Experience:

I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.

I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.

Everything Important:

I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.

Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.

The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.

Some more specific stuff:

K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.

NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!

KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.

DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.

THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.

Please reach out with any questions:

email: k.brad130@gmail.com

(pls include me in any email chains)

Policy debater at Bingham High School for 2 years

Spewing is nbd, as long as you keep tag lines/analysis/important stuff very audible. Probably won't vote for theory, but you do you. ALL DEFENSE ARGS MUST CLEARLY LINK!! Huge huge fan of impact calc. I frequently ran topicality as a debater, but don't usually vote for it. Whomever decides to run a kritik must demonstrate a full understanding of those philosophies. Remember that debate is a game! Entertainment is expected and feistiness is encouraged!

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Arthur Wardle

3 years debating, attended SCFI 2-week and Georgetown 3-week

An argument consists of three things--a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

I can keep up with your speed--but slowing down on tags will really help your speaks.

While I have biases (which I'll talk about more below), I will vote for anything. That includes cheap-shot arguments, though I'm obviously going to have a higher threshold in accordance with how sketchy something is.

T: While in-round abuse really does help, I believe it's possible to win on potential abuse. Reasonability/Competing Interpretations debates are convincing to me. T really is about impact analysis--proving they are not topical is not enough to win topicality--you have to win that being untopical is BAD. Government based definitions with clear distinctions are more convincing than relying on standards with a shoddy definition.

For Condo, I agree with Andrew Arsht: 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is dumb. Of course a condo debate can still happen with only 1 condo argument, but it's going to be a lot harder to convince me.

F/W: I default to policymaker but you can convince me however you want. For full disclosure I've always been a policy team, so I probably have some sort of precognitive bias towards policymaking frameworks.

K: I don't really like the way that K debate has evolved in policy debate--but I'm stilling willing to vote for them. I do think that you should have an overview in the block just to explain the philosophy behind the K--no matter whether you think I already know it or not. Assume I've never heard of the philosophy and debate from that standpoint (unless it's a Cap K or something equally prolific).

Case: I don't really have any different opinions about the aff--for K affs see the F/W and K sections.

CP: Plan-specific CPs are fantastic. I am not talking about States CPs with specific solvency cards, I'm talking about specific counterplans. I don't love process/consult/actor/etc CP's but I'll vote for them. 2NC CPs are sketchy but if the aff isn't winning theory I'll still vote for them.

DA: Nothing special here either. I don't love the Ptx DA but I'll vote on it.

Zero risk exists. Even-if statements are mint.

I'm here because I like policy and I want to help you do better. You should want to be here, and even if you don't, you should pretend you do. If I'm judging you at one of those godawful tournaments that don't allow disclosure, find me after the round sometime and I'll be happy to give some critiques.

I love warrant comparison and impact analysis. Do that and you'll be fine.