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 :)

I think debate is amazing for SO many reasons, but one of them is that it's growing your capacity to think in complex ways. I'm not here to discourage you in any way. I will leave constructive feedback on ballots.

I'm good with speed, slow down your taglines.

Things I tend to vote for in a round:

1. tech>truth. However, if you end up dropping a small argument on the opp's side but argue that your impact has greater magnitude and explain WHY I should still vote for you, I will probs lean towards that arg so long as it's done well.

2. PLEASE make your impacts clear to me :) Will be so helpful for you in the way I flow. Things to consider for impact calculus:

Probability - how likely the impact will happen

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

Timeframe - when the impact will occur

magnitude - how large of an occurrence will the impact be, why it matters, etc.

3. I flow the arguments themselves, not the authors. Don't say "Toss out the aff's argument using my Meyer '18 card" because I probably won't remember what the card even said. Give context and explanation.

4.I do not flow cross. If there's an argument you make in cross you MUST bring it up in your speeches.

Excited to judge :)) You're all gonna kill it.

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.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

I've been involved in speech and debate since middle school (nerdy right?) and briefly competed for the University of Utah. Most of my experience is in IEs, but I have debated in World Schools (HS), BQ (HS), British Parliamentary, NFA-LD, IPDA and NPDA.

DEBATE:

For all debate events, I do not mind spreading as long as your opponent is able to understand you. If your opponent can't understand you and they made that clear to you (i.e., you were "cleared" or "slowed") but you ignored them... that will definitely be reflected on your ballot in one way or another.

Add me to the email chain: merrinmaughan@gmail.com

• PF: To be honest, PF is the event I have the least knowledge about. Impact calc/weighing is something to keep in mind for your final focus speeches- in fact, it's probably what I will consider first when casting my ballot. Show me why your team should win the debate or the consequences if you don't. You can extend the constructive into the first rebuttal, but you do not have to. All other feedback will be specific to the round.
• LD: If you run a K or any form of theory argument, it's totally fine with me. However, if you’re running a K and you cannot explain in lay vocab or it’s obvious to me you’re trying to exclude your opponent from the round with some esoteric argument… it’s unlikely you’ll win. Next, I know there's a lot of discourse on progressive vs. traditional LD, and with regard to my judging, I will vote for the debater who convinces me why they win. Voters are key, and along with impacts, they are what I will consider first when making a decision. Offense and rebuttals (telling me why you win the debate) are preferable to defense (why you're not losing).
• CX: I will totally vote on T if you run it properly and collapse to it. I don't mind Ks, but if you are running a K, please make sure you understand it and link it well to the resolution. A good rule to follow: if you can't explain it in lay terms, don't run it. I don't have any preferences for CPs or anything. I don't mind if you run something unique, ironic, gamey, etc. as long as you can link it well to the rez! :P I'm also always up for just straight up debate. Most importantly, be courteous and kind to your opponents.
• BQ: BQ is so fun, and it's also unique to the other debate events. It definitely calls for a higher level of respect- so when touchy topics come up (as they will), please treat your opponent(s) with kindness.

TDLR:Run anything you want (within reason lol), as long as you're being kind and respectful to your opponent. Speed is fine with me. Impacts are super important.

IE/SPEECH:

Some general things to consider... First, do not rely on the grace period. I was a high school speech kid, and I would do the sneaky thing and write my speeches right up to 10 minutes knowing I could usually get away with 10:05 or something... But, that 30 seconds is there to save you in the event you have a memory lapse, get interrupted by kids in the hall, etc. Don't rely on it to hit 10 minutes: practice makes perfect. Second... being memorized (in OO, info, interps) is always preferable to being unmemorized or partially memorized. Finally, as a general note, I will gladly give time signals and I will definitely offer them before each round, but I am not the best at them... I'm usually too engrossed in your speech!

Event-specifics:

• OO: As well as a strong presentation, I look for logically sound arguments (i.e., does your solution make sense for the problem you are trying to solve, are the causes/effects you present supported by real-world examples and evidence, etc.). In terms of presentation, I'll be looking for the use of a good speaker's triangle, hand gestures, and good eye contact. Importantly, present to the group, not just to me. This shows that you're gaining the skill, not just trying to win the round. Make sure you are verbally citing your sources- this becomes very important at the national and university levels!
• Info: Your VAs, if you are using them, should complement your speech, not inhibit it. Your implications should be realistic and make logical sense with the other two main points of your speech.
• Extemp: Stick to the 3-point structure, and if you deviate, justify it. Please be verbally citing your sources and not just providing examples/information from prep time. Fill your time as best you can without going under/over and relying on the grace period, as discussed above.
• Interps: I have the least experience with interps, but am aware of the regular rules for blocking and cutting, especially for duo. Just be mindful of those, and I'll base any other feedback off of your actual performance.
• POI/Poetry/Prose: Your gestures are just as important as your content, so move purposefully according to your topic/text. Incorporate the book where possible, and have fun being creative with it! Use drama/emotion purposefully and sparingly.

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 am a policy judge. I debated for 3-4 years, coached for 3 more, and have judged for 4ish years now (all policy).

I can understand spewing/spreading/whatever else you call it.

I do not flow cx so if you make a good point you need to bring it up in your next speech or I will not flow it through. If I am typing during cx, I am probably catching up on my notes from the previous speech.

I like judging on impact calc, but the role of the debate is the most important thing to me (if aff or neg does not fulfill their roles, it is an automatic loss). I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way.

***Make sure you flow your arguments through unless you intentionally drop them***

Brand new judge, I was a successful debater back in High School where I took my team to state twice. I will be looking at clarity and overall, who can persuade me the best whilst staying on topic.

Email: Tatekalani@gmail.com (I would like to be on the chain)

Policy:

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I'm pretty accustomed to all types of arguments. I'll flow anything just make sure it's a good argument. I'd love to be truth over tech but out of respect, i'll try not to be, though I'm not opposed to you taking that standpoint. K's are fine explain them thoroughly and explain the internal link.

LD:

I mostly debated in policy but did dabble in LD. I tend to like a more progressive LD style but I'll flow anything and let you guys dictate the round. I love creative values and VC.

PF:

Just go for anything I'll flow anything. I like truth over tech.

I did policy throughout high school and I read fem primarily my senior year. I’m versed in most literature and will try to judge at your level.

top-level things: please put me in the email chain (sahajarutledge@gmail.com). Tag-team is fine and spreading is fine (I can follow practically any speed) - but PLEASE enunciate (it’ll be a big part of your speaker points) and slow down a little through the rebuttal speeches. AND IF YOU ARE READING TECHNICAL ACRONYMS PLEASE SAY THE FULL VERSION AT LEAST ONCE. (that’s pointed at any topic that involves a lot of niche agencies/technology)

Please sign post and LABEL arguments, I don't want to be forced to have another speech before the 2ac on what everything is called. Organized speeches with consistent structure and numbered arguments are the #1 way to ensure that everything gets on my flow. If you run more than 3 off and don't pause for a second when switching between them to give me time to also switch the flows I'll be annoyed and unapologetic if something gets left off the flow. I legitimately hate when debaters fly through the off and don't differentiate when they move to another argument.

I’m tech>truth but with a caveat that I’ll be mad if your arguments are flat-out absurd (i.e. the sky is purple, Mexico is part of the US, etc) but for the most part, I’ll vote on what you read regardless if I like/dislike it. However, if you run any homophobic/racist/sexist/etc. disguised as theory your speaks will be dropped and I won't hear you out/vote on them. I’m okay with overviews but please don’t get excessive with simple arguments that can be done on the line by line. (Don’t spend 5 minutes telling me what T is MOVE ON)

arg specifics

Case: PLEASE keep this part of the debate organized and keep the line by line in order. If there are solvency deficits (as in no solvency was read for example) you don't have to spend a disproportionate time responding to it. I only need to know that you also know that something isn't a full argument I don't need to be convinced of it.

T/Theory: I firmly believe that theory is important in debate HOWEVER please don’t keep repeating the same 1nc shell in every speech and YOU HAVE TO PROVE ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE to get me to vote on theory. Utah debaters - fiat isn't as durable as you think it is and it isn't a stand-in for solvency. That being said, here’s how I see theory: neg probably gets conditional worlds, PICs are probably abusive, aff’s are probably topical and education is probably more important than fairness because debate is an educational space. These aren’t fixed metrics but it’s on you to prove the opposite.

K/K affs: I love a good k and am open to anything but framing and link work are key to my ballot. In other words, don’t be lazy with a generic link and lame impact card. I’ll be bored and so so sad. Don't make me sad. I really love a soft-left aff if it's done right in-round. In k aff v. T rounds, I won't lie I am so easily won over by creative TVA's. If your k/k aff is high theory please do a little more explanation and analysis than usual (I don't want lengthy overviews but I want line by line explanations of how the arguments interact) just to help my understanding but for the most part, I should be fine. In any case FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK :)

CP/DAs: Do what you want here but don’t run one-liner CPs just to boost the off number - it’s annoying to flow. I would absolutely love for a CP debate not to degenerate into condo but I'll vote on it if forced. DAs, I have a really hard time buying weak generic links that lead to existential impacts with brink scenarios from 2021 so be mindful of the DA debate.For the IP topic, if the aff seems unrealistic and overreaches realistic USFG political action it probably does. In this case, I would love a good CP + DA debate demonstrating a team's argumentative TECHNIQUE.

Impact stuffs: Diversify your impacts and IMPACT CALC IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MY BALLOT

Good judge instruction will win you my ballot.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Rowland Hall Assistant Coach (2022-Now).

Please include me on the email chain. If I am your judge it means we are at an online tournament. I currently live in Berlin, but my WiFi is good and I should have no issues. Please speak clearly while debating online, it can be hard to hear sometimes and make sure that everyone is ready before you begin your speeches.

I know a bit about the topic, I worked at the Cal Debate camp before moving here so I should know what you are talking about, but over-explaining complicated topics never hurt anyone.

I have very little predispositions about debate, do what you do best and I will work hard to fairly adjudicate your round. If you have any specific questions for me, please ask before the debate.

Argument thoughts:

Do NOT read death good.

I have a high threshold for condo bad, BUT I can be convinced it is egregious if it is.

Fairness is an impact.

Judge(s) who I seek to emulate: Mike Shackelford.

Hello, my name is Tamara Townsend Faucette. I am an energy and environmental attorney. I really enjoy judging and am so impressed with the intelligence and professionalism of the competitors. Things I look for:

1) Energy- whatever side you are arguing, step fully into that role and persuade me that it is your preferred position. Often the passion and energy of a competitor shows their preparation and enthusiasm for the topic. Persuade me that you should win.
2) Responsive- Show your flexibility and depth of knowledge by specifically attacking your opponents case with logic and evidence.
3) Respect- A vigorous debate is encouraged but please maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect.

I have judged a lot of debate events. I do not mind spreading as long as I have a copy of the brief. If you plan to spread put me on the email chain.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Please do not spread during off-time roadmaps--that is a chance for me to understand your organization. Use words not lingo in your roadmap--it does not count against your time.

I do not like a ton of lingo or abbreviations, especially in policy debate. I understand the lingo but I would rather hear your analysis in full words not abbreviations.

Your debate experience will serve you well and build resilience. I hope you enjoy the process! Thank you, Tamara Townsend Faucette

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

Hi friends! I’be done policy debate for 4 years and I’ve done LD for 2. Now I’m helping out with coaching PF. Im currently going to USU and majoring at social work. Overall I would just say be kind in round. I know debate is stressful but kindness goes a long way.

Policy

I’m ok with spreading but not spewing. I’ll put my pen down if I can’t understand you. I’m ok with tag team cross. However, I don’t like flex prep but if everyone else is chill then so am I. Please put me on the email chain: calebjustinwilkerson@gmail.com

I lean to truth over tech. Don’t panic though because I still will vote off of technicality. What I mean by truth over tech is that I won’t do any work for you on the flow. For example, If you read a DA without a link but the aff doesn’t call you on it. I still won’t vote for you. However, if your argument is complete then I will vote off it if you win on the flow. Overall, I just expect you guys to make while and complete arguments. Policy is more than then flow. We need substance.

not a fan of conditional arguments, but I will vote for them. Be careful tho cause if you get called out on performative contradiction or condo theory I’m probably gonna give that flow to the aff unless you do a lot of work on standards.

Not a fan of pics, but I will vote for them if you do the work

I actually really love theory. Just make sure you give me standards and voters.

I think link is more important then uniqueness

i will vote off of topicality sometimes. Topicality is a theory tho so make sure you run it like it.

I will vote of Ks but I’m not deep into the literature so explain it really well. You better have pretty good framework and roll of the ballot theory because I default to stock framework.

I don’t like the idea of AFF Ks. I will vote off it if you can win framework AS WELL AS the K flow

I love to vote off presumption ballots. So I do believe inherency is a thing. If you can win the stock debate then you are cracked. However you gotta have a stock knockout. Weigh the defense against your offense

impact calc is really good.

Weigh the Offense V.S. Defense in the round. I first look at Apriori, then framework, then alternative advocacy, then impact weight.

I will give you an extra .1 speaker points if you tell me a really good dad joke

I very much am a quality of quantity debater. I argument needs a claim, warrant, and evidence. If you can win on the line by line through comparing warrants in the cards I will be so happy.

Overall just don't leave me to do any work on the flow

LD

I am a fiend for line by line. A argument is consistent of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. All I’m saying is that there is usually a pretty logical way to make arguments so don’t make stretches. Use imperial evidence to support claims in the context of your point.

framework is important but I am not going to do the work for you. Really describe what your framework is and why I should view the world that way. You gotta convince me that is what’s moral.

make sure that your criterion is a way for me to measure you’re value. You case should then continue to meet that metric you just set up. I have been seeing way too many value and criteria debates that just aren’t logical. My favorite frameworks talk about where in society do we develop a moral RESPONSIBILITY to take action. I wanna see the moral burden. I love the value care ethics.

if your value is morality imma be really really sad

PF

I love PF debate because of the focus of evidence. I want to see comparisons of evidence. Explanation is going to go a long way for you guys. Make sure to impact out your arguments. I love impact calc so very much. On top of that I really like framework on impacts. CBA is great and all, but take it deep. Tell me In framework what impacts should be prioritized.