Debates: I do not like theory (this includes Ks). Don't run it unless you have a good reason to. It will be held against you otherwise. Clash is important for any debate. I tend to vote most on impacts. Impact calculation is extremely important in the round and needs to be utilized. Rulecalling for the sake of rulecalling is abusive and a waste of time for the debate and my time. I look for sources, especially when you're introducing new arguments and reading off statistics. In the end, I want you to show me how well you understand the topic, your case, and the arguments you're making. I want to be able to come out of round with the confidence to say "I learned something really interesting here".

Jack Bradley

Highland High School '15

Idaho State University '21

1. I'm an old policy debater that is comfortable with what you want to do.

2. I think debaters are often too disconnected from reality.

3. I think reading Topicality in Novice Policy is Dumb. If you decide to run T as a Novice, and you’re the aff, just say you’re on the case list and you’ll win that flow with me 11/10 times.

‘23 State Debate Update:

Congrats on making it to State! I’m excited to judge this competition, and I want you to enjoy what could be some of your last debate rounds ever. Play to your strengths, debate in the way/style that you want! I’m flexible and competent and can keep up. In other words, I’m clearly one of the most comfortable prog K like judges at this tournament, so if that’s your speed, go for it!

Any questions? Just ask! Happy to help.

I have judged very little this year! I am not familiar with any of these topics as a result. That doesn't mean I need you to slow down for me and excessively overexplain your arguments, just keep the jargon/acronyms associated with the topic to a minimum.

I am a huge fan of framework/resolutionary analysis in all debate formats, because I often feel like opposing debaters arguments are like two ships passing in the night.

Okay so here is the deal. I debated for three years in high-school and did mostly PF though I’m pretty familiar with the other events and have competed in a lot of them and my partner and I took first in our national qualifying tournament.

For debates I am a flow judge and love to see your evidence and thought processes. I will not draw conclusions, if you want me to think something you need to state it during a speech. I do not flow cross so if something good comes up during cross be sure to say it in one of your speeches. I love a good debate but it always needs to be respectful and intelligent. I know that’s what every judge says but please treat each other with kindness, however I love a good banter and hope to see it in round. No spreading please, but if you have to talk fast in round that’s alright just make sure you are clear and understandable.

For speeches I judge based of the quality of your speech giving as well as the content. Eye contact is wonderful and not too much fidgeting. Confidence is your best friend and don’t be afraid to move around a little bit.

Thank you all for being good sports and good luck!

My name is David Chen, My paradigm is to judge the competitors speech, what they are presenting, knowledge of the topic, how they presenting the topic, and the competitors professionalism. In a speech I would like to see how well a competitor can present the information that supports their argument or speech/topic. I want to see confidence in both the words that are spoken and in the person speaking. I would like to be able to be intrigued with the words you speak, changes in tone to keep me invested in your words. 

I'm a sophomore at the University of Utah, and I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and was my team's Debate Captain my senior year. I also competed in Big Questions occasionally and have judged plenty of LD, so your round is in good hands.

Impacts > warrants (IMPACT CALC!!!! Weigh! Your! Impacts!)

Tech > truth (I don't care what you argue as long as you can argue it well; make sure your links are solid.)

I value topicality. If your argument is not topical you probably will not win the round. Please read the resolution carefully before you write a case on it. Literally my biggest pet peeve is non-topical arguments.

Analyze your evidence. Don't just read it, tell me what it means and why it matters.

SIGNPOST! Tell me what arguments you are addressing in your speeches. Makes my job so much easier and your round will go much smoother.

Utilize your framework throughout the round. Don't spend time telling me that your framework is better than your opponents, because I do not care - tell me how both your and your opponents' framework flows to your side. Framework should frame the round. Please actually tie your claims back to your framework.

VOTERS! Tell me why you won. I will take any voter you bring up into account. Utilize your final speech!!!

Be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to verbally abuse each other. Good sportsmanship still applies here.

I judge primarily based on flow, speaker points will be given for presentation and sportsmanship. I do not flow cross-ex, any points made in cross will not be flowed unless they're brought up in a later speech.

As your judge I'm simply just here to observe, your round is between you and your opponent. You direct and control the round, I'm just here to watch.

I did policy and extemp for two years in high school and LD and HI my third year. I have been judging ever since then. Because of my experience, I flow like a policy debater.

I do not accept topicality arguments. There is never a good reason to have a topicality argument.

If you want to run a K, go for it. That being said, YOU HAVE TO RUN IT WELL. I have only seen a K run well in LD once, and a handful of times in Policy. So beware.

I am okay with speed, though I do not prefer it. You should be able to do everything without spreading though. If you look at past NSDA winners, they do it without speed. I know you want to go to the TOC, but listen, is it really worth it? The TOC comes at what cost?

I will prefer any arguments that have to do with leisure theory and workforce safety (OSHA). This is due to my education at the University of Utah studying Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, and Occupational Safety and Health.

In LD, there is nothing I hate more than a Value of Morality. You are smart kids, you can come up with something else. Morality is too ambiguous and everyone has a different view of morality.

I don't flow cross examination. If something happens in cross and you want it on my flow, bring it up in your next speech. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DONT LISTEN TO CROSS, just that I don't flow it.

Please time yourselves. Y'all are adults, and I don't want to babysit. I trust you. That being said, if you clearly abuse this, I will stop flowing.

In all debates that I watch, I want to see civil discourse. That being said, I do want to see clash in the debate. Just be polite to each other, and we will all have a good time. If I don't think that you are being polite to each other, I will take away speaker points (even if you are clearly the better speaker).

*Updated for 2023*

Experience:

2018-Present: Policy Coach at Rock Springs High School

2007-2011: NPTE Debate at University of Wyoming: Highest national ranking: 4th; 4x national qualifier for NPTE; attended NPDA/NPTE 6x’s (between both tournaments); highest placing at National Tournament: Semi-finalist; Between 2009-2012 ranked top 20 in NPTE points receiving First Round Bids.

2004-2007: Debate at Rock Springs High School in Rock Springs, Wyoming

Approximate number of rounds judged per year: 35+

Please add me to the email chain: etcheverryj@sw1.k12.wy.us 

Note: Over the past seasons, I have seen numerous teams use the ‘small schools’ argument on theory and procedural positions. Moving forward, I will not listen to, flow or evaluate these types of arguments. Being from a ‘small school’ with limited financial resources and limited ability to travel nationally, these types of arguments suppose that we as competitors have also a limited ability to intelligently evaluate and present competitive arguments due to our position in the community. Utilizing these arguments in order to establish a model of debate based in assumptions of limited abilities of teams, such as ours, is marginalizing our ability as competitors and individuals, it also places unrealistic perceptions of who we are as policy debaters, thus please refrain from reading these arguments. Fight against, what Brian Delong of IU calls "The Cult of the Card". Taking no notice of this position in round can effect speaker points awarded.

Note 2: NO NEW OFF-CASE POSITIONS IN THE 2NC, I WILL NOT FLOW IT!!!! (unless warranted by offensive language/actions, ethics violations, far-reaching 2AC abuses/skews)

Paradigm:

Average Speaker Points: 28.5

Spreading---X--------------------------------Conversation

Spreading is fine, speed is important but clarity is more important. Slow down on analytics, include them in the email chain. Also slow down 20% on tags and authors. Differentiate between tags and the internals of your cards. With the online format, make sure that you are either decreasing your speed on analytics or you are sending them out in the speech doc. I have noticed in cases that some analysis can get missed with the tubes of the internet.

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

If it’s conceded it’s true; I'll pic out of really terrible arguments (racism, sexism, otherization, etc.), also reading more cards that aren’t true, doesn’t mean I will prefer.

Policy-------------------X---------------------Ks (Aff or Neg)

I am good with either a policy debate or K v. K debate; just make sure to explain your argument thoroughly.

Analytics---------------------------------X--Evidence

Analytics have their place, however they should be based in the literature, this also includes theory and theory blocks. Speaker points check...cite literature as an argument and I will bump up .5! (make sure I hear it!)

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

Conditionality is generally good, but I could be persuaded otherwise. This is a vote down the team theory approach.

Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP good--X------------------------------- Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP bad

The CP is an essential tool for the Neg, all are strategic. That being said I am open to theory objections and if won by the Aff, I will reject the argument (if indicated). For Courts CP, run them, but be able to clearly articulate how the Courts would be able to hear the Aff plan; be it a test case (include your test case, or be able to defend the timeframe deficit awaiting the next available test case) or defend SCOTUS using a Writ of Crit to rule. Also, it would be wise to include the basis of ruling within the text of the CP. Args directly questioning the mechanisms by which the CP functions and can be very persuasive for me.*

Politics DA good------------------X------------Politics DA bad

Read the appropriate Tix DAs and you’re good, however, as in 2020, reading Prez Tix DAs two days after the elections is frustrating. DO NOT DO IT!

1AR gets new args--------------X----------------------1AR doesn’t get new args

I will give the 1AR room to present new extrapolations of the Aff positions and to respond fully to the block, however running a new position/link turn/mpx turn or a new response to a Neg position isn’t the best and it’s probably too late in the debate to truly develop said position.

UQ matters most-----------------------------X---Link matters most

A solid link into an argument is incredibly important, no matter how unique an argument is, if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply!

Love T-X---------------------------------------------Hate T

I love T!! Evidence again is very important and please read it. I will prefer your standards if you have evidence supporting. Explain your mpx, violation and why you should win. Make sure that if you are going for T, either send a doc with analytics or ensure that you are clear.

Limits------X----------------------------------------Ground

Generics solve your ground claims, all though they might not be the most in-depth or educational, they do provide access to clash, and even if they are generic, there is evidence that supports those claims which is still educational. Limits, however, means that the Neg can produce in-depth arguments due to having a limited research burden and lit base.

Fairness is an mpx--------------------------------X-----Education is an mpx

Debate is a game, but, it is a game is which the motive is academic.

Reasonability------------------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Reasonability opens the door for judge intervention, what I believe is reasonably topical and what the next person does, is inherently different. I’d rather hear the mpx of topicality weighed as a net benefit to the presented interpretations.

Longer ev--------------------X---------------------More ev

Whatever way you want to present your evidence is up to you. Your evidence represents your argument, not the tag, if the tag is misrepresentative or an embellishment of the ev then that argument will be given less weight in the round*

"Insert this rehighlighting"--------X---------------I only read what you read

I will only evaluate only what is read during the speech act, unless told to evaluate a rehighlighting (should be sent in the doc) or told to evaluate a card vs. another card.

Durable FIAT solves circumvention--------------------X---Durable FIAT is not a thing

There are a number of ways that a position can be undermined that FIAT cannot account for. However, FIAT would protect teams from args like “plan doesn’t pass”.

Secrecy-----------------------------X-Disclosure

A team doesn't need to hide their argument or not disclose their arguments, not disclosing makes for a sloppy debate and a bunch of people not knowing what is going on.

Analytic Perm-----------------------------X-Evidence-based Perm

The words "Perm Do Both" (or similar analytics) mean nothing to me unless you explain how it functions, what level of competition the perm is testing and read evidence indicating a net benefit to said perm. BTW...I love the perm debate!

Existential Mpx---------------X-----------------Systemic Mpx

Tell me how to vote and what mpx to evaluate. This is also more of mpx weighing analysis, not framework. Framework is how debate should be or included within the realm of debate. Mpx prioritization is a question of the specific magnitude of that mpx.

Letter of the Plan Text-X------------------------Intent of the Plan Text

In regards to construction of the plan/counterplan/advocacy/permutation texts, I have a high threshold for properly written texts, meaning that text must do what is indicated that it will do. In a number of rounds, I have found that teams seems to misunderstand or misrepresent what the letter of the text actually would do. This can be as easy as using the wrong diction, syntax and/or semantics...for example using "apart" meaning not a part of vs. what is intended "as a part of" in the text. Just the simple change to this verbiage means that the functional implementation of the policy would be drastically different and not uphold what the solvency advocate intends. Prior to the round please evaluate texts, and the opponent texts as I am willing to vote/reject on miswrote texts in round, however it does have to be on the flow for me to vote.

I'm pretty tabula rasa. If you don't tell me what to put on my flow, it won't go there.

Please clash. Please weigh. Please tell me why your argument is the better argument or why I should vote for it. Give me voters or you ain't got my vote.

If you choose to run a joke case know that your link chain must be solid or else you will probably lose. I'm all for you trying though.

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 :)

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!

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

Ex-Captain, have done Policy and BQ. Familiar with all debates. Weber State Student.

Don't use slurs. Using them as an example is fine but do not use them offensively. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or discriminatory in any way. I will give you the lowest speaker possible if I deem it to be offensive to your opponent. Cussing is allowed.

T's K's and spreading are alright with me. Don't do 14 off or anything wacky like that.

If your partner roasts your opponents or says something cool in cross, you will get 1 extra speaker point for yelling "WORLDSTAR" out loud.

I come from a Lincoln Douglas debate background and I apply a "classic" LD paradigm to most events. Speech and Debate are communication events. The better communicators of ideas will win rounds. In debate that means making, substantiating (with credible evidence), and defending rational claims.

I believe value - criteria cases make for a good framework of debate, and if you fail to present a specific value and related criteria, I will 'assume' one for you and flow voting points around how well you defended the (possibly assumed or inferred) value/criteria. Even for things like Policy Debate, Congress, and of course Public Forum, I can't help but apply a 'value - criteria' mindset to why I'll give a win. The debater who shows supremacy in defending WHY their argument 'matters more' (offers value), and offers HOW their case fulfills specific value(s) better than the alternative position will win the debate (or spar or public forum or name the event).

I believe good communication is the ultimate goal of all speaking and debate events. If you bring spreading to a level that is incoherent, you lose. If you fail to support logical claims with credible evidence, you lose. If you intentionally seek to offend the judge, your opponents, or others with overt and malicious attacks on belief structures, cultures, preferences, or other demographic or psychographic factors, you lose and are reported to authorities for recommended censure.

While NSDA guidelines allow for 'critique' cases, per MY paradigm I maintain that they are pronouncedly lame. I've never seen one executed properly. Per NSDA guidelines I see only ONE viable approach for a successful critique case. It must:

1. represent a demonstrable ethical concern with the assigned topic of the debate from the perspective of the specific position (aff. or neg.) represented by the individual offering the case.
2. limit the arguments to a distinctive critique of the specific topic at hand. I will not consider or evaluate any conversation about the viability of 'debate in general' or other non-resolution-related 'critiques'. Without a demonstration of absolutely pristine logic and unquestionable ethical interest in why the critique is more important than the resolution, the critique case will receive an automatic loss from me every time. It would be a very rare situation where, in order to win, the opponent of the critique case would need to say anything more about the critique than "my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments about the resolution, I therefore win the debate on the resolution."

Once a round begins, I do not afford time for "off-time roadmaps" or anything, really. If you're standing there speaking, then you're presenting and except for very brief checks to confirm your audience is ready, you should be logging time (either towards your speech or your prep time). If you're desperate to squeeze every second of time for your arguments, the classy way to sneak the "extra" speaking time would be to say something like, "please deduct the following off-time roadmap from my prep. time".

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

I did LD all four years of high school, alongside some policy, pf, and extemp. I am ok with spreading, as long as you are comprehensible. I will flow, but I will not do your job for you. When you rebuttal, be direct and tell me what you are rebutting. Even if I know your impacts, framework, and links are stronger, unless you tell me so in the round, I can't vote off of it. I will only vote off of what you give me in the round. Crossex will not determine how I vote in the round, however it will determine how high your speaks are.

· 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

.

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.

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

Hi! My name is Walker and I am currently a Sophomore at the University of Utah studying Finance and Pre-Medical studies. I did Policy Debate for all 4 years of my high school debate career and some research for the Emory University's Barkley Forum Debate Team while I was a freshman there.

As a judge, these are my main priorities:

1. Create an educational space for debate
2. Make you better debaters
3. Deliver a decision

I'm fine with nearly all arguments, weird or not. Ultimately, I am here to help, so please ask me if you have questions about debate, life, or the meaning of it all. I'm happy to talk.

Don't take yourself too seriously, relax and have some fun. Debate is stressful enough as is, and burnout is real, so give yourself a little slack.

Good luck!

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

I'm a former PF and Lincoln Douglas debater! I graduated high school just two years ago, so I get the stress! Don't be anxious and have fun with rounds :)

Event Paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas: Speak clearly! I do place emphasis on value and value kriterion, but I do care more about the actual arguments you make. Unless it is explicitly said and proven within the round that V and VK are high voting factors, I don't usually focus too much on them. Also, not everything in LD needs evidence. LD is cool in that you can use analogies, make value-based arguments, reference history, etc. so explicit evidence isn't always necessary. If you're planning on using Kritiques, make sure it's fully explained, don't assume I know anything.

Public Forum: Some debaters have the tendency to try to cram all the rounds' arguments into the 2-minutes summary and final focus speeches. Just narrow down the big points and talk at length about each of them. Don't speak over each other during crossfire and be courteous :)

For all debates, you can talk fast but please don't spread. You can talk as fast as possible, and I'll be able to gage what you're saying, but please don't get to the point where full words aren't being said. In addition, I don't flow cross-ex. If anything comes up during cross that you want to argue, make sure to bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it.

Lastly, make sure to respect each other. We're here to learn and grow as debaters, so please don't ruin that experience for one another.

All in all, have fun! Excited to judge you all :)

Please don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't tell if you're making a good point or not.

Please be kind. Avoid being unnecessarily nasty to your opponent.