but I’ll time as well. I don’t time evidence transfer, just don’t take too long

· I won’t call for evidence unless it’s contested by your opponent with a reason given. Make sure it’s a cut card too

· Please don’t be rude, unnecessarily aggressive, or just plain mean. If you’re sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you.

Debate Specifics:

· Make sure to collapse, depth is better than breadth

· Weigh, tell me why you’ve won, not just where

· If you’re extending offense don’t just tell me to extend it through the flow, warrant it

· Clash is good, impacts are great, voters too

· I’m not very familiar with prog stuff but I do find them fascinating. It’s been a long time since I’ve done policy so if you choose to run a K or something, do so at your own risk, and don’t assume I have any clue what you're talking about

Feel free to email me if you have questions before the round and feel free to ask me in the round as well. As always, good luck and have fun! :)