I did policy debate in high school and am very familiar with the language and argument style of policy debate. Feel free to run any argument style K, K aff, Theory, Topicality, CPs, DAs, but please for the love of all that is holy only run it if you can actually link it to the case/round. If you do run theory or K's on someone for any social issue (racism and sexism IE..) make sure that it is a legit reason, running them with little to no link discredits those who actually suffer from those injustices and I will not tolerate commodifying real world suffering for cheap attempt to win a debate round. One important thing is during cross-examination please be respectful of your fellow debaters and me, if they ask a question answer it and only answer the question, cross-examination is not the time for you to justify your answer unless your opponent asks you to. Lastly, I'm fine with spreading but please only do it if you can actually be coherent. If I can not understand you I will not put it on my flow and it will not be a voting issue in the round.

General Things:

In absence of a framework debate I'll default to a somewhat arbitrary combination of policy making and in-round educational value (or harms) forged by my personal experiences in debate. But that's not what anyone wants, so tell me how to vote and why.

I will call for evidence in very few cases and I do not want to be on the email chain. Take the time to actually develop your own arguments and the arguments of your authors in the rebuttals.

In the rebuttals I prefer depth to breadth. Explain and develop the arguments you're going to go for rather than saying "extend my ______ evidence" 50 different times without any further analysis about why those extensions matter.

My ears are slower than they used to be. I'm comfortable with spreading, but please make your taglines clear and clearly distinguished. I will tell you if I cannot understand you by loudly saying “clear” during your speech.

It’s critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it. That means you'll need to explain it to me in clear and understandable terms. Assume I know nothing about your [aff, K, CP, etc.] prior to the round.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Specific Arguments:

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. The definition and violation. Tell me in detail why the aff isn't topical.
2. The standards debate. Tell my why your interpretation of the topic is preferable.
3. Specific abuse is not a must-have for me. If you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and that an interpretation including the aff as topical is bad for debate you can win even in the absence of abuse.

DA's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me than most judges. This doesn't mean you can't win on "risk of a link" arguments, but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh smaller but more likely impacts (unless of course your framework explains why that's the best way to evaluate risks...). Having a clear and realistic internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. It’s important to me that there is at least some extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get much weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage that no one has mentioned since the 1AC.

CP’s - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning solvency or D/As in terms of defensive arguments: strong defense on the net benefit is a potential reason to prefer the permutation, or just the plan alone. Perms are also viable round winners for me. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy, but feel free to specify (or demand that the aff specifies). Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and/or the world of the perm are important to me.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments that what we do and say in the round matters enough to be a voting issue. That said, if the aff is winning reasons why the plan is a good policy that helps people then that could very well mean their representations while advocating for it are also good. If your alt represents an action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are important to me. Otherwise, make sure you establish a framework so that I know how to evaluate the arguments in your K against the arguments your opponents are making.

Theory - I'm willing to vote on theory. If you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in clear terms whats wrong with the action of the other team.

While I’ve certainly voted in opposition to my personal views many times before, both on theory and other arguments, here is a short list of things I think are generally true:

Slow WAY down when you read your theory blocks. I’m not going to read them and there’s no way I can type them as fast as the fastest debaters can say them.

Everyone should be disclosing, but without an explicit rule enforced by the tournament I don’t think failure to disclose is a voting issue. Sometimes in life you’re gonna be surprised, learning to adapt on the fly is a good skill that debaters should be developing.

Performative contradictions are bad, and might sometimes be a voting issue.

Conditional arguments are okay, maybe even necessary for effective negative strategy. But the more of them there are and the more contradictory they are with each other, the more abusive they become. For example, reading a capitalism K and an economic DA rooted in capitalistic ideology in the same round is a bad idea. Adding in a CP that solves the DA while linking to the K is a potential voting issue.

Affirmatives should be topical. Switch sides debate and the existence of other educational programs and activities solves pretty much all the offense I’ve ever heard on this point.

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

cutespeech@gmail.com

Paradigm for beehive bonanza 2023

B.A. in Anthropology from University of Utah

M.M. In Music technology from Southern Utah

What I find debate is a very intellectual, knowledgeable sport. what I find unique about high school debate is that if I can understand what you’re saying then I’m more likely to vote for your team if I find something interesting or unique then I’m going to have to take more time to evaluate it; dress for success.

Anyone can debate and push an argument my dilemma is as a judge is considering where you stand as a professional. I think that having the desire to uphold professionalism is important and doing that with confidence to your practice is what orients you toward a passionate career.

I invite you to keep your dialogue relevant.

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. 

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.

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.