Tabroom.com

Idaho State Debate

2021 — NSDA Campus, ID/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Loren Allison Borah High School None

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.

Lucy Barnes Rigby High School

Suzanne Barney Madison HS

Tucker Bates Columbia HS

Lynsey Bean Madison HS

Sara Bell Mountain View High School

Lauren Bellamy Skyview HS

Sara Borjian Meridian High School

Elisa Bright Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy

Michelle Buchanan Pocatello High School

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 4:01 AM MDT

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 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!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. 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?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

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.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Brittnay Burns Timberline High School

Joe Burton Emmett High School

Bobby Butler Teton High School 8 rounds

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!!

Erin Carter Bonneville High School

E. Christensen Mountain View High School

Robert Clayton Bonneville High School

Josh Collins Boise High School

Malia Collins Boise High School

Rachael Cope Hillcrest HS

Kathleen Davis-Nelson Hillcrest HS None

Andrea Dearden Rocky Mountain HS

Kammie Dennis Madison HS

Kristen Drew Ridgevue High School

Anita Evans Teton High School None

Katy Fetzer Soda Springs High School

Robertson Fox Twin Falls 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.

Tasia Fullmer Rigby High School

Stacie Gardner Canyon Ridge High School

Adelle Giles Canyon Ridge High School None

Bob Goycoolea Bishop Kelly High School

Nick Grunig Idaho Falls High School

Last changed on Fri December 2, 2022 at 12:52 PM MDT

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

Gabe Guerrero Mountain Home HS

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 5:01 PM MDT

BACKGROUND: I did 2 years of High School debate (Mostly Congress .. I know), however; I have spent the last 3 years with BSU collegiate debate team and am an individual debate champion (still just in congress... I know) Other than that I am very familiar with LD, and policy debate/structure and have dabbled a bit in public forum.

For all my debates I LOVE some clash honestly the worst thing in the world is a boring debate I want to see you really in to what you are telling me and I want to see that you KNOW what you are talking about

As that goes I do expect the utmost RESPECT for each debater in the room, I will not tolerate a rude remarks, treatment or any forms of it in my rounds. This is an easy way to lose my ballot.

As for the actual debate I am very heavy on a few things

1. Impacts : why does it matter

2. Evidence : I don't care what the evidence says, I want to know what this evidence means for the round

3. Value/Criterion (LD): Honestly If you can't tell me why you should uphold your given value/criterion then I don't have a reason to vote. Let's be real I shouldn't have to be writing this one but I have seen to many rounds that forget their value/criterion.

4. CP: I love a good CP, haven't seen one in a hot minute. But will follow one!

5. Warrants: I need you to tell me the why, and how of all your argument, ink on the flow doesn't mean anything unless you give it a purpose!

In general I need you to lay it out for me and tell me why you are winning, how you are winning, and in which ways whether it be through any of the one's I listed above or even through another way.

Speed : I know some debaters can go super sonic, doesn't mean it should be a thing, If I can't understand you I can't write a ballot, and a clear ballot is where I make my judging correlations.

If there is any other questions or If you need me to clear anything up please let me know, I promise I am a very fun judge.

Karen Gump Mountain Home HS

Tamara Harmon Kimberly HS

Robyn Harper Mountain View High School

Last changed on Fri November 17, 2023 at 1:06 AM PDT

hey, I'm rob my pronouns are they/them/theirs

I debated for the seven years, four at Mountain View High School (two in LD and two in policy) in Idaho (yuck!) and three for the College of Idaho (1 year of NPDA and 2 of British Parliamentary because debate fell apart during Covid).

At heart, I am a K debater, but if econ and stock is your thing, do it. I judge debate to foster a space where debaters can safely argue what they feel called to, I don't want to stop you from doing that (unless your thing is racism, transphobia, mysogeny, xenophobia, or other isms, then you will definitely not get far with me or hopefully anyone else). Anyway, I will make this more efficient to read:

TLDR: Please read what you feel most confident with, despite what my preferences are, though I am slightly predisposed to side with well constructed k's.

Kritiks: By all means read them. However, they better have framework, preferably a roll of the ballot or some kind of weighing mechanism, and for god-sake have more than one or two cards. If you're reading high theory, don't assume I am following. Yes I have an understanding of what you're saying (probably/maybe), but I'm not going to do the work for you. Also, come down a few flights from the ivory tower--do not spread your opponent out of the round and have some respect in cross-ex. Debate can be horribly inaccessible and often times ableist, if not just elitist.

K-Affs: Send it. Performances are even better (my partner and I did a performance aff using "La vie Boheme" from the Musical Rent through Deleuze-Nietzsche, and all kinds of other fun.)

Theory: Go for it, but please have a well-developed shell, blippy theory shells make my heart hurt :( in LD I might vote on an RVI, but probably not.

Topicality: Also send it, though be careful of perf con because that bothers me to no end (i.e. running T and biopolitics), though obviously I won't vote you down for perf con if your opponent(s) don't make the argument--I'll just think you're commodifying suffering to an even larger degree than we already tend to do in debate.

Stock: *shrug* do it if you want to. I get a little bored with econ and politics DA's that rely on shaking link chains.

Speed: Go for it, but if you aren't slow on tags I'm not going to be able to flow what you're saying. Honestly, the more I debate the less I like intense speed (which would make my high school self sad). It makes debate inaccessible and even more ivory tower than it already is so think about that, I guess. If you have to rely on speed and jargon to confuse an opponent out of the round, I don't think that proves you've won the argument. If you're going to fast for me I'll just say "slow" or "clear," you don't have to pause just slow down a bit, it won't affect your speaks.

If you can make jokes, I will laugh.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before/after the round. Put me on the email chain please! (no guarantee on my response time if you email me outside of round though).

robgriffittsharper@gmail.com

Keanna Hart Mountain Home HS

Jon Hawkes Snake River High School

Natosha Holmes Highland High School 8 rounds

Christine Hubbard Skyline HS

Christopher Inama Ridgevue High School

Max Johnston Highland High School

Last changed on Fri March 11, 2022 at 4:09 AM MDT

I debated in High school, a year in college, and worked as an assistant coach for a short time. That being said I have been out of the community for a good chunk of time and am still a bit rusty.

I am okay with speed but my rusty-ness means I am not going to be the fastest pen. If i dont hear your argument then it cant make it on my flow, if it cant make it on my flow it becomes harder to let that weigh in on my decision. If something is important, make sure you emphasize it. That doesnt mean saying the same thing over and over, it means saying it once in a clear and concise way. I am okay with you moving a bit faster through evidence, if its truly important there is a decent chance I will be asking to see it after the round anyway. I think speed can be a good tool, but if you are simply going to rely on it to outspread your opponent then I start to take issue with it.

I am pretty intentional about leaving my own feelings about anything at the door. You get to tell me whats important, you get to tell me why, and you get to tell me what matters in the debate. Absent any provided framework I default to policy maker, but only cause its the easiest way to evaluate for most debates.

I am okay with alternative frameworks for approaching debate, but it must be clear what the framework is, why it is valuable, and what makes that framework a preferable approach to our time in round. I have no issue with traditional policy making style debate, but I do think that we should be held to account for the positions we defend, and I am okay with the introduction of ethical or moral questions as a legitimate attack on a position. By and large I think you get to decide what the debate is about, You get to tell me what is important and why that is the case. I can vote on just about any impact given the right framing and the right arguments about the way we weigh impacts, but dont think I will vote just because you throw out some grand scale impact with no context or story connecting it to the debate.

I prefer depth to breadth as a general rule. I would rather see a well developed negative position with some built in flexibility to allow for some jetisoning of arguments rather than three or four different positions (counterplans, K's). You can win that having more positions is better in the theory debate, but it will be an uphill battle. Same goes for the affirmative, I would rather see 2-3 advantages with good development and strong links than 5-6 advantages that you just narrow down to 2-3 by the end of the round.

I do love a good K debate, emphasis being good. Dont read it if you arent comfortable with it, or if you feel like you cant defend it or the alternative framework necessary to evaluate it. But I am perfectly okay with bringing into the debate space the questions about how we as individuals need to relate to these larger questions of policy, action and consequence.

I hate shallow T debates. If you think you can win it I want to see extrapolation for why your definition provides the best potential debates and education, not just questions of potential abuse. My partner in high school won T 4 out of 5 rounds and it has given me an appreciation for well debated topicality.

I also place a high value on being civil to each other. You are gonna have to deal with people you dont like and disagree with for the rest of your life, learning how to do so without letting your tone of voice become all angry and confrontational is one of the most important things debate can teach us. There is a distinct difference between calling someone out for being morally or ethically problematic however, in these instances a bit of venom may be called for. But by and large in the debate space there is no reason for us not to be kind to each other, competition is good, being rude is not. I dont want to see people intentionally talking over each other to avoid real questions or conversation.

Also in my judge training they made a big deal about evidence violations. If you feel like there is a real violation occuring let me know, but by and large if evidence is truly important to the round I will be calling to see it afterwards any way. That being said if you feel like a particular bit of evidence is important to the round, whether in regards to impact calculus or framing or what have you, please flag it for me and be clear on the authors name and date so I know what to ask for after the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Im less experienced in this style of debate, but a lot of what I said above will apply here. I have no problem with alternative frameworks and I know that has become a lot more common since my time in the community. That being said you need to tell me what that alternate framework is, what it means for how I as a judge evaluate the debate and the topic and why it is preferable to the framework you opponent provides.

Again I don't have any real issues with speed, If i cant understand you I will let you know. But dont just turn it into a spewing contest, LD has less evidence and more argumentation then Policy and spewing through those arguments means I might lose some of the details that will be important in evaluating the debate.

Not much to add here. I have more respect now for PF then I did in high school since it seems to mirror the conversations we actually have about politics and the world. I flow it a bit different then the other styles of debate, so I am less worried about the line-by-line argumentation, and more about the cohesive narrative that you are defending.

Nicole Johnston Highland High School 8 rounds

Terah Jones Soda Springs High School

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.

Sam Lyle Blackfoot High School

Brendan Malloy Idaho Falls High School

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

Riley May Highland High School

Marie Milovanovic Century HS

James Mullen Rigby High School

Last changed on Tue March 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM MDT

Hey everyone. This will be the first tournament I've judged on the topic this year. I haven't done any research or coaching this season yet either. Everything listed below on this paradigm is still accurate, but in the world of online debate I wanted to mention a few things:

#1. Let's try to do a sound check before we start the debate. I want to make sure I'm understanding you clearly as you are spreading.

#2. As someone who spends most of my working and attending class in Zoom meetings, I can be patient with any tech problems that come up.

#3. As always, please ask me any questions that you may have!

#4. I haven't judged much LD before and I'm less familiar the mechanics of the event. If you have something particularly heavy on the theory you want to run, you may have to slow down so I can follow. I am comfortable with value/criterion debate, but you have to make it meaningful to your case. Some of the rounds I've seen haven't used this debate to generate offense, at which point it's just wasted time.

#5. I'd love to be a part of the evidence email thread: jmullen30@live.com

Background: I debated policy as a 1N/2A through high school with a little bit of PF here and there. While I was never the fastest pen in the west, I was able to keep up in fast rounds during national tournaments across the country. As a debater, I felt comfortable with every form and flavor of argumentation I ran into. However (BIG HOWEVER), after I graduated I spent a few years out of country and a few more years in engineering/math classes. This is one of the first tournaments I've judged in 5 years, and I'll probably be pretty rusty. Unfortunately for you all, the TLDR of my paradigm is if it doesn't make it on my flow, I can't vote on it.

Judging Philosophy: Here in my paradigm I'll talk about my preferences, but at the end of the day I will vote with my flows. So don't drop arguments and try to bring them up in the last speech, don't invent new arguments in the last speech, and don't think you'll pull one over me. That said, the more organized you are (overviews, signposting, slowing for tags and essential arguments, effective grouping, etc.) the easier it will be for me to flow your arguments and pick you up. Feel free to run anything you want as long as it justified, inoffensive, and run well.

Topicality: HUGE fan. That being said, I'll hold your T arguments to a pretty high standard. If you don't do any work on it throughout the debate, don't expect to win it at the end. Some general guidelines:

1st: Substantial T is vague as no get out. Don't read it in front of me when there is such a huge litany of better T args on this rez. I'll be sad if you do. Just a little.
2nd: Each interpretation should have its own flow and its own standards/voting issues. I will be really sad if you try to make me flow everything together.
3rd: Please be prepared to provide the judge (that's me!) and your opponents copies of your interpretations. Nothing is more frustrating than a T debate where one side misunderstands the other's interpretations- it's a nightmare decision.

K Debate: Not as big of a fan. I'm not saying that I won't vote on a K, but you might have to put a bit more work into the K debate for me than a pure tab judge. Also, please don't just spew cards at me. I'll need a bit of hand-holding as you work through the argument. I ran a lot of Security in high school.
K-affs: Can be tons of fun! I helped write one my junior year that was pretty successful. The same hand-holding will be required here too please- but I'm not against voting for one :)

Theory and Framework: I really enjoy theory and framework debates, but don't run them just to run them. They should be applicable to the round, well-developed, and well-debated. I like my arguments with clear interpretations, violations, standards, voters, etc. I also have a harder time voting on potential abuse arguments, but definately understand using them to win rounds. Just do the work in the voters section of the argument. Please be very neat when grouping arguments and consolidating flows because this can get really messy.

CX: You can be aggressive without being rude. If your partner jumps in during a CX (like tag-teaming) it will show up as reduced speaker points. If you say that you'll get your opponents cards, make sure you do. I default to a binding CX, but can be swayed with theory. I also understand that mistakes can be made, and I don't want you to throw a debate with a minor mistake like referencing the wrong card if you also read the correct card.
Also, I don't time evidence transfer but I do time evidence reading. If you want to read evidence before/after CX, it comes out of your prep time.

PF: The event is almost uncomfortably short. That doesn't mean I won't vote for framework or theory arguments, but you need to be succinct and efficient (which feels pretty ironic for me to say as I look over my paradigm again haha). I love clash in PF. The more clash and cross application, the more offense you generate, and the easier it will be to win my flow (which wins you the round).

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

I have a super duper low threshold for garbage dropped argument analysis. If you think your opponents dropping one of your arguments is a big deal, you best explain to me why that argument matters in the debate, and extend the cards on that argument. I VOTE WITH MY FLOWS.

Have fun! Enjoy yourselves! Read the arguments that you wanna read! Debate your best!

If you have any questions before the debate starts please ask them or email me,

All the best,

James

George Mullin Boise High School

Last changed on Fri November 13, 2020 at 11:48 AM MDT

Preferred Debate Styles:Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence? No preferences

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? Will impact speaker points very negatively

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

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? All are ok/can be persuasive

Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Ok in policy debate, not in other debate types

How should debaters run on case arguments? Up to debaters

How should debaters run off case arguments? Up to debaters.

How should Debaters run theory arguments? Up to debaters

What other preferences do you have, as a judge? 1)I appreciate good clash— addressing the other side’s points not just repeating your points. Explain to me why your argument is better than the other side’s argument.

2) In rebuttals focus on winning the debate, not trying to win every argument that has been in dispute during the round.

3) I respect (and expect the debaters to understand) the differences between the different styles of debate. I don’t judge the same way in every type of debate, so please don’t debate in an LD or PF round the same way you would in a policy round. Accordingly, speed/spread in policy is ok, but not effective in PF or LD (ie you won’t lose my ballot in PF or LD because you spoke too fast, you will lose because your speed detracts from developing your arguments and making them persuasive to me). Note, even in policy ensure that when you read the evidence fast the card is still comprehensible. Kritiks are ok in policy, not in LD or PF.

Debate Experience. I was a former high school policy debater so am very familiar with that style, but I have judged rounds the past 2 years in LD and PF, in addition to policy.

Carter Nelson Borah High School

Dele Ogunrinola Ridgevue High School

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 8:37 AM EDT

I am a previous high school debater with most of my experience in Lincoln Douglas Debate, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging Policy Debate. I have two graduate degrees in Biochemistry and Physics, and a minor in Applied Math. I did a lot of progressive LD as a young lad, but I'm cool with whatever.

LD and Policy debate is where I chill most of the time. I'll vote on structural issues before anything like nuclear war. Impact Calculus is huge to me, specifically magnitude and timeframe. I like impact turns, and framework turns as well, but not necessary to win the round. Speed is cool, but slow down on tags and your authors of importance. I ran almost exclusively race based arguments in high school and have spent the last 5 years organizing and writing on critical race theory. Solvency in LD is fine, but be prepared to answer ethics/prag arguments. I tend to default to prag over ethics or deontology, but like, articulate the framework with some gusto and I got you. You will not get me to vote for an impact double turn (something like racism = good is a big no no). Theory args are fun, but I'd prefer the Neg to debate the Aff. 6 off isn't going to get you much of anywhere, like a 1 on, 2 off with an underview. If the opponent asks you to slow down, and you don't, I will probably drop you. K Aff's? Not a good idea.

I like voters. I like in round solvency. I don't like abuse or t arguments that are overzeaous or diatribous. If you think the opponent is being abusive, cite a few reasons and I will make the decision. T is important to me too, so if I see it and you make me aware, you've done your job. Don't beat a dead horse for 8 mins.

Policy folks, my bread and butter is race based args, and I also have a lot of experience in queer theory and some Black Feminism. That being said, stock issues can still win you the round, I specifically default to uniqueness and advantages. Don't turn impacts that don't gain you offense, that's a waste of time. I'm cool with dropped args, I will vote on offense almost exclusively. If you think spreading the opponent out is cute, then you should wake up. Accessibility to the round is crucial to good debate.

Line by line. Voters. Impact Calc, and solvency deficits are where I do most of my work, but convince me otherwise if you can.

Congratulations on state!

Paul Ortmann Twin Falls High School

Aimee Paxton Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy

Kyle Pfannenstiel Highland High School 8 rounds

Kelsey Purin Blackfoot High School 8 rounds

Bryce Rambeau Rocky Mountain HS

Charlotte Reid Snake River High School

Garrett Richardson Borah High School

Kevin Richmond Boise High School

Sarah Ridinger Emmett High School

Adam Rodriguez Mountain View High School

Rebecca Rodriguez Century HS

Ethan Romriell Century HS

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:42 AM MDT

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

Lyssa Schei Highland High School

Brent Schindler Teton High School

Tessa Schulz Boise High School

Madison Seymour Lake City High School

Tyler Skidmore Pocatello High School

Gaydena Smith Snake River High School

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.

Kara Smith Timberline High School

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 4:23 AM HST

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

Benjaman Smoldon Skyview 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

Meghan Stewart Bishop Kelly High School

Jeffrey Stoppenhagen Columbia HS

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 1:23 PM MDT

Background: I have been coaching for nearly 30 years - a combination of coaching at Boise State University for the Talkin' Broncos (15 years) and now 14+ years at the high school level.

Overall Debate Philosophy/Preferences: I believe debate is a game we play with our friends, so please respectfully present your arguments but do so in a way that is positive and reflects well on this activity. I appreciate organization, tell me where your clash is, and impact out your points. Tell me WHY your arguments and points take priority or should be considered above those of your counterparts.

Policy Debate: I am fine with moderate speed. If I can't understand or follow you, I will stop flowing the round. Great debate can be won or loss in cross-examination. Ask pertinent questions, answer directly. I prefer stock issues but am open to most arguments if you can JUSTIFY why it is preferred.

PF/LD Debate: As these debate formats ask you to perform specific duties, it is imperative that you meet that expectation for me to win my ballot. In LD, make sure you link your value and criterion to all your contentions. I must hear impacts - don't leave it to me to do your work. Don't just give me tag lines and evidence and expect me to figure it out. That is your job! In PF, each debater has a very specific role so make sure to fulfill it. Case, Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus are each important and a well-balanced team tends to look better.

Congressional Debate: Be professional, well organized when speaking, ask pertinent questions, and stay engaged throughout the session and you'll move up in chamber rank. Be that representative that takes the other side and challenge your fellow reps. I enjoy clash, respectfully done, and be the consummate debater and colleague.

Summation: I believe that Debate, in any format, is a combination of research, organization, refutation, and being stylistic. For organizations' sake, please road map and sign post, provide a brief summary conclusion that leaves me impressed with your skills as a public speaker, strong researcher, and believing your arguments and impacts.

Be brilliant, be persuasive, be nice. Your fellow debaters, no matter where they are from, are your friends!

David Stroud Renaissance HS

Renee Tatterson Wood River High School

Jenn Torgesen Kimberly HS

Joseph Tyler Skyline HS

Last changed on Wed May 15, 2024 at 5:21 AM MDT

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

TheoryI love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

Branden Vance Rigby High School

Titan Walker Renaissance HS

Last changed on Tue March 8, 2022 at 10:50 AM MDT

TLDR: I've debated for 7 years (so far), and am fine with whatever you wanna do, have well constructed arguments, don't exclude your opponent from the debate, and dear god YOU CAN RUN CP's IN LD!

Heyo, i'm Titan. I debated for Eagle High school in Idaho for 4 years in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, qualifying for nationals twice, and eventually winning State Debate my senior year in 2019. I now debate for The College of Idaho competing in NPDA. As far as the round goes I really don't care what you read as long as it isn't problematic and is well constructed. I am fine with K's, DA's, Theory, CP's, Performance, Contentions, Chapters, etc. Whatever you read just make sure it is well constructed and you know it well. Also, please dont assume i have already read your lit so you can just breeze past it, i want your arguments to be well developed and actually contribute to more than your win (Hint: if your case is designed so it is hard for your opponent to flow/hear/respond to, then it is almost certainly a terrible case and you should rethink your life decisions). If you have any specific questions for me feel free to ask them before the round. In terms of "debate rules", tag team all you want (especially if you're in LD), evidence transfer is not timed but no one can be prepping while you are sending evidence. Other than that ask me before the round or justify your interp in the round. If you are sharing evidence in the round please include me in the doc (titanjack01@gmail.com). Also feel free to reach out to me after rounds if you have questions but i make absolutely ZERO guarantees about my response time.

On Speed: Go for it, if your are too fast for me ill say "slow" if its unclear ill say "clear". I also invite your opponent to use these two words in the round (just unmute yourself and say "slow" or "clear" real quick and re-mute). If you do not adapt when your opponent requests I will not care if they drop the arguments one tiny bit. Speed can be fun in debate and has its uses but it shouldn't be used as a way to exclude your opponent from the full scope of the debate.

Other than that, goodluck y'all and remember that debate is actually supposed to be fun, enjoy it!!

Edmond Walsh Thunder Ridge High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 3, 2020 at 7:03 AM MDT

Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!

A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.

I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. I coached the Idaho Mountain River District WSD team twice, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.

I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.

I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."

At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment. Congeniality will win you the debate. Aggression will cost you...

I'm really excited to be a part of your debate experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.

Laura Ward Bishop Kelly High School

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.

Susan Worst Wood River High School

Login to Tabroom

Idaho State Debate

2021 — NSDA Campus, ID/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges