I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

That said, I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I might as well sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do.

On Critical Debate:

I love a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF:If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? How do I fill out this stupid ballot? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy. My feeling on plans is that they are usually not necessary and only invite topicality issues that can't be easily resolved because this format doesn't allow for topicality arguments, so don't run them!

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

I participated in debate all through high school and placed at State three years in a row. I am now the parent of a congressional debater.

When I judge, I look for strong organization, confident delivery, and logical arguments backed by research.

I am not impressed by anyone who tries to make other people look stupid. The way you treat your competitors contributes to the overall atmosphere and should allow everyone to do their best. I have no tolerance for arrogance or snarkiness, especially if someone acts that way in an attempt to look clever.  

I appreciate creativity, enthusiasm, and professionalism.

You guys have worked so hard to get here! Enjoy the experience. Have multiple goals for yourself! Don't define success at this tournament too narrowly by only setting one goal, such as to break into semi finals.

Instead, identify at least FIVE goals that you hope to accomplish this week. :) That way, you will most likely achieve three or four of them! For example, your goals could be:

• to place
• to break into the final round (or semi or quarter)
• to give the best speech you have given this season
• to meet someone new at this tournament with whom you want to stay in touch
• to smile at or provide a pep talk to someone who seems nervous or stressed
• to make your judge laugh/cry/nod appreciatively/raise their eyebrows/respond in some way
• to support your teammates when they succeed
• to incorporate a story, personal example, or piece of research that you especially like 
• to not pass out or throw up
• to go out of your comfort zone in some way
• to have fun

This approach makes a big difference, whether you are competing in a tournament, training for a marathon, going on a trip, or executing a large-scale event. Multiple goals help you focus on the varied and valuable aspects of the experience, not just the outcome!

Namaste.

Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pack%2C+Erin ). Please default to the paradigm below.

Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.

Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.

Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.

Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.

LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.

Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

Policy and other debates - I am a traditionalist in debate in that I believe debate should be training for public communication. I prefer a conversation of ideas, not a speed reading contest with no connection to your opponent. Please watch your speed and listen and respond to your opponents arguments to help strengthen your own.

- give me road maps throughout. Thanks.

- I am not experienced in Policy, except for coaching basics and judging. I learn more from you, so don't be afraid to show me what you know.

Public Speaking: A great public speaker chooses topics that are unique, interesting, and relevant and delivers them with passion and authority. Do not trauma dump on me. It won't work. I will vote for the best speech and speaker, not the most dramatic.

Be respectful and professional. The debate space is not a place for emotional manipulation, fallacious use of accusations, and cheating.

Thank you.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.