I debated policy all through high school. I'm currently one of the coaches for Cedar Valley HS. I don't have a problem with speed.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

Background: I'm a parent judge but an educator as well.  

Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress.  I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous.

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue.

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness.

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding presentation and rebuttals.

3 years of CX at Bingham High School

3 years of CX at the University of Wyoming

Yes, add me to the email chain/contact: yumasie.hellebuick@gmail.com

I do not presume the aff, neg, or what debate should be. Debate is anything you want it to be, you just have to defend and give reasons why I should think debate should be understood that way instead of the other teams interpretation. I flow every speech, including cross-examination.

CX -

Topicality: I vote on competing interpretations, but also can vote on why I shouldn't evaluate it. Prove in-round abuse and why I should prefer your interpretation of the topic. No plan text? That's fine-just defend the lack there-of or why you don't have to defend those. The more nebulous your cross-ex responses are, the more likely I am to vote against you. Explain to me what voting aff means. What does voting aff mean for you, the debate community, or society writ large?

Theory: I vote on dropped theory arguments with warranted impacts. Like topicality, I would like for you to slow down and prefer depth > breadth.

Kritiks: I vote on these if there is a well articulated link to the aff and the implications that occur from so. While i've read a plethora of books, I like in-depth articulation than jargon. Impact claims should be more than "root cause of violence" and there should be some explanation of the impact in terms of the aff. I don't think you need an alternative, but if you are going for one please explain it.

Counterplan: I vote on these and assume all are competitive unless said otherwise.

Disadvantages: I vote on these when there is an explicit judge direction of why I should evaluate your impact claims first and a link.

Judge Direction: Making my decision easier through impact comparison, what is a prior evaluation, etc are all things I love. What did the other team handle so poorly they should lose the debate? I'm generous with speaker points. Public speaking is a learned skill, and should be awarded. 

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

I participated in Lincoln Douglas debate, Retold Story, and Impromptu in high school about 20 years ago. I like arguments that are clear and make sense.

I've been involved in speech and debate since middle school (nerdy right?) and briefly competed for the University of Utah. Most of my experience is in IEs, but I have debated in World Schools (HS), BQ (HS), British Parliamentary, NFA-LD, IPDA and NPDA.

DEBATE:

For all debate events, I do not mind spreading as long as your opponent is able to understand you. If your opponent can't understand you and they made that clear to you (i.e., you were "cleared" or "slowed") but you ignored them... that will definitely be reflected on your ballot in one way or another.

Add me to the email chain: merrinmaughan@gmail.com

• PF: To be honest, PF is the event I have the least knowledge about. Impact calc/weighing is something to keep in mind for your final focus speeches- in fact, it's probably what I will consider first when casting my ballot. Show me why your team should win the debate or the consequences if you don't. You can extend the constructive into the first rebuttal, but you do not have to. All other feedback will be specific to the round.
• LD: If you run a K or any form of theory argument, it's totally fine with me. However, if you’re running a K and you cannot explain in lay vocab or it’s obvious to me you’re trying to exclude your opponent from the round with some esoteric argument… it’s unlikely you’ll win. Next, I know there's a lot of discourse on progressive vs. traditional LD, and with regard to my judging, I will vote for the debater who convinces me why they win. Voters are key, and along with impacts, they are what I will consider first when making a decision. Offense and rebuttals (telling me why you win the debate) are preferable to defense (why you're not losing).
• CX: I will totally vote on T if you run it properly and collapse to it. I don't mind Ks, but if you are running a K, please make sure you understand it and link it well to the resolution. A good rule to follow: if you can't explain it in lay terms, don't run it. I don't have any preferences for CPs or anything. I don't mind if you run something unique, ironic, gamey, etc. as long as you can link it well to the rez! :P I'm also always up for just straight up debate. Most importantly, be courteous and kind to your opponents.
• BQ: BQ is so fun, and it's also unique to the other debate events. It definitely calls for a higher level of respect- so when touchy topics come up (as they will), please treat your opponent(s) with kindness.

TDLR:Run anything you want (within reason lol), as long as you're being kind and respectful to your opponent. Speed is fine with me. Impacts are super important.

IE/SPEECH:

Some general things to consider... First, do not rely on the grace period. I was a high school speech kid, and I would do the sneaky thing and write my speeches right up to 10 minutes knowing I could usually get away with 10:05 or something... But, that 30 seconds is there to save you in the event you have a memory lapse, get interrupted by kids in the hall, etc. Don't rely on it to hit 10 minutes: practice makes perfect. Second... being memorized (in OO, info, interps) is always preferable to being unmemorized or partially memorized. Finally, as a general note, I will gladly give time signals and I will definitely offer them before each round, but I am not the best at them... I'm usually too engrossed in your speech!

Event-specifics:

• OO: As well as a strong presentation, I look for logically sound arguments (i.e., does your solution make sense for the problem you are trying to solve, are the causes/effects you present supported by real-world examples and evidence, etc.). In terms of presentation, I'll be looking for the use of a good speaker's triangle, hand gestures, and good eye contact. Importantly, present to the group, not just to me. This shows that you're gaining the skill, not just trying to win the round. Make sure you are verbally citing your sources- this becomes very important at the national and university levels!
• Info: Your VAs, if you are using them, should complement your speech, not inhibit it. Your implications should be realistic and make logical sense with the other two main points of your speech.
• Extemp: Stick to the 3-point structure, and if you deviate, justify it. Please be verbally citing your sources and not just providing examples/information from prep time. Fill your time as best you can without going under/over and relying on the grace period, as discussed above.
• Interps: I have the least experience with interps, but am aware of the regular rules for blocking and cutting, especially for duo. Just be mindful of those, and I'll base any other feedback off of your actual performance.
• POI/Poetry/Prose: Your gestures are just as important as your content, so move purposefully according to your topic/text. Incorporate the book where possible, and have fun being creative with it! Use drama/emotion purposefully and sparingly.

Third year judge...I appreciate clear speech and a reasonable pace.

Take a moment to roadmap at the start and use easily-followed logic/reasoning.

I haven't been a debater or coach in the past, however my career has been in software sales and I've managed sales teams for years...therefore I enjoy being "sold" with clear evidence, reasoning and logic.

I like to hear clear signposting!

ei. Contention 1..., my framework is..., attacking my opponents contention subpoint 2a....

Hey yall! I'm super excited to be able to judge and I hope you are super excited to compete!

I debated all through middle and high school. My main event was Policy, I did that for 7 years, but I also competed at least once in HI, POI, OO, Informative, Impromtu, Congress and Newscasting. My passion is Policy, but I am very familiar with speech.

All Speech events:

Clarity and an engaging tone are MORE important than content. Say whatever you want (without being offensive or rude), I don't care as long as your speaking skills allow you to get your point across. I will not judge you whether or not I agree with you, I only judge on how well you get your point across.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

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.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

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.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.