-Please be respectful to each other

-Please no fast talking + spreading

-I'm a history teacher, so I care a lot about evidence + critical analysis

-signaling/signposting is awesome

Hello! My name is Kyle Cink. I debated through high school in Utah and participated in several events ranging from Congress to PF.

For Congress:

I like well-articulated arguments that flow and are convincing. Don't just read evidence cards and call that your speech. I'd like to see some links and for you to convince your chamber of why you are right. Participation in Congress is key! I appreciate it when you question speakers and speak as much as possible. (Granted, it can be hard.) Congress is a social event where you can work with your peers to run your chamber. While sometimes clashes may arise, please try to be good people. We are all here to participate in debate. Let's make it as fun as possible for everyone. :)

For Speech:

This depends on the event. Please just ask me what my Paradigm is when we are together.

For PF:

I have around a year and a half of PF experience, so I am still relatively new. Speed used as a tool to confuse your opponents will also confuse me. Please don't do that. I would appreciate signposting. Weighing is always nice, whether it is probability, etc. If you are interested in creating an email chain, I will gladly provide an email during the round.

(My email is nasheildelrosario@gmail.com if you need to add me to any email chain.)

Hello!

My background:

I'm a former debater that has 3 years of high school competitive experience in PF and 1 year of collegiate experience in NPDA. It's been a few years since I've done debate, but I still remember the essentials for most events.

I also believe debate should be a learning experience as well as a safe space for others. Discriminatory language and/or arguments is not very cool and will not do anyone any favors. Be friendly, respect each other, and have fun with it!

Preferences:

1. I'm okay with speed as long as it's clear.
2. I will stop flowing when the timer stops.
3. Please keep your own time, including prep time.

Not a lot of specifics right now but I'll approach each round like a blank slate and do my best to give a thorough RFD!

• • • • • • • •

I am a high school English teacher: I teach AP English Language and Composition. Debate functions as an exceptional foundation for multiple, lifelong communicative capacities/realms. I value organization, solid understanding of one’s case, appropriate citation of relevant sources, and concise refutation of opposition. Regarding delivery, any speed is acceptable.

With an appreciation for the effort required in case preparation, I encourage debaters to deliver their cases with the same amount of gusto with which they prepared their cases. I acknowledge debate's intrinsic educational value; accordingly, I simultaneously judge and cheer as competitors engage in this fruitful, beneficial educational exercise.

A tabula rasa judge cloud is a lovely place to dream; however, a judge with a completely clean slate --void of previous experience and knowledge-- lacks benefit for all involved. Thus, I will do my best to safely tuck away any personal bias(es) as my function is to judge your debate skills, abilities, and effectiveness.

All Debates: Please be respectful to your opponents! :) I will NOT drop your speaks based on speaking differences (e.g., stuttering, sound errors).

Policy: I have experience, but am a little out of practice. I was usually more of a politics DA/ CP or T debater, but that does not bar me from voting for a well-done K. I am willing to hear just about any argument, but I need impact analysis! Tell me how/ why to vote. I am not willing to kick a position for you when I write my ballot. Speed is generally fine, but I need clarity. Please don't give opponents a ton of cards that you didn't even read. I expect competitors to be respectful of their opponents, partners, judges, etc.

LD: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged and coached LD for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won. I do think values and criterion should be part of those voting issues. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Please be respectful to your opponents! :)

PF: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged PF for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won.

I am a lay-judge as the parent of a debater. The main features I look for are excellent speaking skills and cogent arguments with good source support.

While well constructed arguments will do more for your prospects, a clear and powerful speaking presence is essential to your success. I discourage spreading and spewing. Arguments should be clear and concise and presentation should be at a pace that is comprehensible.

I hope to have a collegial, professional but fun environment. I am excited to listen to your speeches, best of luck to all debaters!

Speak in clear and concise manner, I need to have a roadmap on time or off time, and a summary of the points at one point or another. Extra points for those who can point out logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

I used to do LD and Impromptu as my go to events from 2007-2009. My judging style is flexible with a few critical points to be aware of:

- I am uncompromising on time limits and happy to provide as many time checks as needed to help you adapt.
- Your arguments must be clearly structured. If you run out of time when making those arguments or they do not flow logically, that is a negative.
- Cleverness is welcome, aggression is not. If you can't make your opponent stumble without bellowing into the room or trying to talk over them, then you aren't ready to debate in competition.
- Yes, I am that person who will want you to be clear on citing your sources and will be open to an opponent challenging those sources. Too many debaters try to pass blogs off as though they are the epitome of resources.

As you can see, most of my emphasis is on a well-organized and supported professional debate. Other than that, I am open to debaters who clearly outline in their debate what the criteria for victory should be and why that means they win. That's part of the fun.

I participated in high school debate in the late 20th Century, and have judged sporadically over the last 30 years.

As for preferences, my only challenge is presenting too quickly and leaving me behind. I can handle speed, but if you are out of breath then it’s too fast. Everything else is fair game.

When judging a round, I look for students to speak clearly, make eye contact, and cite their sources. I appreciate students being respectful of one another and those in the room. Most of all, have fun. Debate is awesome and it is a great way to learn about different points of view and perspectives in our world.

Policy Debate - I have 1 year of experience judging LD/PF debates and two years of judging Policy Debate. I have been judging on the national circuit as a Policy Judge, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. I also judged Policy at the National Debate Tournament in Des Moines, Iowa.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing—This past season, I have found that I don't mind speeding or spewing. As long as I have the document, feel free to deliver your arguments rapidly. I rely heavily on the document but have developed the ability to flow somewhat by listening. While clarity is not critical, I must understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- I'm open to kritiks. I'm not deeply familiar with all the literature. While I'm open to framework arguments, I'm not very into theory, so please explain everything in detail. I prefer if the alternative to the Kritik relates to the real world and you prove how it solves the issues rather than just focusing on the framework. Please explain the whole story of the Kritik—the links, the internal connections, the impacts, and the alternatives.

K Affs—I was exposed to them last season, and I don't dislike them, but I suggest you run them at your own risk.

T/Theory—I don't love theory-only debates; however, I am open to evaluating actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving in-round abuse is going to be pretty high.

However, topicality is a little bit different. I believe it is the aff's burden to be topical, so if the neg can solidly prove why it is untopical and how that hurts the debate space, I will vote on it.

Counterplans—I love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have a net benefit; I will not kick out counterplans for you. Please be very clear on what you are kicking. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP, you will lose on both. Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still learning to evaluate everything.

Disads - This is pretty basic; make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, and link it to the impact. I like a good extinction impact, and I'm very pleased if you can convince me, but I will admit that very few teams have been able to get me there.

Case - The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so you must prove solvency. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence; your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I am very story-driven. Tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love off-time roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up, but there are no guarantees I will catch everything. Your cards are critical. I rely heavily on them. The more organized your cards are, the better. Don't be afraid to tell me how you are winning in the cards. Spell it out, highlight it, bold it - color it, and keep sending it to me until the very end; I don't care if it's the same cards --- remind me why you are winning! It's a crutch I'm happy to use until I get better. Make sure your cards are up to date. I've voted against teams specifically because of the fact that the cards were obsolete. It's policy, and you are arguing for real-world change. I've witnessed a seasoned judge checking recent news to verify if a cited card was applicable, and unfortunately, it wasn't. As a result, that team lost. I adhere to that approach. Debate hard and have fun!

I like clear, reasoned arguments. Good construction of cases that are thoroughly understood and that flow well. Data is really key-don't just pull something out of thin air-give good rationale/data to support it. As long as your impacts and contentions pertain to your criterion and are consistently portrayed you have a strong case. Don't mention the criteria early on, and then fail to tie it in cohesively through the entire case. Good eye contact.

1. Please be respectful to your opponents. Be aggressive, but being rude will not earn you any favors :)
2. Although it is not the majority of my vote, know that I will be judging crossfire with articulation of arguments for speaks.
3. Make sure to signpost for me. It makes it much easier to follow.
4. Impacts and link chains are extremely important to me. The impact will have less weight to me without a strong link chain.
5. If you have a strong argument, provide evidence. The point won't hold well if it is not substantiated by evidence.
6. Please do not spread, try to keep to a traditional speed.
7. And last but not least, have fun! Take this as a learning experience and don't be too serious. Good Luck!

Hi!

I'm a student at the University of Utah, studying Mechanical Engineering. This is my first time judging, but I've helped people write and edit speeches for the last 5 years. I tend to lean towards a more social-issue focused perspective than an economic viewpoint, so make sure that your speech considers all parties involved in a respectful manner.

I'm good with any speed, but please start off slow, speak up, and clearly state any taglines. Spreading is fine, but again, start slow so I can get started with the speech. If you go too fast, I'll signal for you to slow down, and it won’t affect speaks; however, if I have to ask multiple times and there's still no change, I won't be able to flow properly and it might hurt your case.

I would like for you to be confident, no matter what happens. Don't ramble or get off-topic. If you mess up, take a second and then start up again.

Have fun!

:>

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 :)