Hello, my name is Porter (he/him). I did debate for three years in high school and I’m working on my economics and legal studies degree from Weber State. I did almost every event in debate, but my main focus was on Policy. It’s been a bit of time since I was involved with organized debate, so I would appreciate it if you’d take it easy on me. However, I’ll do my best to keep up if taking it easy isn’t your game.

Regarding speech or argument construction, I won’t be bothered if you do or don’t organize yourself in a particular way. Please just do whatever makes you feel most comfortable. I have a few notes below about specific argument types and styles.

Arguments

I’m cool with any argument you want to run, but here’s some specifics if you care to read

AFF – PLEASE spend more time on the link chain. I’m down to flow extinction or nuclear war or whatever your impact is but make the link impenetrable. Too often I see teams with big impacts but weak links. I’ll vote high-probability/low-impact over low-probability/high-impact.

CP - I loved running CP's and PIC's in high school, but if we're being honest, I've forgotten most of that specific technique. Don't be afraid to run one, though. I'll do my best to keep up.

DA - DA’s are essential for the 1NC (Unless it clashes with your k or whatever). I like specific DA’s that have strong, clear links to the 1AC. If I can tell it’s just a really generic link chain then I might get a bit bored with it. Run what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

K - K's are cool. That's about all I ran in high school. If it's a particularly obscure or complex K, I would appreciate clear and concise explanations. Creative k’s may be the best way to win my ballot. K AFFs are fine, just do it well. Again, establish links.

Theory – I loved theory in high school, but again, I may have forgotten much of the structure and information behind the arguments. I still think it’s super interesting. If your opponent runs theory, I don’t expect you to respond with theory, just respond to their interp with a counter interp and respond to ALL of their warrants. I don’t care if you have cards in your theory arguments, it’s not going to impress me if you do but it’s not going to lose you any favor if you don’t.

Topicality – If T is your thing, go for it. Respond to opponent's interp and give a counter interp and extend the impacts.

General notes

-Please add me to the email chain, porterarchibald1@gmail.com

-If there is anything that I can do to make you more comfortable let me know and I’ll do my best to help you out.

-I’m big on the line-by-line, if you win the line-by-line you’ll likely win (unless you did something offensive or rude). Extend your arguments and make sure to point out what arguments the opponent dropped.

-You need a framework. If you don’t have a framework, I can’t judge the round through what lens you want me to. If your opponent has a framework and you don’t, I’ll default to theirs. If neither of you have a framework I’ll default to a cost-benefit analysis.

-Death is generally bad but I could be convinced otherwise

-I don't mind aggressive or heated debates. I don’t see any problem with you raising your voice, this is a game so you should try to win, however I draw the line once it becomes personal and you attack your opponent personally. Automatic loss for doing so.

-I don't mind laid-back debates. However, I do expect some level of professionalism and respect.

-Please don’t make me sit through a two-hour definition debate.

-Sending files isn’t prep but don’t be egregious.

-I don't flow cross-x, but I do pay attention. If you want something that was brought up in cross-x to be on the flow you need to extend it into one of your speeches.

-Please have fun with this. I know how boring and mundane debates can get so don’t be afraid to have fun.

-I’m cool with progressive or traditional debate.

-NEG doesn’t need to flow the 2AR, I won’t think you’re being rude or unprofessional.

-I’ll vote on anything, just explain why something is or is not a voter in the round

-I’ll disclose if you, your opponent, and the tournament are okay with it. If any of those parties are not okay with disclosing, just email me or if you see me feel free to ask.

If you have any questions about me, my paradigm, RFD, critiques, or anything else just send me an email and I’d be happy to explain a little further.

Good luck!

Debate- I always choose a winner based on rebuttals and final speeches. I favor the team that shows the most clash while also defending their own contentions. I can handle fast talking as long as the debater can speak quickly while still being intelligible.

Congress- I appreciate a good road map in the speech intro and solid examples that support your contentions. I also highly rate representatives that are active questioners.

Speech- Clear organization is very important, I need to be able to follow your speech. As far as delivery, I really notice and appreciate speakers who incorporate vocal variety and make consistent eye contact.

I am a parent judge so I don't know much about speech and debate, but my daughter is teaching me.

Debate:

No spewing. I judge on your persuasiveness, and normally give the win to the person who addresses all of their opponents points

Speech:

I like a well delivered speech that includes eye contact, pauses for emphasis, and passion. I judge on your speaking fluency and style.

Email: blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com (add me on all email chain's.)

Preferences:

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, a ballot, or a decision please feel free to reach out to me at blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com and I will be happy to help you out.

Please prioritize debating how you are comfortable rather than conforming to every little thing that I say in my paradigm. My paradigm is more of a suggestion than a requirement to win the round. Debate is for the debater, not for the judge; and I want to see rounds where teams want to be there. I am comfortable with all styles of debate and don't think there is an objective best way to do it. If you debate how you know how, you will do great!

I judge mostly on tech, but I do like big picture arguments in the ladder half of the debate. However, please please please EXTEND YOUR WARRANTS first before going big picture on me. Common sense is your greatest tool, warranting will almost always trumps cards.

Please weigh weigh weigh. I need you to tell me why you win. I don't want to be the one to decide what arguments are most important. You as the debater should be telling me this. With that being said, effective weighing is reliant upon good link debate. Good warrants are a pre-requisite to weighing, and good evidence is necessary to have good warrants.

T: I am comfortable voting on T. Competing interps are best. However, I should have a reason to vote for T, like if your opponent violates but there is no real impact to T, I'm just gonna drop it. If you want there to be RVI's you need to tell me; I will assume there are no RVI's otherwise.

Case K: You can read them, but they should have direct links to the case or topic. If you have specific questions, just send me an email or ask me in round. K's in PF feel like you are shooting yourself in the foot because of the time constraint, LD and policy are preferred.

I have noticed a new trend with K debate where teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. This is fine in some circumstances, but people are doing it way too often. If you are going to do this, you better have super solid framework.

Performance or Debate about debate: Threshold for winning on these arguments is higher than a case K, but you can run them. Just make sure your framing is good, and I need solid warrants on why I should vote on performance.

Warranting is everything. Evidence is great, but the evidence has to have a warrant to weigh it. This is also true if you are trying to do evidence comparison. (Ie. If you tell me to post date, there needs to be a warrant as to why the post dating matters.)

I am comfortable with both trad and progressive LD and am happy to judge on both and don't think one is better than the other.

Judge Instruction is your friend. Paint a picture of the round and why you win and you will have a better chance of me voting for you.

Most importantly, just be comfortable and have fun!

I am in my second year of Judging Debate. My son started last year, and am so inspired with any student who is willing to compete in debate. It takes skill, preparation and ample amount of courage. I volunteer because I want to learn more about debate, and when I see a quality debate it is fun and engaging. I consider myself a naturally neutral individual. I will not favor a side because its what I believe, but will favor a side because you convince me to.

Speed:

I understand there is a lot to cover in small amount of time. This said, I prefer a clear concise style of speech. I believe this allows for a more persuasive and all around better style of debating. The faster you speak the more clear and concise you need to be. If i can’t track your argument because your speaking to fast then you didn’t make the argument.

Evidence:

I want to hear evidence that links well to argument. Does the evidence truly support your stance. Is the reference relevant to time period. I will buy the evidence if its clear, all conditions met, and it makes sense, and it actually proves a point. I will refer to reference if I feel a need to, but that means it wasn’t clear to begin with. I also like to hear multiple references to validate your argument.

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.

Dont hesitate to call for cards If something doesn't sound right, it probably isn't. If something is unbeatable, pick it apart with the card--I will ask for any card I need to

I despise Value / Criterion Debate. It doesn't matter who has the "better" V/C, how do you solve for the harms your opponent claims while furthering your own contentions.

I hate Definition debates, becomes redundant and doesn't further the round

lets talk the Topic and have fun with it.

Don't be afraid to win

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 :)

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.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

Hi my name is Carter I was in debate for 3 years doing Ld/Pf and occasionally BQ, I was also a member of my teams presidency for 2 years and taught several events so I know a decent amount about most events. My pronouns are he/him if you use pronouns other than what’s listed on tab just let me and your opponents know them before the round begins. First I’ll cover general paradigms before going into event specific ones, In general I like people to time themselves so they can keep track of their own time and I’m totally fine with timing your opponents but try not to use an alarm if it’s not for yourself because it will interrupt the round, when talking I prefer if you look at the judge rather than your opponents and also address your opponents as my opponent rather than as their names or anything like that. I also look for basic speech skills like being understandable, having a good tone/emphasis, and not talking too fast. I weigh speeches in a round even so if something is said in any speech even cross I will consider it just as much as the other speeches. This last part is very important if you accuse your opponents of cheating in a round and you don’t have evidence of it as well as a reference to the rule in the tournament rules or NSDA rules don’t even bother with it, I find baselessly accusing your opponent of breaking the rules to be a cheap way of trying to win the round and unless and actual verifiable rule break is happening I don’t want to hear it mentioned at all.

Ld: I mainly taught Ld on my team so this is probably the event I’m most familiar with. So for Ld the main thing is that I care for and will Vote on logic and morals rather than just stats and cards because that’s what Ld is all about philosophy can also be a strong point but it has to be presented very well in order to be a major voting reason. For all speeches try not to speak too fast I can keep up pretty well with fast talking but if you go too fast both me and your opponent will miss many of your points. If you are neg try to work in at least 2 minutes or more of attacking im your opponents case in your first speech rather than just reading your case for the entire 7 minutes I’m not going to be too picky about this but I find it really helps your side overall in the round. The last thing I’ll say here is that I like roadmapping preferably an off time roadmap so long as you don’t make it too long.

Pf: I have taught Pf and competed in it many times so I know this event well. While pf is more about facts and cards I also really like to see logic and morals enter the round especially if they compliment the facts you present, so for example if there is two stats presented and one is about money and the other is about human life I am much more likely to favor the one about human life because it not only ties into facts and cards but also logic and morals. Try not to just spit out cards in your card in a never ending flow of them because I’ve found that does happen a lot in pf instead have a few cards here and there and take some to explain the cards and how they tie into your case and your framework. For cross and especially grand cross I like to see a lot of clash and speaking from both speakers on a team I don’t want to see one partner just talking the whole time while the other just sits there so please have everyone include themselves in cross when they can.

Alright so overall just have fun and be respectful of everyone in the round and at the tournament aggression can be good but being mean or disrespectful is not and it will go against you in terms of speaker points and overall decision if you are either of those things. So that’s it if you have any questions about the round or my comments or paradigm feel free to email me at carterlobato@gmail.com

For some background on me. I did debate for 3 years in high school. I dabbled in Extemp and PF, but I mainly did LD the whole time and was reasonably successful in it. I graduated in 2020. I am currently a history major at USU.

I can follow spreading, K, and theory, but I am not well-versed in it. I generally prefer traditional debate.

Questions Policy Debaters always ask me:

yes, I do allow for tag-team/open cross ex

no, I do not flow cross ex

put me on the email chain. I don't want to use flash drives. skmayers@gmail.com. please do not abuse access to my email.

General

tech and truth, probably heavier on the truth.

biggest takeaway: nothing is true until you tell me it is true. I don't have to evaluate theory before case unless you tell me I do and you explain why. these explanations don't have to be long, but don't assume I understand the arbitrary "rules" you have invented in your head for debate. this goes for all arguments, not just framework. If I need to argue evidenced arguments over non-evidenced arguments, tell me why, etc. emphasis on Tell Me Why

if no analysis is given by either side, I default to theory>framework>kritik>case>. I am telling you this for the sake of transparency, not because that is how I think you have to debate.

Ethics

Here are some ethical issues that will probably get you dropped automatically

• falsifying evidence
• being racist, transphobic, or otherwise making the round an unsafe place.

Here are some ethical issues that I don't like, but aren't a deal-breaker

• spreading. We all know this makes the round inaccessible, even if no one has written a good K for it
• being rude in CX. interrupting, not giving clear answers, etc
• using inaccessible language and not defining genre-specific terms
• any kind of blatant trauma porn
• PICs

remember debate does not exist in a vacuum, your opponent and I are both real, living people, who will walk out of the round impacted by the things that are said, for good or bad. This impact goes for both the things you debate about and the way in which you discuss them.

Argument

here are some things that I love to see :)

• Linking back to framework. Remember, your impacts only matter if you link them to a value system that says that they matter
• Well-organized points. I want to be able to flow and group your arguments easily
• I think performance Ks are super fun, and honestly think they should be used more, but make sure you have really solid framing.
• solid plan implication, a good picture of what the post-fiat world looks like. You don't need to have an itemized budget but I would like to know what I am voting for
• being able to give information about your authors and source in CX (publication details, methodology, education, etc)
• really unique contentions/arguments.
• well-run theory. honestly any theory at all, but obviously don't use it if the round doesn't actually call for it. I think theory arguments are super interesting and can add a lot to debate if used appropriately

here are some things that I hate to see :(

• dropping/kicking out of arguments
• contentions with multiple arguments that don't really go together
• lack of evidence/authors
• ignoring your opponent's claims/ lack of clash
• Saying "they basically didn't address this argument" when they definitely did. remember that I am flowing too.
• when I can tell that someone definitely wrote your case for you, and you don't really understand it personally

Presentation

• please be clear on taglines/headings, make it easy for both me and your opponent to flow
• I love confidence
• make sure you don't rely too much on a showy, confident presentation. I want content too.

overall, just try to make the round enjoyable, educational, and fair for all parties involved, including yourself :)

Just to keep it simple, I've done debate before and have a pretty good idea about how most events work. I try my very best to keep bias out of my judging and to consider all points equally.

Congress I use questions as tiebreakers but not much more than that. Be involved. I don’t count questions in the bloodbath rounds, there just isn’t time.

For speeches, I judge the by the ballot criteria pretty closely, so just look at those. I'm not, however, a super stickler for space constraints and exact grace periods. As long as you're not bouncing off the walls or way over time, it doesn't really matter that much to me.

Also clarity, If I can't understand you, I can't accurately assess your performance. Don't speed, speeding is for people who like to get pulled over on I-15.

Have fun and be respectful to everyone :)

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.

· I value traditional logic and persuasion over any kind of technical, rule-based, or theoretical argument. I will very rarely give a debater the win based on a technicality or theory.

· I do not believe a debater needs to specifically address every single subpoint of every single contention in order to win a round; I will weigh evidence and impacts. You will not win or lose by flow alone.

· I prefer that debaters engage with arguments rather than try to avoid or exclude them.

· I prefer strong clash in debates, or a robust discussion about the ideas presented by the resolution. I disfavor arguments that seek to avoid the resolution at hand and instead force the discussion into one about rules, theories, or technicalities; however, at the same time, I understand that on some occasions discussion about these ideas is unavoidable.

· I do not punish debaters for not filling their time. If you've said what needs to be said, feel free to concede your time without penalty.

· I believe cross is very important and I will weigh it in my decision.

· I prefer clarity and presentation over speed, 10/10. Debaters should be able to present their case in the time allowed and at a pace that is understandable to the judge and opponent(s). I prefer not to have to read your case at all and instead I wish to be captivated and brought to a clear understanding of your position simply by your presentation.

· Unless I have your case/evidence in front of me, I prefer you expand on your SOURCES (tell me where it comes from and why it’s reliable).

· I believe good debaters don't have anything to hide and should SHARE information with their opponent(s).

If you tell me a good joke that makes me laugh I will give extra speaker points. I can probably be bribed

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 did speech and debate all throughout high school and was the captain my senior year. I primarily did policy debate but I occasionally competed in LD, PF, and Congress. If you need clarification on anything regarding the round or why I decided to go the way I did send me an email.

If your opponent drops an argument say it. I hate spreading, I want to be able to thoroughly understand what you are saying. I know debate jargon but I think speeches are better when they are said in a way that anyone could understand. If I don’t understand what you are saying I’m less likely to be convinced. I think definitions of things that may not be universally known are important and sometimes I believe it is also important to have definitions for things that are universally known but maybe not in the correct way. I expect your sources to be credible. I know speech and debate gets serious so if you manage to wiggle a joke in your speech or make me laugh bonus points to you. I think cross-examination is fun so make it interesting.

Good luck everyone!!

Alaynaruiz734@gmail.com

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

In short, I'm a flow judge. I don't care what you put on my flow (types of arguments) or how it gets there (delivery and speed). I want a clear and consistent story on the flow to vote on.

I usually judge LD, but I often judge CX and PF as well. I don't care about your style of debate. I just want a clear reason to vote for you.

I flow and vote from the flow. I want to be able to look at the flow and see a simple, clear, and unbroken story about why you win based on the framework that you provide. Crystallization is important throughout to give me this story. Overviews are often effective. Your last speech should probably include voters if you want to win my ballot.

My experience with T and theory debates are more limited than circuit judges. It doesn't mean that I won't vote for them, as I often do. A blippy T or theory argument is unlikely to get my vote, however. I want the "abuse" clearly explained.

I enjoy good k debates. If you're clear about your k's thesis, its connection to the topic or an argument that your opponent made, and explain how the alternative works, then they're fun and interesting. That also doesn't mean that you should run a k. If you like them and want to run one, go for it. I think that the philosophical ideas in a k can add a lot to discussions of topics. I doubt that I know a ton about your literature on the k, however, so don't expect me to have a lot of background. Of course, usually you just pulled up someone else's k file to write the k anyways.

Framework for why your impacts matter is vital. You can win deontological positions, but you need to give offense under those frameworks too! I default to a cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided. What else am I supposed to do? I'm open to suggestions, but I'd prefer that you give me a clear framework.

Special note for PF: Please, crossfire time starts when the first person asks the first question that is not, "Do you want the first question?" or "Can I have the first question?" just like we give off-time roadmaps for the order you're going on the flow.