Tabroom.com

2021 Running With the Bulls NIETOC

2021 — NSDA Campus, ID/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kurtis Araki Eagle High School

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2019 at 5:22 AM MDT

Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Tiffany Aref Renaissance HS None

Bill Avey Bishop Kelly High School

Michaela Barnes Cheyenne Central High School None

Carson Barningham Rocky Mountain HS

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 7:55 PM MDT

TLDR; experienced flow judge, don't be mean to anyone please :(

Debate Background

I did debate for four years in Idaho, mostly PF but I dabbled in LD a bit. I was the PF State Champion in 2019 (flex) and I made it to Round 9 at Nationals (flex) so I promise I know what I'm doing :)

General Judging Philosophy

I'll accept pretty much any argument that you want to run, as long as you warrant it properly and it doesn't involve marginalizing groups of people (ex: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc). This also applies to how you treat your opponents in round. Debate is a game, and I encourage you to have fun with your arguments, but make sure that everyone can play the game in a safe and welcoming environment!

As for how I evaluate the round, I'm strictly a flow judge. I personally think that trying to determine a round based on who I think communicated better is extremely subjective and creates opportunities for bias in my judgement, and I want to minimize that as much as possible. Plus, that's why we have speaker points. As such, the way you present your arguments WILL NOT affect my decision in the round, I'm only going to evaluate their substance.

Quick Note for Novices

Feel free to read the next few sections of my paradigm, but don't worry if there's stuff in there you don't understand. I'm not holding you to the same standard as varsities, just do your best and try to learn as much as you can from every round you compete in!

PF Specifics

Make sure to link and warrant your arguments! If I don't understand how your argument applies to the topic, then I'm not going to evaluate it.

I'm going to assume that the round is being evaluated under the framework of Cost-Benefit Analysis unless you give me a compelling reason for why the framework should be something else (I do love me a good framework debate). Assuming the framework is Cost-Benefit: WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. Seriously, the team that does better weighing will win my ballot (almost) every single time. Don't just tell me that your impacts are better than your opponents', tell me WHY they're better. Here are some ways that you can do this:

- Magnitude: "we save 1000 lives, while they only save 100 lives, so we outweigh on magnitude"

- Scope: "our impact affects the global population, while theirs only affect the US population, so we outweigh on scope"

- Timeframe: "our impact happens 5 years sooner than theirs, and it lasts for 10 years longer, so we outweigh on timeframe"

- Probability: "our argument has a 95% chance of happening, while theirs has a very low chance of happening, so we outweigh on probability"

You don't have to use these specific terms (and I'd generally recommend that you stay away from using them in front of lay judges), but these are a few ways that you can weigh your arguments against your opponents'. Try to quantify your impacts if you can! (I'm a math major, I like numbers lol)

Traditional LD Specifics

If you're both running the same criterion, it probably isn't worth time arguing about the values unless there's a VERY important distinction (ex: don't bother with arguing quality of life > societal welfare, they're similar enough that it doesn't really matter). If you're both running different criterions, give me substantial reasons why I should prefer your criterion over theirs. Don't just tell me "consequentialism is a better way to view this round than deontology", try to directly compare the benefits of viewing the topic through the lens of consequentialism compared to taking a deontological approach.

Even if you don't win the V/C debate, you can still win the round, as long as you win under your opponent's V/C. It's probably in your best interest to explain how you're winning under both frameworks (see the previous PF section about weighing if your criterion involves evaluating impacts!).

Policy/Progressive LD Specifics

If you're going to spread, please share your cases with your opponents and me (carsonbarningham@gmail.com) before the round or ASAP. Even if you don't plan on spreading, it's probably beneficial to do this anyway. Also, make sure your opponents are okay with you spreading, otherwise, please don't do it :)

Counterplans are fine.

K's are fine within reason. If I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to the topic, I'm not going to vote for it, so please explain it thoroughly.

Theory is also fine, but only in clear instances of abuse. You also don't have to write a T Shell if you're unsure of the format, just tell me why what they're doing is abusive.

Tech > Truth, I'll vote for arguments even if I hate them as long as you warrant and weigh them properly.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty loose with how I award speaker points. If your speaking is very clear and smooth, you'll probably get a 29 or 30. If you're demeaning to your opponents or overly aggressive, I'll probably lower your speaker points.

Evidence

I won't call for evidence unless someone in the round wants me to look at a specific card since they think it'll impact the decision. On very rare circumstances, I'll ask to see evidence if something sounds VERY fishy. If your evidence doesn't say what you claim it does, or if the source isn't properly cited, then I'll just drop the card but you can still win based off of your other arguments. Paraphrasing a card is fine, just don't misconstrue the evidence. You should also say the author/publication and year for every card that you read in round, just so that I know you're not making stuff up :)

Miscellaneous

- You don't have to extend defensive arguments if your opponents don't refute them

- You DO have to extend offensive arguments if you want to use them in the last speech

- I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens, tell me in the next speech

- Off-time roadmaps are fine, just keep it under 5 seconds

- I'm cool with speed, but don't spread unless your opponents are also cool with that

- If you're still talking when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, but if you continue talking after that point then I'll take off speaker points

If you have any questions about how I evaluated the round, email me afterwards at carsonbarningham@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me for any advice of what you could have done better (whether you won or lost) or just for debate advice in general, or you can even argue with me if you think I made the wrong decision!

Charlene Basila Twin Falls High School None

Lynsey Bean Madison HS

Samantha Bohannon Ridgevue High School

Zerin Buchanan Pocatello High School

Last changed on Fri December 11, 2020 at 5:31 AM MDT

Zerin Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: No Preferences. (2 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense! Okay with theoretical, but these are the hardest to tie in directly, so if you use them, you should be really good at it!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

Please avoid K's and try to stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Stick to the resolution. Do not go off topic unless truly relevant to your argument. If you do go off, please tie it back in for me and connect the dots.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge. ****READ THIS TWICE****

The "game" of debate should be viewed as a chance to improve your ability to think critically and persuade others. As such, argumentation and delivery, both play a vital role. So, here's how I judge.

**The Win: Will be awarded based on the quality of your argumentation and evidence. I will flow the debate and am pretty good at spotting logical fallacies, so please avoid those. I will see through them.

Note: Remember that Ethos and Logos rule in argumentation. Pathos is like salt, it's important for flavoring the dish, but by itself it's, well . . . . salty.

**Speaker Points: Will be awarded on the quality of your presentation/communication.

Note: I enjoy verbal sparring and don't have a problem with an aggressive, or spicy debate style, as long as it doesn't degrade into ad-hominem attacks (focus on issues, not people). Showing respect and professionalism toward all parties, including your opponent, are critical. You will lose points if you are rude or disrespectful.

Joe Burton Emmett High School

Trinety Campbell Pocatello High School 8 rounds None

Jazzlynn Carranza Century HS

Last changed on Tue June 14, 2022 at 2:51 AM MDT

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it.

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's.

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

Kevin Castleman Mountain View High School

Last changed on Wed January 27, 2021 at 1:30 PM PDT

Speech & Debate Background

High School 2002-2006: Competed in IE's, Congress and Extemp/Impromptu

Orange Coast College 2007/2008: Back to back CA State Champions and Phi Ro Pi (Nationals) Champions with multiple individual awards in IE's, Reader's Theater and Platform Speeches.

Cal State University, Long Beach 2010: AFA-NIET National Champion 3rd Place Prose

Debate Judging Paradigm

Please add me to your email chain: kjcastleman@gmail.com

General:

- Due to current online formatting, don't spread. Speak clearly and audibly (you can still speak quickly, but make sure it's very clear). A few seconds lag/drop and an entire portion of your argument could be lost. Be combative but courteous/cordial - you're attacking arguments, not individuals.

- Avoid fallacious arguments. If a competitor makes a fallacious argument, call attention to it.

- I don't like having to step in. If called upon, I will. If you are damaging the process of the debate, it will not be looked upon favorably.

Congress

- Don't be afraid of authorship; a well constructed basis for the debate is imperative to begin the round. Though, I feel authorship limits your ability to showcase your argumentation/rebuttal, I tend to rank authors well (assuming a strong basis). That said, with 2+ topics in a single session of Congress, I wouldn't recommend authoring more than one of the bills.

- P.O.'s are also ranked fairly well by me, assuming you maintain order and consistency throughout the session.

- This is debate! Reading your speech verbatim and not addressing previous speakers is heresy. Repeating points made by speakers and adding nothing to them is a waste of time. Repeat points only as a means to rebut an assertion from the opposing senators. Repeat points for clarification. Repeat points if you are the last speaker and summing up.

- Well-constructed, quality, fact-based (source based) arguments over quantity.

- I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.

- As a member of Congress, you are representing your constituents. They should be a factor in your argumentation thought process.

World Schools Debate

- I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.

Policy

- I will side with the negative until the affirmative proves the solvency of their plan thoroughly. The burden lies on the affirmative to change the status quo. If a CP is ran, then I will decide who can prove solvency, efficacy, and impact of their plan best. Be courteous, but don't be afraid to get into the debate.

- Tech>Truth.

Lincoln Douglas

- If you can't run a K or it's clumsy, don't run one. I'm not looking for K's. If you do it well, fantastic, but it will not break the round if you avoid it. Non-topical K's need to have exceptional linkage.

- I like philosophical values and breaking down your opponents philosophical pitfalls.

- Weigh your impacts well!

- I love empirical evidence.

- Don't just read evidence, make it passionate!

- XC can add a lot to your speaker points for me. Answer honestly. Don't refuse to answer questions!

Public Forum

- Sign post, sign post, sign post. I can't rap, but my flow chart is on point. We all need to know where you are.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Weighing impacts is critical! But don't just say, "this impact is outweighed" ... the burden of proof is on you.

- I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or I absolutely need to make a decision based on conflicting evidence.

Christopher Coon Renaissance HS None

Daniel Curr Pocatello High School

JENNY DILLINGHAM Cheyenne Central High School None

Glenda Duggan Caldwell High School

Christopher Espindola Canyon Ridge High School None

Nick Fairbanks Centennial High School

Debbie Frantzen Bonneville High School

Teri Friend Eagle High School

Last changed on Sun December 13, 2020 at 9:58 AM MDT

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

I don't prefer judging policy debate, so if I am sitting in front of you as your judge in policy it is because no one else was available. I'll do my best for you, but consider me a "Comms" judge, a mom one to boot! Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

Seth Garwood Timberline High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 10, 2023 at 11:22 AM MDT

Hello, as you know my name is Seth, I use he/him/his as well as they/them/theirs pronouns, depending on whichever you're more comfortable with. I competed in speech and debate for 3 years at Eagle High School, starting in my sophomore year, and I competed for 3 more years at the College of Idaho for my undergrad. Here's how I feel in regards to judging a lot of the different types of debate, and other notes:

Policy

I did policy for my novice year of high school and went to the Gonzaga Debate Institute for 2 summers. I'm comfortable with just about anything you wanna throw at me in policy, but please make sure you understand what you're reading and are able to explain it to your opponents. Make sure your spreading isn't blending words together either, if you're stumbling over your words, slow down, it is totally OK. You're more than welcome to ask me questions before the round as well. Also, if I judge the round the wrong way and you feel the need to tell me, please do! We are always learning more and more when it comes to debate, and as a judge I'm always down with having some more knowledge.

I did Lincoln Douglas for a majority of my high school debate career. You are more than welcome to run whatever you like. I also like to weigh the round on value and criterion. You need to tell me why I should prefer yours over your opponent's and why it's the primary lens for the round. Go as fast as you like, but be considerate of your opponent. I also require you give me voters in your rebuttals, because that draws the image for me in regards of whether I vote for the AFF or the NEG.

I competed in PF here and there in high school, and helped prep some of school's PF teams. I want to ultimately be convinced. I'm as fresh as they come to the PF scene so the more explanation you do for me, the better. If you accidently do some slightly progressive things in PF, I won't get as mad at you as some of the more traditional PF judges will, but that doesn't mean you should run a CP in the round because you know you shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points based on a few things: 1) Did you communicate your points well? 2) Were you actively engaged throughout the entire debate? 3) Did you compose yourself in a respectful manner to your opponent and your judge?. If you can follow these 3 things, you be guaranteed good speaks, however, it won't solidify the 30 for you. That is earned by truly delivering an outstanding speech in round.

Overall Note:

If any competitors read arguments, say, or do anything that support racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and any other form of systematic oppression or hate, I will not tolerate it and I will end the round and report the person committing those said actions to tabs.

If you have any questions about a round I judge y'all in, and if I'm judging you in policy send me the doc at: sgarw0138@gmail.com

Luke Gordon Renaissance HS

Tyler Hawley Cheyenne Central High School None

Dustin Henkelmann Canyon Ridge High School

Alex Hobson Mountain View High School

Last changed on Tue April 19, 2022 at 8:41 AM MDT

I did 2 years of Policy in HS and 1 year of NPDA in College, with some assorted LD and IPDA thrown in here and there. I ended up winning state policy with my partner, but I live in Idaho so that doesn’t mean much on the national level. I have run and enjoyed all different kinds of arguments, and am ok with pretty much whatever you want to read. That being said, I recognize I tend to be pretty intervention-y, so unless you want to gamble the round your rebuttals need to paint a very clear picture of what and why I’m voting for you. Watch my face, I’ll probably tell you if I don’t like an argument.

I used to be good with speed, definitely still better than your average mom but we’ll see how we fair when we get there. I haven’t touched debate in like 2 years, so I’m rusty at best. That frankly goes for pretty much everything, my debate brain is probably half of what it once was at best, so be nice to me. If you start yelling Deleuze at me without explanation, I'm probably shutting down and going into anaphylactic shock.

Specifically:

FW: Please use it, again I’m weird and dumb so if you want to win with me you should tell me how I’m supposed to evaluate the round. It’s a lot better for both teams if there is a clear consensus on how this round is being judged, or if the argumentation regarding that is clearly outlined in the flow.

T/Theory: I really like it, ran it a lot when I debated. That being said, I a. Need you to slow tf down when reading interps and b. Need you to spend time on the shell if I’m going to vote on it. Nothing makes me madder than a 25 second theory shell that I’m somehow supposed to care about. If theory is a big part of the rebuttals the debate also needs to slow down.

DA/CP: Probably what I ran most, always fun. Make sure to be good or at least cutting your own cards, I got really bored of hearing the same open ev Econ DA when I was judging consistently

Case: Clear impact calc helps avoid me messing with your W.

K: read what you want, framework matters here because I probably haven’t read what you’re talking about. I also won’t vote on links of omission.

K aff: I'm down with these, I really like when these are run with plans that were still kind of topical. I don't think for instance queer people asking the state to stop killing queer people is them affirming the state or whatever, and I super enjoyed listening to and used to enjoy running them. Totally non-topical affirmatives are also fine, while I probably lean neg on theory here by a slight margin, if you're better than the other team and/or have some really solid answers to T (which you probably have) send it.

Speed: I used to be cool with it, might have fallen off so ask in round

I've said this multiple times but I'll say it again. I've been out of debate for quite a while, and I've not judged any of the topics this year, so I'm not going to be familiar with the arguments. That means you cannot rely on me knowing what you're talking about just off the name of whatever obscure DA you're going to be running.

Natosha Holmes Highland High School

Dave Huetten Borah High School None

Dawn Hunter Bishop Kelly High School None

Sean Hunter Bishop Kelly High School None

Kate Jacobson Borah High School

emma james Rocky Mountain HS None

Christina Jorgensen Pocatello High School None

Jo King Timberline High School

Lisa Levanger Eagle High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:08 AM MDT

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

Policy Debate:

Consider me a "Comms" judge. Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Congress:

Cameron Little Meridian High School

Annabelle Lloyd Borah High School

Martha Luna Renaissance HS

Clint Lusk Pocatello High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:38 AM MDT

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

Kaden Marchetti Highland High School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 8:50 PM EDT

Who am I:

MS CS. I build AI models in industry

7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.

-------------------

Public Forum

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.

K's/Theory

I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:

Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.

Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it

Speed

I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Plan's/Counterplans

I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

Lincoln Douglas:

I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.

I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.

4 Tips for me:

1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.

2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.

3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)

4. Have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Policy

I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?

Add me to the email chain marckade@isu.edu

1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info

2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.

3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3

Shelley McEuen Canyon Ridge High School

Marie Milovanovic Century HS

Nikola Milovanovic Century HS 8 rounds

Paul Montreuil Centennial High School

Scout Morris Timberline High School 8 rounds

Brad Nichols Twin Falls High School

Kaelee Novich Skyview HS

Kyle Pfannenstiel Highland High School

Summer Price Borah High School None

Madison Pritchard Canyon Ridge High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:15 AM MDT

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

Britani Quigley Twin Falls High School None

Joe Rankin Bettendorf High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:20 AM CDT

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Emily Robinson John F. Kennedy High School

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 10:52 AM CDT

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative. I keep a flow, but I prefer truthful and reasoned arguments.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument. I am not a fan of disads read in rebuttal.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

Adam Rodriguez Mountain View High School

Anita Ryan Rocky Mountain HS

Victoria Sandoval Canyon Ridge High School

Melinda Schulz Boise High School None

Jett Smith Highland High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:41 AM MDT

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Benjamin Smoldon Columbia HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:56 PM MDT

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.

Mike Spaulding Mountain View High School

David Stroud Ridgevue High School

Renee Tatterson Wood River High School

Dai-Quy Tran Amplus Academy

Alyson Tyler Highland High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:02 AM MDT

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change.

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument.

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically.

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit.

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why).

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate.

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them.

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Diane Walker Bishop Kelly High School

Oksana Wandell Mountain View High School None

Rick Ward Borah High School

Sharyl Wasden Twin Falls High School None

Sterling Willford Madison HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:40 AM MDT

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

Richard Wolff Pocatello High School 8 rounds

Josh Young Rocky Mountain HS None

Doug Zuberer Renaissance HS None

Login to Tabroom

2021 Running With the Bulls NIETOC

2021 — NSDA Campus, ID/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges