Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

Background / Experience:

Hello! My name is Kaia and I absolutely love debate. It honestly is one of my passions, so please expect and cherish my feedback (either on your ballot or in person). I also kind of know what I'm talking about.

I competed for four years at Hunter High School. During that time I was my teams secretary, VP, and President. I competed in over 500 rounds (varying events but mainly LD), and was awarded many individual tournament awards, qualified for nationals 9 times, was ranked 9th in the entire state of Utah, and ranked 1st in LD in the state of Utah. I also received my degree of Primer Distinction. I have taught many different novices throughout my time in high school, so I probably can understand what you're doing, and what you can do better. I am currently the assistant coach at Hunter High School. I have competed in and judged almost all events (everything but congress), so this isn't my first rodeo.

Also, just a side note, I apologize in advance for my awful spelling.

Paradigm:

THE BIGGEST PET PEEVE IS WHEN YOU DON'T SIGN POST. IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO PUT IT ON THE FLOW I WILL NOT FLOW IT.

I also value the framework debate very heavily (ESPECIALLY in LD debate). Please use it within the debate!

I am primarily a TRAD debater myself, but I have used progressive techniques in most of my cases. I do not care if you run trad or progressive, but I will probably be able to give you better critiques if it is a trad case. Again, just do whatever though I'm fine with either.

I do not mind aggression at all. Yell as much as you want I love a good, heated debate. That being said, if you are a bully to your opponent, or just a meanie in general there is a good chance you won't get the ballot. Just be respectful. It's pretty easy.

FOR ANY AND EVERY DEBATE EVENT I WILL MOST LIKELY VOTE HEAVILY ON LINE BY LINE. PLEASE BE ORGANIZED AND USE LINE BY LINE.

For speech events I will judge mainly on overall speaking skills as well as organization in any event. For most speech events I really appreciate hearing your sources for your information (of not in impromptu or spar).

Other than that I don't care too much what you do. Ask me if you have any round specific questions. Run whatever you want. Time yourself. Make me laugh. :D

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Hello! I'm going to get right to it. I've been coaching Speech and Debate for 19 years. I’ve judged policy and LD at the local and national level. In LD, I’ve judged national semi-final rounds and also had the honor to be part of the national panel as a judge for the final round.

Use of Jargon or technical language: I got you. I prefer Ks and theory that apply directly to the resolution and the context of the round. I will rarely vote on a K or theory if it doesn’t foster debate on the resolution. I also want to hear LD debaters uphold their value - it's the only thing that makes LD unique; therefore, it must be won to win my ballot.

I am a flow judge in that I will track your arguments and look at clash and drops, analyzing who wins each argument on the flow. Given that, be specific in your signposting and tell me where you want me to put things on the flow. I look at your arguments (60%) and your delivery (40%). Share your cases with me if you’re planning on going fast; I’m ok with speed.

Please be respectful to your opponents and judges. Respect is one of the basic tenets of this activity and must be upheld. (Can you see my LD roots showing?) With that being said, let’s debate!

Me as a judge- I like to take notes. Please keep your own time as well. I did debate in high school, but I was firmly in impromptu.

Spreading- not too fast, please!

Standing is your choice.

You may call me Bree, or judge.

I competed in LD for four years and have been judging for the last three. I've judged everything under the sun, but I'm most familiar with the debate events. For debate events, I am fairly traditional, though I can follow more progressive arguments. I prefer good logic and argumentation over just throwing evidence out there. Make sure you explain your links and impacts well. I don't flow cross ex, so make sure you bring up anything you feel was important in your speech. For speech events, I pay attention to overall presence as you present as well as the content of your speech itself. I look to be entertained and engaged, but I don't want to see things get to theatric (unless it's an interp of course). Make eye contact, be confident, be engaging. I love debate and I love judging. So as long as everyone's respectful, we should all have a good time :)

For Debate Rounds:

I enjoy flowing rounds. I expect debaters to speak to be understood and to forward their arguments with meaningful warrants AND impacts. I caution the use of spreading. I should not have to read your case in order to be able to track your arguments if you are speaking to be understood. Evidence that is left to speak for itself carries less weight for arguments than evidence that is contextualized and explained how it is being used within the argument as well as the round. I focus on how well debaters utilize Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Your delivery (respect for opponents, and connection with the judge) and use of evidence fits under ethos. Your pathos increases when you are able to explain how what you are arguing matters--don't just state that it does. Logos implies logic, so make sure that you make sense. Finally, don't hide and gloss over your definition of the resolution. I need to know what you are debating. Regarding speaker points: speakers who are respectful during CX to their opponent, who roadmap and signpost their speeches, and who speak to be understood are awarded higher points.

For Individual Speaking Events:

Utilize your voice and body to convey your message to the judge. Contextualize your sources as you cite them orally. Roadmap and signpost your presentations. Regardless of the event, make your topic matter for your audience. 

What I am looking for is simple. Points that flow all the way to the last round backed by evidence and excellent and persuasive speech. No spewing unless you are in policy. If you are going to try and run an abstract case by me it better be very convincing.

Speech

I gauge every round based on what is presented. How well do you deliver your material? Remember, no one knows your speech better than you do. I will not know you made a mistake unless you bring attention to it. If you need to take a pause to gather your thoughts, do so.

NEVER TELL A JUDGE HOW BAD YOU WILL DO or HOW UNPREPARED YOU ARE!!!

Debate

I don't mind spreading, but if you are speaking to the point where I can't understand what you say, I will not be able to truly judge your arguments. I look at which person/team supports their arguments the best. I gauge every round based on what is presented.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

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

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events & Judging Argumentation Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

I am currently the assistant coach at Layton High, this is my second year coaching and fifth year being involved with debate. I am an English and Philosophy major in my junior year of college. I have competed in every event except for policy and interp, but am familiar with all of them. I judge off of the flow.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

I am an experienced judge. This is my 4th year and I debated in high school.

My main things are I judge on flow, speak well, and debate in good faith

I Will do my best to follow spreading, but I will dock speaker points if you speak poorly, and if I miss something, you did not say it.

Looking at your opponent's evidence is prep time unless there is a substantial/formal issue of falsification or misrepresentation of evidence.

I do not flow cross, but I take notes off flow, and you should be using it to learn about and disprove your opponent's case, but BRING IT UP IN A SPEECH. The worst thing is making a great point in cross and never bringing it up so you don't get credit for it.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

IE Events: I'm looking to see if you have a clear thesis and if you do a good job supporting it. I will not rank someone very high if there is any ambiguity in what they are saying or if they lack persuasive evidence. Please do not be worried if I will agree with you or not. I just want to see a good argument and know precisely what you are arguing.

Debate Events: Clarity is really important. I want to judge according to the best arguments, but please remember that your judges are most likely not going to be as familiar with the subject matter as you are. Be deliberate in your speech and thoroughly explain your evidence.