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".

What I look for while judging, in a nutshell:

Be respectful to your opponents or fellow participants, speak clearly and not too fast, cite your sources and give evidence to back your statements.

I am so impressed that you are here, participating in this. Have fun!

Hello everyone! My name is Conrad! I was in debate for all three years of high school at Farmington! I first started off doing PF, then I moved to LD to finish out my sophomore year! My junior year I started congress for my first tournament then I moved to Policy for the remainder of the year! My senior year I was the Vice President of our debate team and I did BQ most of the year with a little bit of LD towards the end! I know exactly what’s going on! Just be sure to respect each other and try your best!

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.

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. 

Hi I am Kaylie! I did speech and debate all 3 years of high school. I competed in Public Forum and took 2nd and 3rd in my region. Debate is stressful and I just want you guys to follow these rules

1. Know your topic
2. Have evidence to back up your arguments
3. Attack each of your opponents arguments (if you spend time stuck on one topic, you aren't taking time to attack the other arguments they have made and therefore they will flow through)
4. Be kind and respectful to your opponents (a good debater doesn't need to attack their opponent)
5. Have fun!

Hey everyone! I'm so excited to be your judge!

I am a freshman at the University of Utah. I competed for the Northridge High School debate team all 3 years. I was a captain my junior and senior years. I am a 3-time qualifier to the national tournament (2x in BQ and 1x in INFO). Please don't be intimidated by this, I just say this so everyone knows that I know my stuff LOL. My goal is for every debate to be judged as fairly as possible.

I want to flood you with feedback and comments. I cannot tell you how many times I got ballots with a loss or low speaker points, then just to get a comment that says "Great job!" and nothing else. I PROMISE that won't happen with me.

Note: If anything I say inherently goes against what you have already prepared (like my case preferences, for example), don't try to rush and change it. These are just general suggestions.

General Paradigm:

Cases: I expect you to provide the causality in your case. Never only read to me a bunch of cards, statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. and expect me to believe you; go in depth. Explain why your argument is important and how it links. A well developed case is a great first impression, so use it as a strategy. I'm easy to impress with a good case.

Framework: I don't really like frameworks like utilitarianism, pragmatism, cost-benefit analysis, etc. I'm voting on impacts and major concepts in the round, not who better upholds one particular standard. Burdens of proof are fine with me, but don't spend too much time on it. Establish it once and focus more on general argumentation.

Definitions: Please only provide definitions if they are absolutely necessary. I'm educated, I know what things are.

Cross: I will not flow anything said in cross. If it was said in cross and you want me to vote on it, bring it up in rebuttal. While I don't flow cross, it may have an impact on my decision and speaker points (that is, I take all things into consideration). Please ask concise questions and give concise answers. If your opponent is taking a long time to answer, I'm fine if you interrupt, but actually give them an opportunity to speak. It's a clarification segment, not a scream fest. Passive aggression in cross is so entertaining to me, but be cautious about it.

Rebuttal: Your rebuttal is not a constructive speech. Please do not start by going over your case again, I will have just heard it. Clash against your opponents points. If you want to cross apply your case to theirs, do so. I don't need you to reexplain the arguments I just wrote down. In rebuttals, make sure not to solely focus on nit-picky details. Go over the larger concepts of the debate. Remember not to bring up any new attacks past rebuttals; I will not consider such new arguments.

Impacts: PLEASE give impacts. Whether you do a full impact calculus talking about scope, magnitude, substantiality, etc. or simply compare the effects of the arguments, I need impacts and weighing. The goal of debate is never to get your judge to agree with you, but rather, to show why you debate better, which means comparing your arguments.

Voters: I expect you to give me the reasons why you won the debate in the final speech. Don't beat a dead horse by trying to prove your arguments, simply talk about the largest reasons why you should win.

Speaking: Your speaking should be clear, concise, and confident as you possibly can make it be. Avoid filler words such as "like" and "umm" as well as unnecessary phrases like "ultimately," "specifically" (especially not this one haha) or "goes on to show." Get to the point, I know how to follow a flow without the extra "fluff." Try not to speak too slow or contain too many long pauses in your speech. (If you are in policy, ignore this and read my event specific paradigm). Eminem rap battles and debate should have never been conflated, so please for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY DO NOT SPREAD. Thank you :)

Event-Specific Paradigm:

LD:

I prefer a traditional value/criterion structure. Your value should be as topical/close to the resolution as possible.

Avoid utilitarianism and pragmatism. Criterions should be measurable, and prag/util are very vague.

I don't like K's or anything crazy in LD.

Arguments about morality are more important to me than philosophy or statistics.

In the negative constructive, I prefer 4 minutes of case and 3 minutes of rebuttal.

Voting issues should be given in the final speeches.

PF:

Provide links for everything.

I care more about impacts than the warrants of your arguments. Convince me why your argument is more impactful, not more correct.

Rely on your partners.

If you call for one of your opponents cards and point out a flaw in it, you will look so smart to me.

In grand cross, I only want to hear the major points, nothing new or small.

Policy:

I will be 100% honest. If you get me as your judge for policy, I'm so sorry. I hate this event with a passion. That being said, I don't even care what you run, as long as it is done well.

Although I will secretly be dying inside, I'm ok if you spread in policy :/ please include me in an email chain

rylanearnhart2117@outlook.com

If you do spread, but you are all mumbled, lost in your place, stumbling or pausing a lot, I will reflect such in your speaker points.

I don't really like K's or theory, so be cautious. There needs to be an abundantly clear link, or else I don't buy the point. I really don't want to hear a Cap K, not that I'm secretly a raging capitalist or anything ahaha, but it just gets so repetitive.

Counterplans should be as specific as possible and should contain evidence.

Note: If ANY of your arguments are racist, sexist, ableist, nationalist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, etc. in ANY degree, you will lose the round no questions asked :)

Please do not run a joke case, I'm taking time out of my day to listen to you and there are competitors who genuinely are trying to do well.

Remember to attack the arguments, not the people presenting them.

Debate is such a party! Have so much fun with it :)

Any questions on the feedback I give? Let me know rylanearnhart2117@outlook.com

Best of luck!

No spreading. I don't judge cross.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

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.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

Hello!

As someone with extensive experience in extemporaneous speaking, I will primarily judge speech events. Here are some things I look out for (in no particular order):

1. A solid roadmap/outline. Let me know what you are going to talk about. Signposting is important!
2. Body language. Project confidence and allow your movement to guide your audience.
3. A solid stance. I understand that it is easy to fence sit, but give me a thesis that is nuanced or well-grounded.
4. Personality. Let me get to know you a bit through your performance. Show passion for your event and topic!
5. Diversity of outlooks. It can be easy to get wrapped up in statistics and sources, which is why I believe it is important to show the human side of things in a speech. How does your topic impact everyday people?

Best of luck, and remember to have fun!

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!

Hi!

My name is Haylee and I graduated from Woods Cross High School and thus high school debate in 2022! I did LD debate all of my 3 years at Woods Cross and I’m absolutely delighted to see more people interested in it and helping foster other’s love for debate and hopefully see someone develop the same passion for change and debate that LD awoke in me!

With my history out of the way, here’s some things that I value as a judge:

-Refer to your opponent as such, ‘my opponent’, maybe this is something that just I was taught but using gendered or specific pronouns or even calling your opponent by name comes across as a personal attack. Not an attack on the case, but rather you trying to take a dig at your opponent directly. I do know not all opponents are kind, and their arguments can reflect that but still we want to remain civil.

-Passionate debate and speaking is encouraged! Get into it, enjoy yourself and have fun! However, passionate debate isn’t the same as hostile debate. There’s a clear difference between hostility and just being passionate. I don’t want this to be a volatile environment nor do I want anyone to feel unsafe anytime during a round.

-Talk as confidently as you can! You tend to talk clearly and in a comprehensible manor the more confident you are in a debate. I know this can be extremely difficult with time and other factors. As someone with a lisp and who wrote a lot and thus spread, I completely understand the need to talk fast. So, I will not use anyones speech impediment against them in my judging, I just ask you project your voice and be confident and clear in what you say. It makes it not only easier for your judge to understand you but also your opponent, and as someone who is also hard of hearing it is greatly appreciated.

-Water is not only allowed in rounds I’m judging but encouraged. Please take care of yourselves, I am begging.

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.

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.

I'm a lay judge

Policy: I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, add me to the email chain ehbzhu123@gmail.com

Try and make everything understandable for lay debate (traditional debate)

PF/LD: Clear concise and talk well. Good arguments