General Things:

In absence of a framework debate I'll default to a somewhat arbitrary combination of policy making and in-round educational value (or harms) forged by my personal experiences in debate. But that's not what anyone wants, so tell me how to vote and why.

I will call for evidence in very few cases and I do not want to be on the email chain. Take the time to actually develop your own arguments and the arguments of your authors in the rebuttals.

In the rebuttals I prefer depth to breadth. Explain and develop the arguments you're going to go for rather than saying "extend my ______ evidence" 50 different times without any further analysis about why those extensions matter.

My ears are slower than they used to be. I'm comfortable with spreading, but please make your taglines clear and clearly distinguished. I will tell you if I cannot understand you by loudly saying “clear” during your speech.

It’s critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it. That means you'll need to explain it to me in clear and understandable terms. Assume I know nothing about your [aff, K, CP, etc.] prior to the round.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Specific Arguments:

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. The definition and violation. Tell me in detail why the aff isn't topical.
2. The standards debate. Tell my why your interpretation of the topic is preferable.
3. Specific abuse is not a must-have for me. If you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and that an interpretation including the aff as topical is bad for debate you can win even in the absence of abuse.

DA's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me than most judges. This doesn't mean you can't win on "risk of a link" arguments, but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh smaller but more likely impacts (unless of course your framework explains why that's the best way to evaluate risks...). Having a clear and realistic internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. It’s important to me that there is at least some extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get much weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage that no one has mentioned since the 1AC.

CP’s - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning solvency or D/As in terms of defensive arguments: strong defense on the net benefit is a potential reason to prefer the permutation, or just the plan alone. Perms are also viable round winners for me. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy, but feel free to specify (or demand that the aff specifies). Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and/or the world of the perm are important to me.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments that what we do and say in the round matters enough to be a voting issue. That said, if the aff is winning reasons why the plan is a good policy that helps people then that could very well mean their representations while advocating for it are also good. If your alt represents an action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are important to me. Otherwise, make sure you establish a framework so that I know how to evaluate the arguments in your K against the arguments your opponents are making.

Theory - I'm willing to vote on theory. If you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in clear terms whats wrong with the action of the other team.

While I’ve certainly voted in opposition to my personal views many times before, both on theory and other arguments, here is a short list of things I think are generally true:

Slow WAY down when you read your theory blocks. I’m not going to read them and there’s no way I can type them as fast as the fastest debaters can say them.

Everyone should be disclosing, but without an explicit rule enforced by the tournament I don’t think failure to disclose is a voting issue. Sometimes in life you’re gonna be surprised, learning to adapt on the fly is a good skill that debaters should be developing.

Performative contradictions are bad, and might sometimes be a voting issue.

Conditional arguments are okay, maybe even necessary for effective negative strategy. But the more of them there are and the more contradictory they are with each other, the more abusive they become. For example, reading a capitalism K and an economic DA rooted in capitalistic ideology in the same round is a bad idea. Adding in a CP that solves the DA while linking to the K is a potential voting issue.

Affirmatives should be topical. Switch sides debate and the existence of other educational programs and activities solves pretty much all the offense I’ve ever heard on this point.

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

cutespeech@gmail.com

Paradigm for beehive bonanza 2023

B.A. in Anthropology from University of Utah

M.M. In Music technology from Southern Utah

What I find debate is a very intellectual, knowledgeable sport. what I find unique about high school debate is that if I can understand what you’re saying then I’m more likely to vote for your team if I find something interesting or unique then I’m going to have to take more time to evaluate it; dress for success.

Anyone can debate and push an argument my dilemma is as a judge is considering where you stand as a professional. I think that having the desire to uphold professionalism is important and doing that with confidence to your practice is what orients you toward a passionate career.

I invite you to keep your dialogue relevant.

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!

I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

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.

Hello! Before getting into any specifics, I ask that you all try to speak clearly and briefly give context to any jargon, as I have limited experience with debate and am still learning the ropes. I will try my best to give cues as to whether or not I understand things that you have said, and will likely ask you to speak more slowly or explain something if I find I'm having trouble keeping up. I appreciate your patience! Please also note that I will give you no lower than a 26 unless you are presenting offensive or demeaning arguments or materials.

As for debate philosophy, I prefer students to respond to arguments in the order that they were produced and with thoughtfully presented rebuttals when possible. Please be specific, present evidence with a measurable metric, such as timeframe, probability, or magnitude, and provide me with information on the effects of your claim. Focus on the strengths of your position rather than the weaknesses in your opponent's! Earning points with me is simple: be clear, be bold, and speak well, and have good cross. Anyone can win in any round!

On that note, please remember to have fun and be bold! I look forward to judging and seeing you all showcase your skills. Best of luck!

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

I’m a dad judge and have been judging for 3 years. I have judged a lot of Policy, LD and a little bit of PF.

I look for good clash, warrants and extensions. If you are going to spread please do it at 75% speed and make sure to slow down at cards or points you think are important. Even better if you can stop and explain those to me in your own words. Please sign post and provide off time road maps.

I tend to lean on the side of truth over tech. For policy judge instructions in the 2NR/2AR is very helpful.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I am a high school English teacher and know how to write effective essays and speeches. I do not, however, have formal debate training. As a high school English teacher, I value the writing of the speech itself. As a debater, you should go into each round assuming that I know nothing about the topic at hand. Give definitions, explain concepts, speak clearly and explicitly. You can’t convince me to choose your side if I don’t understand your side. Please teach me before you convince me. If you choose to speak quickly, be warned that you need to still speak clearly. If I cannot hear you I cannot judge you.

I typically choose debate winners based on the success of their claims, including those made in crossfire, as they are presented with rhetorical strength, including effectiveness of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

About me:

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ What I do: Second (2^nd) year law student at Kline (focusing on property law, environmental law, and energy law). Coach here and there.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ What I’ve done: Debated for four (4) years in high school (LD/CX), three (3) years in college (LD/NPDA/BP), and coached here and there.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ Please: Add me to the email chain thanexzeeh@gmail.com.

How I judge:

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ i) Top-level – how you get me to vote for you: debate is a game of a “clash of the issue[s]”. Every argument requires me, the judge, to address an issue (e.g., “whether the negatives’ framework argument creates a better vision for debate and if not whether the affirmative is winning a sufficient causal link between the uniqueness debate and the internal link chain to the impact” The clearer you establish: a) what the issue[s] is(are) and; b) how I should evaluate the issue, the easier it’s going to be for me to vote for you. The best debaters know which issues they’re winning, they go for that issue, and then tell the judge why the judge should evaluate that issue as an a-priori issue. On arguments, go for whatever - "arguments are arguments" issues on the limits and scope of those issues are determined on a round-to-round basis.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ii) Technical stuff:

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎a) if you don’t extend a card or argument through the flow, it doesn’t exist post-round (this requires you to analyze and be selective in what you’re advocating for by identifying where you're ahead).

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ b) I defer to what the evidence says and not what the debaters claim it says – in other words, I “stick to the four corners of the evidence”.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ iii) Speed: If I can’t understand you, I’ll say clear. If I can’t understand you, I’ll say clear. I will say clear a couple to a few times, and after that, I’ll do my best to flow, but no promise I’ll be able to understand what you're saying.

‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ iv) Preference of arguments: Arguments are arguments. Issues such as “Does policymaking come prior to subject formation” or “Is the affirmative’s topicality reasonable” are to be determined on a round-to-round basis.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ v) Topicality: I defer to the reasonable definition of a word in the resolution based on how a reasonably prudent person in the debate community would come to understand that definition.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ vi) FRAMEWORK (emphasis added): if there’s a clash of framework, the first issue I will almost always determine is whether the affirmative or negative controls framework given the offensive, benefits, etc. of the application of that framework. Whoever controls the framework, controls the debate.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ vii) The kritik: see subpoint vi. Explain the academic[s] meaning and purpose behind the kritik. I most likely don’t know the literature base the argument is derived from.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ viii) Conditionality: Policy debate, two (2) max; LD, one (1) max; PF, what are you doing?