My name isAlan Oto Acker. 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 the Baby Boomer generation,and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I started my career as a Union Electrician, but have reinvented myself several times including time as Manager of electrical design and fabrication departments for an international Wastewater OEM and serving on their Board of Directors. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spent 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 whether you face opposition or not.

3-Decorum. It’s important people are treated with respect even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective. For me there is a fine line between passion & decorum. I put an emphasis on civility. I will be a blank slate, with no bias. You need to sell your perspective. Convince me you’re right, don’t try to dictate your position.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be), I’m not a fan of spreading or spewing. I am looking for you to be confident and rhetorical not trying to baffle me with blather.

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.

Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Hi! I'm Keri (she/her); put me on the file share: keri.j.brown@gmail.com

Overall in every event, I'm looking for a round where debaters are respectful of each other and clearly outline every argument. If you are rude or I can't understand you, your speaker points will drop dramatically.

Policy: Please, make your speeches clear. This means do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, I won't flow it, and you very likely will lose. You should favor good, fleshed-out arguments over a hundred nitpicky things that your opponent can't respond to in time.

I have judged policy before, but jargon such as permutation, topicality, etc., are relatively unfamiliar to me so please give thorough explanations for all the nuances of your arguments.

The more progressive, the higher the bar. If you're going to run a fancy, complicated argument about capitalism, you're really going to need to flesh out why I should vote for it over the actual topic.

LD/PF: Progressive debates are not my thing. Traditional arguments would be best; pick a couple of good arguments to go with and clearly explain them. I will not tolerate spreading, and complicated jargon must be thoroughly elaborated upon.

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 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!

I participated in debate when I was in high school.

I have judged debate before but I am not an experienced policy judge so speak slow and show me clear arguments. I have background knowledge about policy but in order for me to vote into things like topicality. Terms like Perm, mutually exclusive or conditionality or condo (any theory terms ect) will need to be explained (very well) in round. I wouldn't run theory/topicality arguments unless you this it is very likely you will go for them in the final speech. Whoever proves their point best wins. Case debate is good.

She/Her

MA in English '98 University of Utah

BA in English '93 North Carolina State University

Parent judge and this is my first time judging a policy round.

I will always vote for who gives the best argument and comprehensive debate.

Organization is key - everyone needs to be able to follow where you are in your speech. Always give off-time road maps before each speech, and if your latter speeches are analytical, then make sure you sign-post.

I would prefer a summary/brief description of your case before or after you read it - it just makes it easier for everyone involved. Also always make sure to state when you are cutting a card if you end it early.

My email is alicepmoe@gmail.com, please always include me in the email chain.

Quality over speed!! Since I am new to policy, I would very much like it if you didn't spread unless it's absolutely necessary.

K's - Kritiks are fine, but be sure to explain them well and link their meaning to the aff. You should have a clear idea of what your K is, and how it relates to your opponent's case.

T - Only run topicality if you can clearly link it to your opponent's case, don't just run it to fill up time.

CP's - I will be most comfortable with these, however it doesn't mean you have to run it. As long as you fully explain your case in a way that will be easy to follow, then Ks won't be an issue.

K-affs - I strongly recommend you don't run a K aff. If you really feel the need to, then, as I said, just explain it well and make sure it is comprehensive.

Never run a black K if you're not black, or anything regarding race if you are not specifically of that race. The same goes for any feminism/ableism/queer. You will immediately lose the round if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or derogatory in any way.

Watch your language. Be courteous and respectful to your opponents and me.

Above all, have fun. Education is very important in debate, and walk away with something new you've learned from the round.

I am a lay judge.

Speak persuasively and clearly. I am unfamiliar with most jargon. Please use roadmaps and signposting.

Be respectful and kind to your opponents. Bigotry will not be tolerated.

Debate is supposed to be fun - prove it!

LD and PF - I'm very tech over truth, but I love empirical evidence. I do vote off of cross - I also love it when you lay out your points and tell me how to vote. I don't mind a far-fetched argument as long as you have some evidence. I also value solvency, even if you have to stretch on solvency.

Speech - I love passion and confidence.

Policy Debate - I am a lay judge with three years of experience judging LD/PF debates. My son participates in policy debates. Recently, I completed a judging season on the national circuit, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. Although I grasp some debate terminology, I'm still not fully proficient, so please avoid using overly complex language.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

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

Spreading/Spewing - I have found this past season 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 need to understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- Although I'm open to kritiks, you might need to simplify them as if I were a 5-year-old. 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 as if I were 5. 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 find them difficult to understand, and I don't think they stick to the topic. Run them at your own risk.

T/Theory - I don't love the idea of theory because it takes away from the debate; however, I will still evaluate it if there is actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving the 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. I will not judge kick 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 new and 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. Shout out to the team who argued no IRS = extinction. It was beautiful.

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 outdated cards that 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. Take everything with a grain of salt, though, because I am still a new policy judge trying to get the hang of everything; there will be updates the more I figure out what I like and dislike! Debate hard and have fun!

Debate is a communication activity. Other than using communication skills, debate requires the use of logic and reasoning. All debaters must speak clearly for me to hear all the points being made and must watch rate of delivery. I can’t vote on what I don’t hear or can’t understand.

Debaters should display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis within their arguments. It is very important to utilize respectable, factual evidence, but also clearly verbalize how the evidence supports your position or argument.

I believe the round is about you, not me. I will judge whatever arguments you present.

Most importantly- Debaters should provide a very clear link chain throughout the debate. Signposting is vital; when transitioning from one topic to another, to tell me what you’re responding to etc.- down to the subpoint or specific card-, and use off-time roadmaps to further clarify flow and primary points of argument.

In Public Forum-

Please do not present new arguments during summary or final focus. New evidence to support arguments already made is acceptable during summary. Final focus is your opportunity to clearly articulate which arguments you believe should weigh most importantly on the judging decision. I am looking for organization, accuracy, and eloquence during final focus.

4 year policy debater for Liberty University, NDT Qualifier

Current HS Debate coach at Intermountain Christian School

Email chain: ryanwittstock@gmail.com

Things in order of what you're looking for:

Spreading - do it. Go quick, make good arguments and be efficient. If you can't spread without being incomprehensible I will say "clear" during your speech. Slow down if that happens.

My goal is to judge from the flow - everything here is pretty basic but make smart arguments and debate from the flow and you can win in most circumstances

Tech over truth - don't drop arguments even if they are bad. If they are bad, they should be easy to beat.

Condo: I lean to it being good but can be convinced

Theory (besides condo): I lean towards it being a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but can be convinced

Ks: I'm fine with them, but I was not a K debater. Of course I debated against them all the time so I am familiar, but if your theory of power is non-traditional and your impacts are something that I've maybe never heard before slow down.

Try to avoid a K without an alt, or do something like kick the alt. Most Ks are super non-unique without an alt (obviously if your K is more performative this may not apply).

Non-topical affs/framework: This can be a really good debate but normally ends up being bad. Interact with arguments on the flow to win. Fairness might be an impact but normally education is a better impact. I'm not very sympathetic to the "get your education in other rounds" argument.

Cards are important to me. If the debate is good and close it can come down to the cards. I don't like when taglines are longer than cards, that probably means you're lying.

Neg split: New flows in the 2NC are ok (CPs are a little iffy), but don't do new flows in the 1NR. CX over new flows is important.

I think impact turns are great - go for your goofy scenarios if you want