"I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguments and communicate effectively. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your argument and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. I also appreciate being given a heads up on trigger warnings. If you are not sure if it counts as a trigger warning, just keep in mind that anything involving suicide, rape, abuse, miscarriage, abortion, etc. is a trigger for me. For Debate events, keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!"

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

add me on the email chain or lmk if you have questions before/after round (: parsons152@gmail.com

CX: Thrilled to to judge whatever you're comfortable doing. Read and/or go for whatever you feel good about, it's your round and I'll work hard on adapting to your style and the substance of your argument. One word of caution: I'm not at all familiar with what's being read on the 2022-2023 topic, so don't assume that I'm going to be versed in your argument just because it's been read all year. I'm pretty familiar with K debate, and I love examining T and theory debates (but if you're going for T or Theory, impacting out the argument is the most important thing on the flow to me.). I almost exclusively went for T or cap or DnG when I was competing. If you are going to go for a K or read a K aff, I think it's really important to spend a lot of time on framework and answering the top-level questions about what we're doing: What does it mean for us to share this space together? What significance does my ballot have and why does it matter who I vote for? And what does the alternative effectuate within that framework?

LD: Progressive or trad are both fine, but aff lmk if you're reading a plan because I have a different flow for that. If you're doing progressive debate, see the CX section.

PF: The only type of debate I've never done. I guess the most helpful thing suggestion I have is to just walk me through your argument cleanly and clearly, and tell me how I should weigh/evaluate arguments.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Bailey (They/She)

YES, please add me to the Email chain :) baileyrspaulding@gmail.com

Hey! A little background information about me. I just graduated last year and now I'm Coaching, I did Policy all 4 years but I have experience in all forms of debate. Across the board I like to think I'm kind of a blank slate Judge (tabs). I will follow whatever kind of round y'all want to have. However, make sure that you are keeping the round competitive and educational. (I really don't like reading an advanced critical argument when your opponent is new to debate). Be kind and helpful!!

I will never pick up something that advocates for dehumanization, or marginalization.

DISCLAIMER- i will try really hard to flow but im horrible at it

If everyone competing is okay with it I'm okay with tag teaming.

PF-

Take your time to explain the links and Impacts and extend them through your speeches. I like good clash and analytical arguments. Cited evidence is great in rebuttals but make sure you explain why the card effectively rebuttals the argument.

Impact Calc is SUPER IMPORTANT! I prefer crystallization in voters, give me a few strong voters and write my RFD for me.

LD-

Progressive arguments- I love progressive arguments so if you want to try some out I'm your gal! That being said, keep it fun competitive and educational, especially if you opponent isn't as comfortable with progressive arguments If you are going take a progressive approach make sure your still focusing on impacting out the link chain and linking it back to your V+C.

Take your time to explain the links and Impacts and extend them through your speeches. I like good clash and analytical arguments. Cited evidence is great in rebuttals but make sure you explain why the card effectively rebuttals the argument.

V+C should be the most important part of the debate, please don't forget about it till your voters, it should run through the entire debate.

Clear crystallized voters are my preference, try to write my RFD for me when you give me your voters.

Policy-

I have a feeling that policy is going to be non-existent this year so if on the odd chance there is a policy round, I'm okay with pretty much every argument you want to run, if you have any questions regarding specific arguments just ask me before the round starts :)

Overall have fun! If I missed anything feel free to ask.

If you have any Questions about my RFD find me after round or Email me!