BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE!

Have fun!

You can be aggressive just don't verbally attack the person.

I did debate for 2 years before graduating I have experience in PF, Policy, LD, and multiple speech events. My favorite event is HI. I also placed 5th in state in for HI.

I will not tolerate anyone being homophobic, transphobic, racist, or any other form of discrimination!

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.

explain. please :)

Hello!! This is my Paradigm

General

Tech>Truth

I judge off of the flow.

Tag-teaming is ok

I don't flow cross, if you want it counted tell me during your speech.

If you have questions and want to see flows or more in depth thoughts shoot me an email at francisco.cahoon@gmail.com

If I'm not making eye contact, don't worry it doesn't mean anything. I'm just not a big eye contact person, I'm still listening and paying attention.

Big thing is respect. Absolutely 0 tolerance for any form of discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia.

Policy

There's lots of arguments you can go for in Policy, just make sure you can argue them. Don't bring up a K or a DA or a CP that you don't understand and can't argue. Speed is fine. I can understand spreading, just make sure to send the docs and BE CLEAR. You can and should articulate even while speaking fast. When it comes to arguments, I'm honestly fine with anything. Just be sure to justify it, especially with more iffy things like conditionality. Discolsure is good. In Utah we don't need it as much, or stuff like opencaselist, but tell your oponents your plan before round. The goal is to defend your plan, not to make it impossible for them to debate it.

PF

PF is pretty chill. I do put more emphasis on speaking style and skill than LD or Policy. However, the round is weighed on the flow and the arguments. Other than that its a pretty basic debate type. Debate good!

LD

LD is the form I'm least familiar with. I'm fine with both trad and prog LD. Just justify what you're doing in your speeches. I will use FW and the V and VC to judge the round, but unless the values and vcs are super different, don't make the whole debate a framework debate. Those aren't fun, especially when they are so similar.

Speech

Speak good. There isn't really a lot of things I'm looking for with speech. I'm not too bothered by small tics or fidgets while speaking (I rock back and forth a lot when I'm talking) and will focus more on the vocal aspect. Of course, body language can't hurt, but it likely won't be a deciding factor for me.

I'm a sophomore at the University of Utah, and I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and was my team's Debate Captain my senior year. I also competed in Big Questions occasionally and have judged plenty of LD, so your round is in good hands.

Impacts > warrants (IMPACT CALC!!!! Weigh! Your! Impacts!)

Tech > truth (I don't care what you argue as long as you can argue it well; make sure your links are solid.)

I value topicality. If your argument is not topical you probably will not win the round. Please read the resolution carefully before you write a case on it. Literally my biggest pet peeve is non-topical arguments.

Analyze your evidence. Don't just read it, tell me what it means and why it matters.

SIGNPOST! Tell me what arguments you are addressing in your speeches. Makes my job so much easier and your round will go much smoother.

Utilize your framework throughout the round. Don't spend time telling me that your framework is better than your opponents, because I do not care - tell me how both your and your opponents' framework flows to your side. Framework should frame the round. Please actually tie your claims back to your framework.

VOTERS! Tell me why you won. I will take any voter you bring up into account. Utilize your final speech!!!

Be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to verbally abuse each other. Good sportsmanship still applies here.

I judge primarily based on flow, speaker points will be given for presentation and sportsmanship. I do not flow cross-ex, any points made in cross will not be flowed unless they're brought up in a later speech.

As your judge I'm simply just here to observe, your round is between you and your opponent. You direct and control the round, I'm just here to watch.

Debated for Rowland Hall (~1 yr on the circuit), West HS (1), and Brookfield East (1).

Add me to the chain mdagar2074@gmail.com

TL;DR debate is a game

-------

I learned from the goat Arunabh

- send evidence read in speech to the chain for a bump up in speaks, same goes for open-source disclosing and not paraphrasing

- don't delay the round so just preflow before round

------

Topical stuff

- if you read like a 4 contention case I'll be sad, sole contentions tend to have better depth of argumentation.

- DAs/Overviews in PF are very scummy so if you read a DA make sure it actually interacts with some level of the argument (preferably link).

- weighing should be started in rebuttal -- it makes for the most fun debates imo.

Speed

- Fine with speed if it is cut card spreading just send a doc if above 275 wpm and slow down on tags and author names.

- do not spread 250+ wpm if you paraphrase it just makes me wanna cry bruh cause its a 4 minute speech scattered with 50 cards and blippy warranting.

- I'll yell clear.

- slow down in final

Evidence

- even though I don't like paraphrasing I'll still evaluate paraphrased ev.

- misconstrued evidence is struck off the flow but depending on the severity it can warrant an L

Prog (Theory/K/T)

I believe that disclosing is good (here's how to) and paraphrasing is bad but I won't necessarily hack for either.

- If you read disclosure theory I expect open source disclosure with tags, highlights, and cites/creds. I'll evaluate OS v Full-text debates.

- If you read paraphrasing theory I expect you to tag, not just read the cut (the vacancy of tags just leads to more blippy args which doesn't abide by one of the common justifications of the theory)

- default to competing interps and no RVIs

- Read trigger warnings for obviously triggering subjects

- severance is bad -- explain kicks or turns are fair game

- kritiks are ok especially topical ones (please not cap k though). Make sure you have an alt that isn't "reject the aff." I don't really like judging these rounds though.

- no tricks

- theory spikes are kinda wack but I'll evaluate them

Hello I am a University of Utah student on the John R. Park Debate Society. This is my second year of college forensics and currently compete in impromptu, persuasive, informative, IPDA, and NPDA. I debated throughout my high school years in PF and impromptu. I like to have good rounds that are respectful, and have good clash. I am fine with you running pretty much anything as long as you can explain it and make it clear for me to flow. I am ok with speed as long as you are clear but if me or your opponents ask you to clear or slow down I do expect you to be considerate.

Debate Events: No spewing, please! Just looking to make sure you are respectfully addressing every point and have strong evidence to back it up. And have fun :)

Speech Events: I will focus on flow, eye contact, hand movements, and how intentional and useful they were to your speech. I am a pretty easy judge, however, I will give as much feedback as much as I can to help you guys grow for region and state! Doing it with much love, have fun!

Unless you are POI, make sure you aren't reading off of anything unless you have certain accommodations, in which case please let me know.

I did PF in high school for 3 years- I qualified for national's multiple times and was an academic all american. While I mostly did PF I am familiar with every event, speech and debate. I have a decent understanding of the NSDA guidelines as well as the 'norms' for each.

Yes, I do want to be included in any email chains (milletmyla@gmail.com)

I can handle speed, but clarity and quality of argument is far more important than quantity. I love a good unique argument if it is well thought through and backed up. If you are using technical abbreviations, you need to tell me what they are. Talking about a contention and actually rebutting it are not the same thing.

Arguments must be extended through speeches in order for me to vote on them. IMPACT CALCULATION IS A MUST. On that note I will not vote on dropped arguments. aka WEIGH

If you do not sign post/tag during your speeches idk where to flow and if I don’t flow it idk what to vote on. I will not flow cross; I will be doing my econ hw during it. If something important happens in cross, bring it up in the speech directly following it.

Time yourselves, don’t steal prep time, keep off time roadmaps concise.

Above all else keep rounds pleasant, constructive, educational, and a safe environment. I can appreciate/enjoy a witty, clever, or funny debater but be mindful, bigotry will not be tolerated.

For speech events, I want your message to be clear, there should be a balance between performative and informative. Don't be monotone. Change up your speaking patterns to emphasize key points. Be mindful of each event's time parameters.

For congress, tie your speeches back to what has been talked about, repeating the same point three other people have already made will not move you up in the ranking. I believe that congress is a hybrid between speech and debate (may be a hot take) so argumentation and speech performances are both important, speeches should be interactive not standalone. I am of the belief that congress speeches should not just be a numbers game, quality matters as well as quantity. Giving the most speeches will not automatically mean that you will be given a higher ranking.

My email is aobdebate@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a second-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah and studying international relations.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

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

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

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

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

Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

Hi!! I'm Emmalee! And I am SO excited to meet you! I competed in PF in high school (and LOVED it!) so I'm super excited to be judging you! I'm currently a member of Weber State's speech & debate team and I've learned a lot about public speaking from my coaches, team, opponents, and judges, so hopefully I can give you some helpful tips :)

**I know this is long, but thinking in your perspective as a competitor, I know it's extremely comforting when my judges have paradigms and when I know more about how they judge, I'm (1) a lot more comfortable and confident & (2) I tend to perform better in round because I know what my judge is looking for. So I figured I would provide everything about me as a judge so it's ready for you to read if you're interested.**

Here's EVERYTHING:

#1 is CONFIDENCE! When you present your arguments clearly & firmly I am more likely to (1) follow your line of thinking & (2) agree with your argument(s). When I can see that you believe what you're saying it makes it a lot easier for me to believe you, too.

FRAMEWORK: As for framework, I don't have a preference of whether you have one or not. Do what you feel makes your case & arguments better and I'm happy with it! One thing I do suggest when it comes to framework, though, is that if you do have one, make sure to stick to it! Don't mention it at the beginning of the round and never bring it up again; if you present a framework, tie your arguments to it and use it to your advantage. Also if your opponent proposes a framework, make sure to mention whether you accept it or not because that will affect how I apply the framework to my decision. If you do not say whether you accept/deny it I will assume it is accepted.

CONDUCT: A big thing I really care about in debate is respect. We're here to have fun! Let's not put each other down...where's the fun in that? Make sure when you debate you aren't attacking the person but rather you're attacking their argument. If I see any blatant disrespect I will be giving that team the loss. Another thing to note: make sure you and your partner are working together! PF is a team event for a reason; the round plays out much smoother if you & your partner aren't stepping on each other's toes.

CROSS: I do love to see a nice & heated cross ;) Good cross questions and even better answers make for a really fun few minutes! Don't be scared to cut your opponent off if they are taking up too much time, I don't count that as disrespect. In my opinion, the more aggressive you are in cross, the better (just make sure you aren't rude).

SPEED: I can keep up fairly well with quick speaking, just make sure it isn't so fast that even your opponent misses your arguments. Fast is great when it comes to saving time, but I'd rather you have less arguments and have them be clear & understandable rather than a lot of arguments that are slurred & jumbled.

GRACE PERIODS: I am totally okay with grace periods! Try not to go over 15 seconds (as a general rule); just finish up what you are saying and you're ALL GOOD!

TIME: Make sure to fill your time. If you run out of things to say, that's okay, just run over cases again. I don't mind if you repeat yourself as long as that's a last resort.

DEFINITIONS: Provide definitions if you feel they are necessary, it's all up to you! I would advise against definition debates if possible, though. I understand sometimes it's inevitable but if it is avoidable, make sure to steer clear of it. We're here to debate about the resolution, not a single word of the resolution.

FLOW: I will try to keep a detailed flow so I have an accurate reference of your arguments & rebuttals, but I will also be spending a significant amount of time taking notes on what I think will help you improve, what I saw that I liked, etc. I most likely won't flow cross unless I hear something so insanely good I don't want to forget it.

SOURCES/EVIDENCE: I'll take notes on whether you have sources (that are at least fairly reliable) or not so make sure you have sufficient evidence. I don't care if you have citations, per se, (i.e. "Peterson, 2023" at the end of every line you use that source for) just make sure you tell me the source and the date (i.e. "According to a study done by Pew Research Center in 2022..."). Either method works for me! As for kinds of evidence, personally I am more inclined to side with an argument that has both empirical and anecdotal evidence. If you can convince me that your side tops your opponents' both logically and morally, you've got me hooked!

BIAS: I see arguments from a nuanced perspective quite well and always think on both sides, so don't worry about me being biased!

FINAL FOCUS: First, make sure you avoid bringing up new arguments in FF, it isn't fair to your opponent because they don't have a chance to respond. Second, voters! I personally view them as a really good opportunity for you to tell me your perspective on the debate. When you use voters, I'll put more weight onto the specific points that you mention. For example, if there was dropped argumentation in the round and you don't bring it up during FF, I'm less likely to take it into consideration when deciding who wins the round. Or if you had a really good cross question that your opponents couldn't answer or gave the answer you wanted and it helped your argument, take note of that when it happens and make sure speaker 2 brings it up in voters! Cross is a really good opportunity to defeat some arguments, make sure you don't forget about it! All in all, I won't dock you for not bringing up voters, I just suggest you do use them because it makes for a crisp, clean wrap up of the debate.

SIDE NOTES: Make sure you stand up during your speeches! I personally believe standing up helps with everything from delivery to confidence and all the in-betweens. Also, try to use a healthy balance of Aristotle's 3 Modes of Persuasion: Ethos (ethics), Pathos (emotion), and Logos (logic)! They're better together!

And lastly, HAVE SO MUCH FUN! YOU'VE GOT THIS!!

PLEASE READ: If you have ANY questions AT ALL, please please please PLEASE feel completely free to ask me! I'm here to help you and I want to in every way I can. So if you want direct feedback or you have any other sort of questions or inquiries, ask away! If you see me around campus after round gets out, go ahead and pull me aside. I won't count any conversation or questions after round towards my win/loss verdict, I promise! If you don't see me after round or you prefer to ask via email, here's mine: emmalee.m.prince05@gmail.com. Please reach out! I will do my very best to give you all the feedback I can!

See you soon!!! ;)

hi, my name is emma, i'm gonna be your judge.

basically, from the way i understand high school debate, debate is a quantitive sparring game mapped on to a qualitative sport.

and, i don't think that's always educationally productive. what i think is educationally worthwhile is to engage in practicing the art of persuasion.

i'll try to follow the tit-for-tat sparring arguments, i'll try to map that on to the argument value hierarchy over which rock-paper-scissors argument trumps your opponents'; but don't be mistaken, i'm really bad at that. please include very clear roadmaps at the beginning of your turns arguing, but above all else, commit to the bit. make me believe that what you are saying is true. make the case by appealing to emotions.TRY TO MANIPULATE MY UNDERSTANDING OF A SITUATION as your judge.

also, if you bring in any sort of theory, or critical philosophical deconstructive arguments, i like those a lot. if you can demonstrate arguments that challenge the broader frameworks at hand, that really gets my attention.

I am relatively new to speech and debate but I judged at last years Nationals in Phoenix/Mesa and at a tournament in Utah. I listen very closely to what both sides say and take lots of notes. I don't know a lot about flow and other buzz words but I am college educated and have worked in management positions for many years. I take my role very seriously and try to act as professionally as possible. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for every competitor and do my very best to pick the most deserving. You should be very proud to have made it this far and hopefully this will be a great experience that you will cherish (as I do) for the rest of your lives.

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City.

I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I have been a PF lab leader at NDF, CNDI, and PFBC.

I mostly competed in PF in high school, but also dabbled in LD and speech.

I judge about 100 rounds per year. Most of these rounds are PF, though I sparingly -- and generally begrudgingly -- judge Policy, Parli, and LD.

I study economics at the University of Utah.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

-- While I've included some thoughts on different types of arguments below, my foremost preference is that you make your favorite argument in front of me.

-- I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

-- Debate is a communicative activity. I will never flow off a speech doc.

-- I believe PF, LD, and Policy are all evidence-based formats, so quality evidence -- and quality spin on evidence -- is very impressive and persuasive. I flow author names and prefer that extensions include those.

-- Be silly and down to earth and not dominant or aggressive. A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

-- I have no qualms with speed in any format, but if you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold. I will 'clear' you twice before I stop flowing.

-- Impact comparison is very important to me. It is likely that both teams will prove some harm/benefit of the AFF. Whether that becomes a net harm/benefit of the AFF often hinges on weighing. Tell me why I should vote for you even if I buy your opponents' argument.

-- Tell me how to decide what's true and resolve competing claims. The team that makes the most warranted "prefer our evidence/empirics because" statements tends to win my ballot.

-- I do not time speeches or track prep. Please hold one another accountable so I don't have to. If I have begun doing so, you should all feel called out.

-- I'm a stickler about extensions. In my RFDs, I sometimes find myself saying things like: "the Neg wins that the Aff causes a recession, but I'm not sure why a recession is bad, so I ignore it." This also illustrates the importance of terminalizing impacts -- such statements are most likely when there was not an impact to begin with.

-- I don't think it is good to advocate for death or self harm, and I do not think that is a bias I will be persuaded to overcome.

-- I have never voted on presumption and I doubt you'll be the first to change that.

Evidence and Email Chains:

-- Anyone who does not meet NSDA evidence standards should politely strike me.

-- Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs. Title it something logical and addgavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

-- I tend not to open the email chain. If I'm instructed to read a specific card, I will.

-- You should not need a marked doc. An inability to flow is a skill issue that should not delay the round. Speaker points will be lower if you delay the round for marked docs.

PF

-- I will only vote on arguments that are in both summary and final focus.

-- Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

-- I like to see weighing done as soon as possible. If weighing is introduced in the second summary, I'll be much more sympathetic to quick answers to it in the first final focus. No new weighing in final focus.

-- Warrants for your weighing will be most persuasive when predicated on claims from your evidence.

-- Crossfire and flex prep exist so that we do not need a 'flow clarification' timeout during the debate.

LD/Policy

-- I judge Policy/LD a few times most years.

-- (Almost certainly correctly) assume I know nothing about the topic.

-- Top speed may challenge me, but you do you. I'll 'clear' twice.

-- I'm willing to evaluate nearly any argument, but I will be most comfortable hearing the kinds you would expect in a Public Forum round.

Kritiks:

-- I have coached a couple K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting. That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach.

-- Assume I know nothing about your literature.

-- Please keep in mind that I am of incredibly average intelligence.

-- I will not vote on arguments premised on another debater's identity. An argument premised on your own identity is certainly permissible.

-- Aim to engage. I am most interested in criticisms that directly indict the Aff or otherwise have a link to the topic. I'm less interested in criticisms that rely on a ROTB or framework argument to exclude other offense in the round. Conversely, I am most impressed by Aff teams willing to contest the thesis of the critique.

-- Consider me a lay judge in this realm, but feel free to read one if you would find it strategic or fulfilling.

Theory:

-- I will vote on disclosure theory if a team does not disclose at all.I would otherwise strongly prefer not to judge a theory debate. I will evaluate the round as debated, but I will use speaker points punitively if you ignore this preference.

-- Unless I feel compelled to contact DCFS, I will be skeptical of accusations of "abuse."

IVIs:

-- I tend not to like these arguments.

Tricks:

-- This is where I will be most likely to intervene in my decision. I would rather watch paint dry.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigms for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

CX (ASU 2025)
I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school and then did a semester of speech in college. Beyond that I’ve coached for the last four years. I competed in policy for one season, but never went to a debate camp. Most of what I know from the event has come from judging and coaching kids who are far better than I ever was. It would be accurate to say that most of my experience as a competitor was in speech. That being said, I know how to flow, I know how to evaluate kritiks, theory, couterplans, dissads, etc, so run whatever you please. Your best course of action is to treat me like an experienced lay judge. I know what I’m doing, but I won’t be able to keep up with the highest levels of competition.

I also have some unpopular hot takes about policy debate you should know about:

· I believe debate is an activity built around oral communication, and I want to hear you speak. Because of this, I will likely not be reading your speech doc unless an issue arises. Ask yourself this, if you’re talking so fast someone needs to read your script to keep up, is it even a speech? Or is it just an indiscernible collection of words to satisfy a technicality. Speaking with a rapid pace is fine, but I ask that you maintain clear enunciation during signposting, taglines, and anything that isn’t strictly the body of evidence. You’re free to spread however you see fit, but I leave you with this wisdom: if you want me to write it down, slow down and give emphasis.

· I believe that debate is more than a game. I see debate as a place where some of the brightest young people in the world can discuss incredibly important issues. It’s for this reason that I’m not too fond of convoluted impacts scenarios. Not every policy arg needs to end in a nuclear war and not every kritik needs to end in some foolishly assumed global revolution. There are authentic and tangible issues that people suffer through every day that are neglected for the sake of having a bigger impact. It’s a silly arms race that scorns the real problems happening in the world. “To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom ─ it is indolence.”

· I believe that cards are not truth currency, and not all arguments are created equal. While you may have the ability to find impact evidence for almost any scenario imaginable, I expect you to critically evaluate who or what qualifies as a credible source. Overall, I’m tech over truth, but if your argument stinks and lacks basis in reality it won’t take much from your opponent to convince me. And please, do weighing. Applying X card to Y argument does not tell me why their argument is wrong, it just tells me you have a massive block file. Spell it out for me.

Speech (MS NSDA 2024)

To put my experience briefly I did two years of debate and one year of FX, placing at HS Utah state finals in 2019. I've been coaching and judging on and off ever since.

I have one simple rule: entertain me. If the speech is entertaining and memorable and well executed you will get my vote. Extempers, bring good sources, I will be counting. I expect a good structure and an introduction as well. Impromptu, if your speech feels canned at all it'll not get a good reaction from me, you're better than that. Oratory, the floor is yours for 10 minutes, go wild, but please don't abuse the grace period. Interps, I expect an overall compelling narrative not just overstimulation for 10 minutes.

PF (Jack Howe 2023)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

I teach speech and debate, and I currently serve as a coach for Park City High School. I have been involved as a parent, a judge and a coach since 2015. I enter each round with respect and admiration for all of you, because you have chosen to engage in important conversations within this educational space.

If you want to read theory, please strike me.

In-round Preferences:

I love comparative weighing throughout the round.

The language you use during round is important. Please refrain from making arguments that contain language that might be hurtful to marginalized groups.

A good, robust cross is always appreciated, and I love a healthy clash, as long as it is respectful.

You know the rest - convince me that your arguments are better and you will pick-up my ballot.

My email is awilliams@pcschools.us

ADDED JUNE 2023

I've had about one year of experience judging debates at the High School level. My experience has largely been with congress and public forum events. As a judge, my primary focus is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the participants' performances. I firmly believe that decisions should be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and should not be influenced by personal or political biases. I will approach each round with an open mind, giving equal consideration to all viewpoints and avoiding any preconceived notions.

In evaluating the strength of an argument, I value the use of evidence from reputable sources. The inclusion of well-supported facts, statistics, and expert opinions can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. Participants who effectively incorporate such evidence into their speeches will receive due recognition for their analytical and research skills.

Furthermore, I will take into account the presentation style of each participant. While this includes aspects such as speech clarity, annunciation, and projection, it extends beyond these technical elements. I appreciate engaging speakers who effectively connect with their audience, employing appropriate gestures, vocal variation, and overall stage presence. These qualities contribute to the overall impact and effectiveness of the speaker's message.

I'm a lay judge

Policy: I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, add me to the email chain ehbzhu123@gmail.com

Try and make everything understandable for lay debate (traditional debate)

PF/LD: Clear concise and talk well. Good arguments