I did Public Forum for 4 years, and have been judging for 3.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't reading at the speed of a policy constructive

I trust you guys to time yourselves

I lean toward tech>truth

I do not flow cross, It is a clarifying period for both debaters, however, if you deem something important was brought up in cross, please mention it in a speech in order for it to continue on the flow. Make sure not to end up having cross becoming a yelling match, it is not going to make me want to vote for you more.

Make sure to weigh and use Impact Calculus in final speeches, ex.(magnitude, timeframe)

if you need my email for email chains: scottccoller@gmail.com

Molly Cozzens

Rowland Hall, Hired Judge

Email: mollycozzens@((gmail))

Experience

I competed in high school LD and college parli. I won nationals in impromptu and placed 3rd in parli. I coached for a year, taught public speaking at a university for three years, and have judged for six years.

I judge because I want to support the educational value of debate in society: competitors engaging with academic research, exploring complex new ideas, and developing classical argumentation techniques.

For Everyone

Focus on articulating your warrants - this is the bread and butter of argumentation. Don't just say "extend" and leave it for me to fill in the blanks.

I reward earnestness, respect toward others, and original analysis that makes the round intellectually expansive and challenging - that’s what makes debate fun for you and for me.

Speaker points start at 28 as a baseline. Extra points for those who demonstrate persuasive rhetorical techniques such as verbal fluency, humor, conversational tone, clever vocabulary and analogies, etc.

CX Paradigm

Depth of argumentation > speed and jargon.

Open to various types of arguments, relevant Ks, etc. It's uncommon for me to vote on theory unless it is used to address an egregious problem. I find that theory arguments tend to distract from the substance of the round.

LD/PF Paradigm

Open to both trad and prog LD. If I encounter a trad-prog dyad in round, the competitor who engages in the most sophisticated argumentation (and convinces me to prefer their approach) will win.

Both LD and PF allow more space for beautiful speaking and detailed reasoning, so make the most of this opportunity!

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

For debates/Congress/Extemp/etc.:

Structure/organization is critical. Therefore, provide a roadmap: state your thesis, state your contention(s), and provide a brief summaryup front. Before transitioning from one contention to the next, summarize what you have just demonstrated (e.g., a statement that starts with "Therefore..." and then basically restates the take-home-message of that contention.

Arguments must be sound and should be easy to follow. Don't make assumptions.

Delivery: I care far more about quality than quantity. One of the strongest PF arguments I judged had only one contention. Speaking loud and fast is not persuasive; making a good argument is.

Rebuttals, etc.: Use cross examination time to undermine and/or demonstrate the flaws in your opponent's position. Be specific and direct.

For POI:

Great character development with clear distinctions (blocking, posture, voice, etc.) is vital.

I'm an ex-LD debater but it has been a long time. I'm a professional philosopher and comfortable with philosophical arguments and probably take a classic/traditional approach to judging. Arguments matter more to me than frame. I am ok with almost any warranted argument, but if I can't understand it or it doesn't make sense, I won't vote for it.Signposting should be explicit but needs to be part of your allotted time. Dropped arguments matter only if you show that they matter--if they weren't decisive in the first place then they don't magically become decisive when your opponent doesn't address them. A summary of issues related to voting is very useful to me as judge. I am ok with speaking rapidly but not with full-on spreading or at the expense of clarity. I don't like tricks or technicalities. I'm not likely to respond well to kritiks of any sort.

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!

tl;dr

tech > truth, but i'm more likely to be persuaded by dynamic and engaging speakers

i'm bad at flowing. removing cards from your case and slowing down will enormously help you win my ballot.

if you try to use tech to box out less experienced/trad LD opponents you will not win my ballot. slow down, drop the jargon and meet them at their level to have the best chance to win.

i don't really care about cards, make smart arguments.

i flow arguments, not authors. if you reference an argument by the author, i will have no idea what you are referring to

i like K debate but i'm not experienced with it. slow down, explain in plain english, and clearly label the parts. K affs are cool but i prefer it if they still defend the resolution.

collapse, collapse, collapse. going for everything wins you nothing

Long Version for Tryhards and People With Too Much Time

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am now the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell. If you run disclosure T against a trad aff with no plan text, I sign my ballot before the 1AR.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is ascourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I will sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do. There is no educational value to an activity where your opponent can't engage with you.

On Critical Debate:

I like a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a non-topical K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors. I don't flow authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF: If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy, and as a judge I have an obligation to uphold that norm. That means no plans, no counterplans, no theory, and no topicality.

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

My experience is pretty vast. I competed in all the standard debate events, along with Extemp in speech. Competed at NSDA’s in Congress, PF, and Extemp. (Broke in PF) Competed at NCFL’s and went to Semi’s in Congress. Competed at TOC in Congress.

I’m from a pretty small debate team originally that had no access to high end resources such as specific coaching, camps, briefs, etc. Because of this I’m mostly a traditional judge. While progressive arguments are fine, comprehension is sometimes difficult for myself.

I’m primarily a tech judge over a truth judge. While I wouldn’t believe the sky is red, claims that go uncontested and not clashed against, that get brought up in final speeches will be weighed.

K/T can be brought up, but for the most part goes way over my head. I’m fine listening to these arguments.

Signposting and roadmaps are really appreciated. Grouping together specific args, I.e. three turns on contention 1, would be more useful than reading 1 turn, then a disad, then attack the warrant, then bring up another turn.

Evidence quality matters, empirics and peer reviewed evidence is weighed more than simple news evidence.

I’m pretty much fine with students deciding how the round should go, just communicate it with me if you want to do anything outside the norm

I personally hate speaks, I think they are a bad tie breaker, and I never want to be the reason that students don’t break when they win debates, because of this, I give the highest points I can. The exception to this, is courtesy in cross. If you are being rude, I will give lower speaks. There’s no reason to be insulting for someone misunderstanding questions, arguments, etc.

I don’t flow cross, please bring up what’s said in cross in your speech, if you want it to be flowed

Speed is fine, although if I can't understand it I will say clear, this will only happen once. High pace conversation pace is best for me.

Have fun! I know that debate is highly competitive, but it should more fun than stress.

Email: prestongknutson@gmail.com Email me if you have questions.

I look forward to lively, professional debates that are well thought out and well supported. I prefer debaters to stick to the flow.

Spewing: Do not spew or spread to the point that I cannot understand you. Things that you say too fast for me to understand I cannot mark down on the flow. I will say "clear" once if I can't understand you.

K's: Do not run them, I will vote you down.

I appreciate voters/reasons why you should win.

Evidence is important!

Be respectful to your opponent. I value good sportsmanship.

I did policy for 1 year in High-school without a coach And somehow ended up Being the Head coach of East High school. I don't know how this happened and I want to go home.

I am a technique over truth judge, I will vote on theory, topicality, Condo, and all other goofy things if I believe it comes down to that. Nothing is really off limits when it comes technique and how you deal with them. I just love good technique.

That also means I will give wins over uncontested arguements.

I have given wins to teams that have claimed that climate change isn't real because their opponents didn't touch it. No matter how ridiculous it, you just have to relate it back to the case

If you are going to speak fast, it will be beneficial to my flows if you slow down and make it clear when you read a new card. Read the title of the card, date, and author of the card clearly. That greatly helps me and you if I can correct flow.

With flows in mind. Please have a good road map before you start to speak. I will struggle without one. Though it's not required, I would recommend asking for permission to start a speech so my flows are in order (after you roadmap)

1. any reference to high school musical will make you lose points. That franchise doesnt exist, yes I know I coach the High-school musical school, but it doesn't exist

With that in mind, have fun, be respectful, keep in mind that I barley know what I'm doing, and good luck.





Debate is love
Debate is life

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

In not a fan of how extinction level impacts are run.I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction just be careful with the link chain

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

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

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.

Debaters should argue the resolution. CX is CX and therefore speed is fine. PF and LD are not CX and so speed is not. Be respectful of all debaters. Follow all rules and decorum of Debate.

I am first and foremost an LD judge, and haven't had much experience in other debate formats like Policy or PF. As a result, I will be disclosing my paradigm for LD exclusively here.

LD: I prefer you to err on the side of traditional debate, as I don't have much experience with Policy or concepts that originate from there, nor do I have much experience with things such as Ks. However, I do quite like counterplans and would encourage running them if you have them available.

I value well-research contentions and framework above all else -- providing evidence is great. I would suggest you avoid trying to appeal to my emotions; LD is a morality-based debate, but I will vote based primarily on if your evidence is strongest regardless of my moral leanings.

Signposting is highly encouraged! I do like a very clear-structured debate and am not very partial to chaos. Please try to avoid spreading - speak clearly so I can understand you. I will let you know one time throughout the debate if I cannot understand you, but will not flow if you continue to speak at a level I can't understand.

I am relatively generous in terms of speaker points, but I will not hesitate to dock you if I find you to be disrespectful towards your opponent.

experience: cx, pf, ld, bq, congress, world schools

cx

include me on the email chain. it's pretty rare that i will vote on t, that would be a very special circumstance. tell my how many off case positions you're running please. i'm fine with any type of argument as long as you articulate it well. i feel like there isn't really anything unique to put here, if you have specific question you can feel free to ask me. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is more often than not based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross- don't just start rambling off an argument during that time, ask questions and move on, alsoif you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, but not if you're sacrificing clarity- also speed doesn't equate to spreading.

lincoln douglas

speed is okay, but not at the cost of clarity. no need to spread but if you absolutely must then you should warn me/ your opponent and probably send out the doc. please do not turn the whole round into a framework debate. if you want to debate frameworks the whole time, don't allow it to dominate your speech time. be sure to actually be relating your arguments/ impacts back to the framework you've chosen to run. i am big on line by line, that's what makes the decision. i am fine with any type of arguments, as long as you have a link/ warrant to the case you're making. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

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.

John Shackelford

Independent: Able2Shine, Park City High School, Rowland Hall, The Harker School

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Update for ASU: I've barely judged any rounds this season and I'm not coaching at all at the moment, so go a little slower than usual to help me flow and explain any topic specific terms more than you usually would.

TL;DR Do whatever makes you comfortable (this includes reading any arg allowed by the tournament, tag-team cx, flex prep, and spreading)

Experience: I did 7 years of policy (2 in middle school, 4 in HS @ SLC West, 1 in college hybrid @ UTD)

I'm currently attending the University of Utah.

Add me to the email chain - westslcps[at]gmail[dot]com - also please use this email for doc requests, questions about a round or about debate in general (I really enjoy talking about debate so you will never be bothering me by sending me an email).

The email chain title should include the name of the tournament, round #, Aff Team Code and Neg team code (i.e. TOC R1 SLC West PS v Appleseed YZ) and the file names should be more descriptive than just '2AC'.

General

Warrants > Tech > Truth

If you lack clarity, turn it down slightly otherwise I may miss important arguments. Flowing/info processing time is real, if you are trying to speak at top speed with little vocal inflection, I may miss a whole lot. I don't flow off the doc but I will have it open to check for clipping (reduced speaks unless the other team calls you out in which case I'll do whatever tab says). I will say clear once and then stop flowing and make it obvious.

I genuinely hate bad disclosure practices.

Everything in my paradigm is a 'default'. If a team wins something that I shouldn't default to (debate isn't a game, competing interps < reasonability, etc.), then for that debate, I will accept the claim while coming up with my rfd.

I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. Some additional thoughts.

1. If your overview is long enough that I need another page to flow it, I heard oratory is running thin for competitors. Being a K-debater, I know it is tempting to read these overviews, but often, parts of these overviews can be read on line-by-line.
2. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, so please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."
3. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it. This means that the 2NR and the 2AR should write my ballot for me and usually I will quote you in my RFD.
4. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
5. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation (but cross-applying stuff is chill).
6. Well-explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
7. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
8. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
9. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and email the 1AC before the round start time.

Argument specifics:

AFFs: I have the most experience in Baudrillard K-affs but I have also read a k-aff with a plan text we defended an entire season, I read a 'hard right' aff on CJR and wrote a couple of 'soft left' affs. I read an Anti-blackness aff last season. What I'm saying is do you what you do best, and I'll be more than happy to adapt. If your aff is 'soft left', you need to ensure you are always ahead on the impact calc debate (put framing on a separate page in the 1AC).

DAs: Offense > Defense. Idk if I will never buy zero risk, but offense can overcome a 1% risk if that makes sense. I love specific link debates and turns case arguments. Impact calc is crucial.

CPs: I'm pretty neg biased on theory. That being said, tech over truth insofar as warrants are there. An argument is a claim AND a warrant (plus the author, an author is not an argument). If you say judge-kick, I probably will. If judge-kick is new in the 2NR, the 2AR doesn't have to do too much work to win it's bad. Please try and prove in round abuse.

Topicality: I don't think that all T debates are boring. Usually, I will go for competing interps before reasonability. Topicality is just hard on every topic, but it is always good to have a very solid interp card. Fairness is an impact, just a terrible one. I think it is better to use it as an internal link to education or something but you do you.

Kritiks: Yes I have read Kritiks. I have read Kritiks from all over the spectrum- such as Abolition and Orientalism but also Baudrillard and Psychoanalysis. That being said I need you to explain your Kritik as you would to any other judge. I'm not going to do what work for you. I will also know if you don't know what you aren't talking about, read what you know best. I think debate is a game with multiple educational benefits.

Speaker points. I try to change the way I evaluate speaks based on the tournament, you might get a 30 for the same debate at a small tournament but only a 28 at a TOC qualifying tournament.

This is obviously a long paradigm, but if I missed something feel free to email me with questions. I would recommend looking at the paradigms of debaters like Seiji Aoki, Saathvik Pai, Isaiah Ortiz, Hanna Rice, and Madeline Galian in case I am not able to clear something up in time (jokes about any of them that make me laugh will get you +0.1 speaks).

Hi! I'm Maddie Simpson (she/her). I did policy in high school and worked at Michigan Debate 7 Week this summer and am somewhat familiar with the topic, but please don't assume I know every generic on the topic.

Email me with questions always and anytime, also I like to be on email chains if there is one: maddiemarsimpson@gmail.com

Add me to email chain please! Cool with anything you want to run (I will say I don't like K's that are just for trolling). Spread your hearts out, but if you're not clear, it won't get flowed.

Cross Ex

>Tag team is fine, but avoid interrupting your partner if they attempt to answer first unless they're about to concede something or turn themselves.

>>Side Note: Whoever is supposed to be asking questions should be the main one asking questions, because cross-ex is prep for your partner

>It's totally fine if cross ex gets heated just make sure you don't waste time attacking someone's character rather than their arguments and case.

>A good cross ex makes a debate a lot more fun, i.e. creative and sneaky questions help both sides.

>Every moment of cross-ex should contain words, silence in cross ex is a strategic loss

>I really don't like when people concede cross-ex. I find it strategic to concede cross ex if you are debating in open; however, in novice there's always room for clarification and pinpointing where your opponents are lacking.

Main Factors in my Decision Calculus:

-Did you treat competitors with respect and inclusiveness? This should be simple.

-Did you make a case and give me a reason to vote for you?

-Did you attack the other side and provide evidentiary-based claims to support your case?

-Did you cover each flow?

-Was there high level analysis of big picture issues in the debate?

Novice Notes:

-Flowing gives you control in round, don't neglect to do it.

-Please use email chain even though you have same evidence, it's good practice and highlighting, etc. is relevant often.

-If you are panicking or blanking, I'd rather you take a second and breathe in the hall or in your seat then to concede a speech or fumble through it incomprehensibly. I totally get that stress and as a novice. If it's only a second or so or you need some water, I won't take away any prep. Don't push it though as I want you to have the opportunity to give the best speech you can.

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.

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.

I like to follow the rubric for judging. Looking for a great case presented with conviction. Good luck!