I value clear and concise arguments. less is more. clear annunciation and a steady pace. straightforward values and positions. I appreciate it when you outline your argument so it's easier to follow along. keep it professional it's a debate, not an argument. I'm a lay judge.

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

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.

Don't speak too fast or I won't be able to digest what you are saying.

Speak in a firm confident voice, even if you are not confident.

Roy Highschool '19

eneiswanger@gmail.com

I did PF and Policy debate in high school, each for one year.

Tech ------------X------------------------------Truth

Flows the doc --------X----------------------------------It's on you to be comprehensible

Spin > Cards ----------X--------------------------------Cards > Spin

Poker face-------------X-----------------------------You'll know my thoughts on everything

Not ideological in clash debates -----------------------------X--------------No plan no ballot

Pomo/high theory expert -----------------------------------------X-Whatever the opposite of that is

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------------X----------------------------Delib k2 solve warming/Movements

Counter-defining and offense/defense on T --------------X----------------------------Impact turning everything

2NR needs TVA to win-----------------------------------X------Overrated/unnecessary most of the time

K links to the plan -------------------------------------X-------Unnecessary if you win framework

Extinction outweighs/impact turn vs K ---------------------------------X----------Perm/no link

Conditionality bad -------------------------------------X--------Infinite and good

1NCs that proliferate incomplete arguments-----------------------------------X-----Aff gets new answers

Bad for process/"cheating" CPs ------------------------------X--------------Being neg's hard

"We're topical but don't defend implementation"-------------------------------------X------Makes literally 0 sense

Theory debates hinge on ideology -------------------------------X-------------Execution is everything

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs ----------------------------X--------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Intrinsicness bad -----------------------X---------------------Better for it than most

Logical internal link presses/recutting their ev --------------X----------------------------Impact D to everything

"Insert this reHLing" --------------------------------------X-----Gotta read it

Bathroom breaks and small talk ---------------------------------------X---Decision time is short

Having to read an essay with my thoughts on debate ---------------------------------X-----Short judge philosophies

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

TL;DR I am comfortable with any and all arguments as long as they are well-articulated, impacted out, and clearly framed in the context of the round; run your disads, your CPs, your kritiks, your theory, etc. I have no specific topic knowledge this year. I do my best to vote off the flow and limit judge intervention. I am sensitive to how marginalized identities are treated within the debate space.

In general:

- I will try to keep my camera on as often as possible.

- I flow on my laptop, and while I'm comfortable with speed, I appreciate slowing down on tags and increased attention to clarity in analytics, especially those not included in the doc.

- It is especially important to me that an inclusive environment is fostered. Your speaks and the outcome of the round can, and will, be affected by intolerant or violent language and/or behaviors. Understand that debate is a space that was inherently not made for POC, femmes, and other marginalized identities, and as a judge I believe it my responsibility to intervene if a round re-entrenches any trend of exclusion.

- In terms of speaks, I reward clarity, organization, efficiency of language, and quality of explanation.

- I'm not a fan of excessive neg strats. I do not think it is ever necessary to run eight off with four disads and three counterplans and a theory shell, and I'm going to be pretty pissy if your off-case positions hit the double digits. You can go ahead, but I probably won't love it.

- Adapt to your opponent. If a team/an opponent is clearly new to the event or traditional, I don't want to see high theory run. There's no way to have a good debate if half of the round fundamentally does not understand the arguments being made. You can have clash by engaging with your opponent in the manner they're debating. If you choose to disregard this, I'll vote off the flow, but your speaks will suffer for it.

- In general, I am comfortable with any and all forms of argument as long as they are well-articulated and contextualized in the context of the round, including but not limited to DAs/CPs, kritiks, theory, performance args. Debate however you think will allow you to make it the best round you can while also respecting your opponents.

- I have no specific topic knowledge this year.

- Please include me on the email chain: cindyphan@college.harvard.edu

More general things:

- I appreciate it when debaters time themselves.

- Love signposting and off-time roadmaps.

- Tech > Truth (as much as is reasonable— I will absolutely not be convinced by impact turns like "racism good" even if it is completely dropped throughout the entire round. Likewise, an outdated PTX disad can flow uncontested, but I won't be voting on evidence that was specific to the 2016 election. But I try my best to limit judge intervention, I will not be doing work for you or your opponents, and I will be voting off the flow.)

- Rebuttals are not just an opportunity to restate and regurgitate. IMO, rebuttals make or break the round.

- I did policy/CX three years of high school on both the local and national circuits, except for one year where I took a hiatus to try out local circuit, traditional-leaning LD (but my policy background makes me very amenable to progressive LD, so don't let that stop you). I am a fourth year out (graduated high school in '20, currently Harvard '24).

- You need offense.

Topicality:

Topicality can be pretty compelling for me, and again I will vote on the flow, but I don't like voting for a poorly chosen T interp, or one that was obviously thrown in to be a time skew and then just chosen in the 2NR because the aff had the least amount of offense/defense on that flow. I often do buy reasonability.

Theory:

Go for it, but it's uniquely important to be both clear and organized in theory debate, because very quickly it can devolve into something messy unless you do clear line-by-line and impact your claims out. What is your model of debate and why is it superior? Why is your opponent's inferior? It's also important that you can demonstrate tangible harms to me — if you can't prove that to me, I won't vote on it.

Framework/Kritiks:

If done well, I literally adore framework debate. I have no issues if in the rebuttals the round ends up becoming mostly framework debate — but make sure to either handle case or explain to me why you don't need to handle case (e.g. framing that if you win this framework debate, you win the round point blank). As long as there is a basic rundown of standards in the constructives I'm good; I'm not too picky on the technicalities of extending every single one through.

In terms of kritikal theory, run what you want to run, but I do prefer kritiks that link specifically into the aff and/or topic as opposed to a generic one. I have a decent amount of experience in K debate, so don't hold yourself back on my account. Accessibility of literature is important to me. Even if your opponent has never heard of your author before, you should give them enough to go off of that they can adequately respond.

Disads:

I love disads, but they better be airtight — especially PTX disads, for which evidence can become outdated alarmingly fast. Still, do it well, and make sure your uniqueness is up-to-date, and these are very compelling arguments. A few well-articulated, well-linked, and well-developed disads >>> a bunch of shallow, generic disads thrown out as a time skew.

Counterplans:

I have experience with those counterplans that crop up time and time again in different topics (delay, conditions, multi-actor, consult), but I'm not super familiar with the topic this year, so if you're using a pretty specific agency/mechanism, I want you to be explicit in what it is and how it works. Clear articulation of net benefits is very important here. Make sure your solvency advocate is clear. Just like how it is the burden of the aff to prove that their plan/advocacy is net better than the squo, it is the burden of the negative (if they have a non-status quo advocacy) to prove that their advocacy is net better than the aff one. If fiat is involved, you're going to have to do a little bit of work before I vote on it. On the aff, if you think their CP hurts aff ground (i.e. plan-inclusive counterplans are popular here), then don't be afraid to make theory arguments on the CP flow.

Case:

The case flow is very important and in a lot of cases (heh) is the center of the debate. As aff, you should be making it a priority to defend your case and be on the case flow, because this is usually what you can leverage against your opponent's off-case positions. As neg, you should be tying your disads, CPs, etc. back to the case (as said before, I find arguments like "link turns the case" or "disad outweighs and turns the case" compelling), and you should also not be underestimating the power of on-case arguments like internal link turns, solvency deficits, etc.

(LD) Tricks:

I'll vote for them but I won't like doing it.

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

Who Am I? My name is Joseph Serrano. I participated in Public Forum for Bingham High School. I graduated in 2017, My sibling participated in debate from 2018-2020. I accept any and all pronouns, (barring it/its) I enjoy Fighting Games, Cars, and Photography. I have been involved in the debate scene as a judge longer than I was involved as a debater, I love this community and what it means to me. My coach was Hannah Odekirk née Shoell

Paradigm- General for Debates (Cross Ex, Weighing, Preferences)

Flowing is probably the most important thing about debate, Winning on the flow is pretty much a guaranteed win for me. Keep your ideas organized, I like to see you flow speeches, yours and your opponents. Defense on your own case is undervalued(back up your own ideas, shut down attacks from your opponent.)

I like CX, anyone can read their cards from a laptop, it takes good understanding of the subject matter to be able to answer questions in the crossfire/cross ex. I will flow questions I think are great in Cross Ex/Crossfire. If you had a great answer or tripped up your opponent in CX, bring it up in your speeches.

Clash is one thing that I see missing from most rounds, its like two ships passing in the night. I'm here to see good debate, challenge each others arguments directly. If you ignore things you don't have an answer to, I count that as flowing through on their side. It

I'm fine with Speed if your opponents are, less fine with Spreading but I understand its' purpose . If it gets too fast I'll let you know a few times before I have to stop flowing.

I'd prefer it if you'd time yourselves but I will also have a timer up to see if you're going over during speeches. I will give hand signals, if requested

I'm cool with swapping evidence Off-Time but if it takes longer than what should be necessary, it will cut into your prep time. (For example: if you read the card in the 1AC/1NC, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to find where its located.)

I don't carry a copy of the events rules, but if I feel something is abusive I will look into it. I have been trying to get more involved in Speech events, and I do not know many of the small parts of the rules yet, still working on it.

I do ask for cards that I think might be suspicious or if I just want to see the stat in front of me rather than hear it.

Paradigm- PF

If your argument is only good bc of a highly specific framework within your case its not that great of an argument in my opinion. I don't really care for conflicting definitions that do the same thing, if you only 'win' arguments in your case by using a specific/abusive definition from a non credible source, I don't buy into those things as a judge. Both speakers are important! Do not let others tell you otherwise.

Paradigm- LD

Utah has this weird mix of Traditional/Progressive LD debates. I'd say that most judges will buy into Progressive arguments here in the state. I feel like I'm more Traditional leaning when it comes to LD. I value morality, rhetoric within speeches, and more of the philosophical why. I have and will vote Progressive but neither form of debate is a guaranteed ballot.

Paradigm- Speech/ Congress

Speech and Congress is a nice change of pace from when I judge debates- I'm super lay and relaxed and really care most about delivery and if you seem like you're having fun. Speech events are hard because its all about who shows up on any given day- you can't really prepare in the same way as you do in Debate.

It's ok to take a breather if you feel rambly. For Impromptu I'd rather you end your time early than try to fill it with repeating the same thing multiple times.

I'd appreciate Trigger Warnings for sensitive topics for the sake of your fellow competitors but I will be ok as a Judge. The single trigger that might make me emotional is Sibling Death.

Speaker Points.

Speak loud enough so that I can clearly hear you but please don't yell / strain your voice. Be respectful in and out of round, If I see or hear something super offensive in or out of round, I will be letting your coach know. Banter between schools is fun but keep it civilized, nothing directly harmful to each other personally. Respect people's pronouns please!

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, It is best not to say something you'd regret in round or make something up, concede the point and move on.

Being respectful is also a big thing for me, you can be aggressive in rounds without sounding condescending so if I hear you being a little too snappy to your opponents you'll probably get docked a bit

I have no preference sitting or standing during speeches, I will provide reasonable accommodations if asked of course.

I do flow online. It will always be in the individual comments section of Tabroom after round so you can see what I did and did not understand/ get from your speeches, Please don't assume that I'm not paying attention or that I don't care about what you're saying, I just don't make eye contact much during speeches.

(serranojoseph99@gmail.com)- for email chain in Policy/ if your coaches have any questions.

THANK YOU!

Hi guys!

My name is Zoey and I debated PF on the national circuit for all four years of high school at Rowland Hall in Salt Lake City Utah. I qualified for nationals two years in a row and have made it pretty far in some high skill national tournaments, such as Alta, Jack Howe, ASU, etc. I love debate and know a lot about debate so no need to be worried about me being a lay judge in any way.

As for what I would like to see in rounds. First and foremost please please please be respectful. If I see or hear any homophobia, xenophobia, racism, or ignorance of any kind, wether in arguments or in cross, I will nuke your speaks if not drop your entire team. Abusiveness in arguments or presence is not welcome in the debate space. Additionally if I see debaters, specifically female or nonbinary ones, being spoken down to, interrupted, or made uncomfortable I will, again, either injure your speaks or drop you depending on the severity.

Okay, secondly, I am totally okay with progressive debate, speed, theory, K's, tricks, etc. If you are planning on speed, I would prefer you just speak at a pace where I can flow on my computer or, if needed, send me a doc. I am pretty good with theory and K's and tricks, but please if the other team is not do not use it as a cheap way to win, I will view that as bad debate.

As for speeches in general, I am tech over truth, but don't push that, lie, and be abusive. Framework is cool but not necessary. PLEASE FRONTLINE! Frontlining starts as early as second rebuttal, and I expect extensions to be from resolution to impact, do not just extend through ink. Additionally please collapse, taking on too many arguments at once makes for bad debate. I expect summaries to be the best speeches in the round because you have the most to do in just three minutes so make use of your time and learn what matters in a speech. Final focus is pretty simple, weigh weigh weigh, impact impact impact. I believe that weighing should be brought up in rebuttals, but I also understand not having enough time. That being said if one team weighs in rebuttal and extends through FF, and one team waits until FF to start, there will be a large advantage for the other team. Honestly just debate well, weigh, extend resolution to impact, collapse, and be respectful :)

Cross will in no way impact who wins or your speaks but if there is abuse that can change. Please make cross fun, yes use it as a way to answer questions you need answered, but also the best part about cross is making your opponents get flustered and feel behind. Use it to your advantage, it can help in speeches. If you bring up something said in cross during a speech I will flow it but in general I will not be flowing cross.

As for evidence, I have high evidence standards, I am cool with paraphrasing don't worry, I think it is needed in PF, but please have everything carded and ready to show your opponents. I will only call for cards if it is contended or seems sus.

If I am forgetting something feel free to ask me before the round starts! Also please be on time to rounds :) have fun, debate well, be kind, and good luck

Prefer traditional, and slower speech. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll give you a cue (noisily dropping my pen).

Debated Lincoln Douglas a LOT in high school.

Love clear sign posting and voters!!!!

Happy with most arguments if explained, linked, and defended well. I don't follow Ks, theory shells, or other progressive arguments as well, but you're welcome to try :)

I have experience in a wide range of debate and speech events. Here are my paradigms for some.

LD-

I did LD for 3 years. I love a good ethical, ought and should debate- if the topic allows for it. Please note that I don't think solvency of the problem is what LD debate is. We need to touch on how the actions we take will impact in the real world, but to win my ballot you must win the moral and ethical debate- ought we to do something not just would it solve the problem (unless you use Consequentialism for V or C and win framework). I studied some philosophy and ethics in college but please make clear what your value and criteria are. That way both me and your opponent's know exactly what you mean. Make your contentions clear and logical. Framework is important and I like you to tell me what you think the voters should be for the round. Clash will always keep me more engaged and I think it is a key part of any debate, so I will be factoring that into my decision. If you run K's or progressive you better make sure they are VERY good, topical and still allow for clash.

Impromptu-

I love impromptu. Please try new things. I will judge based on devilry and content. I love if you can include some humor, because we all need a good laugh! I like structure in a speech and a take-away. What should I get out of listening to you for the last 7 minutes?

Policy or Team-

I did team my first year of debate. I can flow fairly fast but if I put my pen down you have lost me and it might be worth your time to go back a bit and catch me up. I don't mind well done spew but if I can't understand you it won't matter how fast you deliver your content. For policy I don't mind topicality, solvency or similar arguments.

Exempt-

I follow both domestic and foreign events so present information that is current and correct. I will judge on content and delivery.

When reading my ballots please understand that I try to offer some ways you can improve with every round. I always liked ballots like this because I felt I could take that and be a better debater. These are NOT my RFD. My RFD may include some of those. For example, if you failed to make an argument that was necessary to refute your opponent than I might put it both places. I am not a huge fan of K debate so if you run one, you better make sure you get better solvency and/or lower impacts and MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. If it's in LD you better also make the argument that it is the most ethical course of action. I promise to always try my hardest to be fair and make my RFD be who had the better round.

I flow and consider values and criterium. I also flow cross and will consider the overall value of the evidence, and voters would be appreciated on final speaks. I have done Public Forum debates for three years at Bingham High and know my way around an argument. I will not be biased toward a topic; instead, I will consider all arguments regardless of my beliefs.

Aaron Tanuvasa

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

I have done all events except policy and impromptu

Kritiks are awesome, especially anthro K. I don't mind LD being mini policy. however not PF.

I usually judge by flow unless so many topics are brought up that not all can be meaningfully refuted or upheld in the time constraints of the round. I also try to be as blank slate as possible again, unless too many contentions are brought up per the time provided.

It's been a while since I did debate so I can't understand spreading as well. please don't spread in PF, it is structured for the lay judge, anything faster than Ben Shapiro will dock speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale -My point scale is very relative to the tournament:

+1 bonus point if you talk about insects

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

29-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

28.5-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

27.5-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27-You need some work, but generally you're doing pretty well

25-You need some work

24-You don't know what you're doing at all

20 and lower-you've done something wrong that is explained on the ballot.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I am a parent judge :)