Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current assistant coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

Logical Progression

I want to see an argument presented then linked with supporting evidence. Effective rebuttal of one's opponent is also key to maintaining one's own arguments. I am less concerned with the lingo of flows: if your counter-argument is persuasive it should speak for itself.

Hello debaters-

I'm a parent judge so I appreciate if you speak a little slower, clearly outline your argument so I can easily follow the flow, and respond directly to your opponents points and subpoints. I'm also looking for a clear connection between the evidence you present and the point you're trying to make.

Thanks and good luck!

Don't drop points

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

Not who is the better speaker, better debater

Pay attention to cross- great opportunity to refute your opponent and build your case

Can speak quickly, but please speak inelligibly

Will not tolerate abusive treatment, personal attacks, or lines of argument outside of the debate

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

I am relatively new to judging debate. This will be the 2nd competition I have judged formally.

I prefer a moderately-paced debate - please don't go too fast. I like calm, focused comments that address the specific topic at hand, don't go off-topic!

I weigh arguments more heavily if they have multiple sources backing them and the opposite side is considered and rejected. Emotional arguments aren't helpful - I tend to discount these when presented.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

I did a little PF for a few years in high school, but I'm more of a lay judge. Speaking speed doesn't matter. Don't be rude.

I look for the following: eye contact, evidence, reference to the rules, and how you attack. I am not in favor of a speedy delivery. I prefer you use your voice to make. your. points. I would also appreciate knowing your voters.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!

Pronouns: He/him/his

For email chains/post-round questions: yikwill@gmail.com

TLDR: I did policy for all four years in HS, but it has been a few years. I consider myself a tabs judge, so debate the way you think will you the round. Be sure to do the analysis for me on the flow because I won't accept just name dropping evidence as a response to an argument. As long as you read your tags slow enough and your spreading is somewhat coherent, I can keep up with any speed you read at. Be kind.

Long

Please, please, please signpost. My biggest pet peeve when judging is people not telling me where they are on the flow. This is more than just saying "on the DA". Say what argument you're responding to or say you're going down the flow and stick to it. It makes it very hard for me to judge rounds when I don't know where to flow your arguments.

Background:

I did policy for all four years of high school. While it has been a few years since I've competed, I should be able to keep up with whatever you're saying at any speed. This means as a judge, I want to enable you to be your best self. Debate the way you think will win you the round. As a former debater, I know what I feels like to have to change your style to fit a judge's paradigm/prior experience.

Specifics:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression, racism, genocide, etc.

F/W: It's dope if you do it right. If not, it's a hot mess. Give me clear interpretations and defend those interpretations with standards.

Theory: Basically the same as my opinions on f/w.

Ks: While my knowledge of K literature is not the best, I am quite familiar with how they work. Thus, if you're going to run a K with a rich literature background, you'll have to do the work in explaining it to me.

CPs: All good with me. I default to unlimited conditionality for the neg, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. I also default to "PICs are legitimate", but again, my mind can be changed with a good theory arg.

DAs: All good with me. I love a good impact calculus debate. Why should I prefer nuke war? Why should I prioritize probability? What does that mean in the context of the round? That doesn't mean I won't look at the uq, link, and I/L though if they're challenged.

Speed: Please make your tags distinct in some way from your evidence (slowing down, raising your voice, etc.). Go as fast as you'd like on the evidence but make sure you're somewhat intelligible.