I am a parent of a Timpview High School debate student. I did not participate in debate as a student, and have not judged very many debate tournaments.

I appreciate when debaters can present their arguments clearly and succinctly rather than speed reading through a list of flow points as fast as they can.

For LD, I will evaluate the round using an interpretive framework. This establishes an approach to the resolution and presents evaluative positions to the judge. For each resolution, no matter what side you are advocating you
should ask yourself, not only what must I defend but to which degree must I defend it? Must my
position (and my opponents') be true always or true most of the time? What exceptions can be
made and which exceptions cannot be tolerated? Your interpretive framework should explicitly
answer these questions.

Hey guys!

My name is Katja and I’m a Junior at BYU studying Music Education. I was Miss Salem 2022 and I'm very involved in the Miss America Organization :). I was a speech captain of my debate team in high school and I've competed in every single event offered.

Speech paradigm: Be creative, be concise, and be organized. Be well rehearsed: no "um" or other filler words. I will judge roughly 60/40 on content/performance. Keep me interested and show me you can think well on your feet. Show me why I should listen to you.

Debate paradigm: I can follow spreading as long as you are clear and organized. Please don't spread unless you can do so well. don't try to go fast if it means tripping over your words. Keep in mind, you're here to communicate! I will judge based on quality of arguments and how well you refute and defend all the arguments. I also am looking for organization(line by line rebuttals). Be respectful, but I don't mind jokes or having fun with your opponents or the rounds. i don't always flow cross however it does show me the knowledge and understanding you have of your own research and case. If you think it was important in cross it needs to be addressed in the next speech or it will be considered dropped.

You got this!!

-Kat :)

My name is Cheryl Davies, I may be a parent judge, but I work in financial forensics, so don't think you can lie to me.

truth > tech

• Spreading is fine just please include me on the email chain (cheryldaviesut@gmail.com)
• I expect clear argumentation for your warrants (not just evidence, show me that you understand the evidence)
• Aggressive cross is appreciated but please be respectful of each other
• I won't flow cross so if you want to have me judge based off an argument made there, bring it up in rebuttals
• Don't steal prep time - quickly start and stop your timer
• Please time yourselves
• Stay away from personal anecdotes, I won't be giving pity points
• Don't make race or gender arguments unless you can directly correlate them to the resolution
• I won't vote for you just because you feel "personally victimized" (unless there's a legitimate ad hominem fallacy) - arguments like that take away from the debate and I consider them abusive

Ks:

If you're going to run a K, make sure it's flushed-out and has a strong link that you clearly articulate.

Theory:

I'd prefer if debaters stay away from theory arguments and stick to the content under the resolution (no disclosure or frivolous theory please)

Tricks:

No.

If you make me laugh, I'll give you an extra speaker point.

As a judge I am looking for three things.

1. I want to see that you care about the round. Show up on time (as much as possible given how tournaments run). Be kind and respectful to your opponents and the host school.

2. I want to be able to understand you. I do not like spreading, and you will get likely get low speaker points if you do this. The most common feedback I give is, "slow down when you speak."

3. I am also looking for precision. I want to see that you know what you're talking about and make it very clear what your arguments are.

I don't mind critiques (or "Kritiks" as I believe you debate kids call them) but I want to see that you have good evidence.

The most important thing for me is that you are able to do your best. Please take the time you need to set up your notes, laptop, table, water bottle, etc. I know you have put a lot of work into speech and debate and I want you to be able to improve after every round. If there is anything specific you need or are looking for in your feedback, please let me know and I will do my best to help.

Experience: I competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

Tabula Rasa is how I view my judging style. I like a clean slate approach to debate and I prefer Lincoln Douglas 1 vs 1 debates. I expect the debater to show why I should vote their position.

I am a new judge.

This paradigm will summarize my preferences as a judge and what I often look for when judging a round.

Topicality - I look for the degree of which an argument addresses the topic at hand and how transformative it is towards an individual's perception of an issue.

Delivery - I look for confidence, vocal tone, and how fluid the argument is presented. For example, including short pauses to ensure their point comes across properly and ending their sentences on a lower pitch when the statement is not a question.

Appeal of an Argument - I look for arguments that have copious aspects to them for the purpose of making them memorable: These include expressing intertwined emotional and rational arguments, how the passion of a speaker reflects their points, and the impression they give of how important the issue is to them.

Experience:

Language Arts, Debate Coach, Master's Degree in Technology and Education.

Overall Paradigm:

1. Stand firmly (both metaphorically and literally). Be careful of drunken-sailor syndrome.
2. Do not use notes. Being memorized is always better. (For Interps, not Debates)
3. Use cited evidence to support claims.
4. Use proper grammar and pronounce words correctly.
5. Ask questions that further the debate in cross-x

POLICY PARADIGM: (drop-down for LD and PF)

Spreading: If you don't say something in the round, it isn't part of the round. Additionally, only what I understand counts as being said. Your shared evidence files do not count if you don't get around to saying what is written there.

Kritiks: identify the relevance to the topic before your rebuttal. Example: Religious freedom is not a racism issue so don't try to identify the whole religious freedom argument as not worthy of arguing because you get to say the word racism.

LD PARADIGM:

Spreading: I will not listen to spewing. If I can't understand you, you aren't competing.

Topicality: The quality of your debate will be judged by presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique. In other words, if you must spend more time dedicated to showing why your points are part of the topic instead of why they are more valid than the points of your opponent, you are not on topic.

Theory: Just saying that you win because such-and-such doesn't mean you actually win. Prove your argument is right with valid evidence.

Kritik: Doesn't belong in Lincoln Douglas. If you intend to win based on the idea that you shouldn't be debating something, you won't.

Framework: You should use it. I will be able to flow better if you address items in the order you deem most valuable.

PF PARADIGM:

Not yet identified separately. See LD paradigm for best modality application in PF.

I was in debate for all of high school. I did policy for 1 year and LD for the rest. I loved them both but LD is my favorite. Unfortunately this combo has left me with an odd judging paradigm.

LD SPECIFIC:

Progressive cases- Because of my background in policy I can enjoy a progressive case WHEN IT IS DONE WELL! In LD you do not have as much time to establish the needed ground for a lot of K’s and other obscure arguments. Obviously you have to take the risk and be sure you can have the needed ground.

Solvency- No matter how traditional you are you still have to have solvency within your case. If the AFF provides a plantext and the argument against that is “this is LD and we don’t have to provide a plan”, the neg will likely lose. The NEG job is to say no to the AFF(as long as the plan is within reason).

Voters- Voters are one of the most important parts of your rebuttal. If you do not have voters I will assume that you do not care how the round ends and that everything should be weighed the exact same. This will not work out in your favor. Take at least a minute to explain why you should win. It shows an investment in the round and an actual desire to win.

Framework- Value and Value Criterion are what set LD debate apart. In a sense it is your opportunity to showcase knowledge and creativity. It is pretty easy to tell when someone put a lot of thought into their value and value criterion. If you value morality I will assume you are a boring debater and you will most likely not win the framework argument. LD is about morality, the whole goal is to prove morality. It is too vague and is already implied in the form of debate. I weigh heavily on this portion of the debate. Direct clash is good but if you and your opponent have the same framework you can still argue who better fits the framework. Do not just assume this doesn't matter because you have the same framing. Tell me how the debate should be interpreted, don't let me do that on my own.

Flowing- If you don’t flow I’m going to have a very hard time taking you seriously. Less than 10% of the population has a photographic memory so it’s not likely that that is you. Even if it is, you should still flow.

Speed- If you are spreading, you must also be clear! If you are unclear I will not be able to flow what you are saying and it will not help you in round. Slow down for taglines and anything of extreme importance.

GENERAL:

I think debate should be fun. I’m a fairly laid back judge who will vote on most anything as long as it is logical.

You should always be civil to your opponent- rip their case apart not them. Personal attacks are an absolute no. If a personal attack is made speaks will be dropped. I’m all for a super competitive clash filled debate as long as you also have good sportsmanship.

Cross counts for your speaks, not towards the win or loss.