Debate Experience
4 years at Highland in SLC, Utah.
3 years of policy, 1 year of LD that was progressive by Utah standards, but probably not as progressive as some circuit debaters.
I mostly debated in Utah, although I did some circuit debate at tournaments like Alta and UNLV.

Revised September 27, 2015 (Young Lawyers/Beehive Bonanza):

My involvement in debate since graduating high school has been limited to judging at a handful of tournaments. This means that my judging style has become more traditional than what it used to be. I am not opposed to any style of debate on principal, but there are certain arguments that I will be less likely to understand, such as some kritiks. Similarly, while I don’t dislike speed, I probably can’t keep up as much as other judges. How fast is too fast? I dunno. 

This year, I am going to start voting based on who I think did the better debating (as per the ballots used at most tournaments). To me, “Better Debating”, while entirely subjective, reflects a variety of (what I think are) reasonable expectations for debate, like

• How interesting you are (Translation: Would I rather watch you debate or read my cell bio textbook?)
• How organized you are (Translation: How many cups of tea will it take to get rid of the headache that looking through my flows has given me?)
• The quality of your arguments (Translation: Re-read your case right now and ask yourself if your second contention is really as good as you think it is.)
• How convincing you are (Translation: Is listening to you like listening to PETA trying to persuade me to become vegan? You’d better hope it isn’t.)
• Are you engaging with your opponents arguments (Translation: Debate without clash is like a football game where every kickoff is returned for a TD. The only difference is that your speaker points will be much, much lower.)
• Your understanding of the arguments you read (Translation: Did you actually prepare your case or did your coach say "Read this, have fun, peace out" without explaining it to you?)

I also don't think there is any such thing as an argument that is "right" in the context of debate. Just arguments that are better articulated to me. With that being said, there are definitely arguments that are objectively not true.

In the past, debaters who have won my ballot do a better job of explaining to me what arguments they have won, why they have won those arguments, and why those arguments matter in terms of my decision. 

Pet Peeves:

• Disorganized, boring debaters who make weak arguments
• Debates without clash
• Sports metaphors
• Recycled, cliched statements like "I can only see an aff ballot", or "As a brief, off-time roadmap".
• Reading an argument without purpose (Contrary to what your coach has told you, I don’t need you to define the word “The”. If you are never going to bring something up past the 1ac, don’t read it)
• People trying to shake my hand at the end of a round (DON’T. I will pretend to be sick. And chances are I won’t be.)
• Arguing with me (not the same as asking questions) about my decision (You lose 1 speaker point for every 30 seconds you argue with me)
• Being rude to your opponent (Wanna see how low your speaks can go?)

The most important thing is that you have fun and debate the way you feel most comfortable. I promise that I will do my best to accommodate any style of debate, and to be flexible in my decision making. There is no right or wrong way to debate.

If you have questions, email me at
yotam6@gmail.com

Good luck. I guess.
-Yotam

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop persuasive specific links to your desired argument strategy. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I think that the policy consequences and ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link.

9. Develop and compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

Rachel Carlson

Juan Diego 2014

TOC Quailfier, Women's Debate Institute Collegiate Scholar 

Coached by; Josh Clark, Tony Johnson 

I was a primarily a 2N/1A. 

I am now an assistant coach for Juan Diego. 

I like debates on both sides of the ideological divide. I myself have forwarded arguments from a wide range of stylings, from feminism to hegemony. As long as your argument has a clear claim, warrant, and impact I am willing to vote on it. 

If I don't understand the argument you are trying to make, the chances of me evaluating it are slim. Take a second to ask yourself "is this coherent?" before you make an argument. Too many debaters stop the argument creation process at identifying what they need to say, and forget how important it is to find an effective way to say it.

Specificity is key. I am compelled to vote for contextual examples, in-depth refutation and historical examples. I reward specific strategies and research with higher speaker points. 

Quality over quantity. I appreciate the teams that can overwhelm the line by line with original insights or analysis that comes from a few (longer) cards. This applies to any quadrant of the ideological spectrum, from politics uniqueness to critique links 
I will work very hard as a critic. My biggest pet-peeve when I debated were judges that didn't respect the time and effort that went into preparing for debates. I will be excited to judge you and provide (hopefully insightful) feedback. 
Paperless transition of evidence will NOT be timed. 
Alternative use time if all debaters want. 
Cutting cards during the debate is okay. 
Receiving coaching is not. Or clipping cards. Or stealing an obnoxious amount of prep. 
Be Nice. I have no tolerance for discrimantory language, gestures, or actions. Have fun, learn lots. 

If you have questions, feel free to ask. 

P.S. Here is a reward if you are still reading... Cat puns in rebutals will earn extra speaker points. With a .5 ceiling. 

Jamie Cheek 
Weber State 

Updated for 2015-2016

I have been involved with college policy debate for over 10+ years. This is my fifth year coaching at Weber State University.

General Issues: 

1. Impact assessment and comparative analysis of the debate are necessary. I will rarely call for evidence.
2. I think one smart analytical argument can take out several warrantless cards. Also, I am not as involved with the research-side of things anymore, so extra clarification about topic-specific things might be helpful. 
3.I like to keep track of prep time, and I will get cranky about prep stealing. 
4. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing at the first beep.

Specifics: 
Theory – I have few biases about theory. I think all theory is debatable, except probably dispo bad; I will vote every time that dispo is not bad by itself. I’d prefer if you’d just say it’s conditional. If you want to go all in on a theory argument there are a couple things you need to have: 1) a link 2) an impact 3) a justification that is both a reason why you should win but also a reason why what they did is enough to cost them the round. Also, Ben Warner once told me, “Everytime I see someone go all in on theory because they think they have to, they usually didn’t.” So keep that in mind, I think it is sound advice. I also think the phrase "Status quo is always an option" doesn't actually mean anything, just saying conditional. 

Topicality – Everyone always says they love a good T debate; I also fall into that category. I will tell you my default is competing interpretations. The hardest part about T debates is that teams are unwilling to impact their interpretation. This makes it very hard to evaluate, and forces me do that work for them, which I don’t like to do. 

Framework – My whole debate career I was definitely on the side of "Policy Debate Good." However, I am willing, and have voted for, other types of frameworks. I think the most important part of this debate is that there needs to be an interpretation, but also an impact. Not just link arguments or “fairness important,” but what your framework means for my ballot. I think framework debates often boil down to a card war with no analysis as to how I’m supposed to evaluate the round based on the framework that “wins”. Make your framework offense to help you win the round. 

K’s – Here is an area that I am very unfamiliar with. I’m not saying “don’t read the K in front of me.” I’m more saying “I probably don’t know exactly what X author says.” I understand a lot of the strategy involved with this type of debate, it is the more specific nuances that I am probably the weakest at. For example, any high theory K's are going to be a struggle for me, especially if it has complicated terminology that is specific to the lit base. Also, you can read whatever aff you want in front of me, as long as you have a reason to vote affirmative. Talking about the topic is nice, but not required. I also think that impact turns to FW are a reason to vote affirmative.

CP’s – You got them, read them. I think cp’s that result in the plan no matter what are abusive. I think tricky cp’s shouldn’t be too tricky that I don’t get it. I also think at some point during the debate their needs to a be a moment where there is a clear explanation of the CP and how it solves the aff and why it is competitive. Also, for me to revert to the world of the SQ in an instance where the aff wins a permutation, this needs to be clearly set up and articulated by the 2NR.

DA’s – I think there should be more disads in debate. However, as much as I read politix in college, you should not be fooled. I will not be up on the newest scenario, so maybe a little overview in the 2nc would be nice. I also think the impact turn is a bit of a lost art, aff’s should do this more often to disads.

For background information, I debated Congress and Policy for a year in high school.  I currently compete on the University of Utah debate team in parliamentary debate, which is very similar to policy.

As for judging, I generally give high speaker points.  I am good at following you spreading (spewing) and I will flow all the arguments made.  If for some reason I cannot understand you, I will ask you to clear.  I don’t let my personal biases and opinions seep into my judging of your debate – that simply wouldn’t be fair.  Keep the rules of policy and we’ll get along fine.  In the end, I judge off my flow and I won’t do your work for you.  That being said, use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm your opponents.  I will give you comments in the end on how to improve and where you could have lost/won, but keep in mind, please be a good sport.  Side note, I will judge you based off of the nonverbal communications you give as well as the verbal, so just be nice and respectful.  In the end, we’re all friends in the debate community, right?  Last thing, as I mentioned, I debate in college.  I’m down with you running just about anything, just be prepared to argue it well and defend it to the end!

Hello and thank you for bothering to check out my paradigm.  While I have been judging high school events since 2012 my competition experience lies in 4 years of college-level parliamentary debate and IEs.  Anyone that claims they are tabula rasa is pulling your leg so the following are my biases, use these to craft your cases & strategy to access my ballot or deny your opponent access:

The K - I am open to Kritiques & other critical debate (though I think the PF format is too short to run the standard K).  In LD and Policy, you need at the very least a stable Framework, a consistent thesis paired with an advocacy, a vision of a post-K world/debate round and links that are specific to your opponent or the resolution (yes you can critique the res).  When running a K you must clarify before or during round your opponents' familiarity with the tactic, if they are not at all familiar you need to explain the basic theory of the K so that they can interact in the round.  Expect at best a low-point win if you do not.  I believe the K is permable, can be non-topical, that the opponent has access to the theory & impacts of the K, is not kickable and severance from the K is an automatic loss if proven.  In critical debate, a Framework or perhaps a value criterion is neccesary to access the ballot and properly explain how the argument interacts with other arguments.

Proceedurals - These arguments are annoying to me but I will vote on them.  In all cases, I want proven abuse in a four-leg format (Interpretation(s), Violation(s), Standards, Reasons to Vote) to win a proceedural.  In my opinion, if one of the four legs of the proceedural is completely defeated the argument does not stand.  I prefer to vote for reasons to protect the community from predatory behavior rather than someone yelling fairness or grammar.

Weighing - I do not like to do work for you & will often take the weighing given to me as the impact calc to weigh at the end of the round.  Impacts need to be both terminalized (taken to their logical conclusion) and flowed through the criterion of the round.  If your criterion is human welfare and your winning impact is causing extinction a few days later than your opponents, you done effed up.  Speaking of which, I HATE EXTINCTION AND EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IMPACTS & it is one of the very few places I will intervene given the room to do so.  They are reductive and unproductive arguments; a veritable black hole of debate.

Warrants VS Analytics - Many warrants tend to be shaky at best with very little articulation of their significance with an assumption of understanding what they mean.  On the other hand, some pure analytic arguments can be common sense but have logic flaws within them.  I like to see these two tools paired with one another in a complementary fashion with about an even amount of speaking time given to both.  Depending on how the debate has gone, I will prefer analytics to warrants that have been quoted at me all round.

Speed - I can keep up with most any speed but will vote on anti-speed arguments if a competitor is being spread out of the round. If debate skills are a toolkit, speed is the sledgehammer in the kit.  Very few people can use it correctly and tend to hurt themselves more than anything else.

General Biases - As I said, I am not tabula rasa.  I am student working towards a doctorate in revolution politics, a worker in the contract construction industry, an activist working in the environmentalist, socialist & anarchist movements & a feminist ally.  While I have voted for and given high speaks to arguments that are ideologically opposite of my own, there is a high bar to meet when running such an argument.  On the other hand, I dislike when ideologies are misrepresented, so don't just yell ANARCHY! and expect a win.  If your smart, use the language I have used here within your own arguments, you'll be hella persuasive.

Debated in High School from 2010-2014, Judged and coached from 2014-2019. I may need a bit of time to adjust as I haven't judged since then, so bear with me. my email is dylan.paul.frederick@gmail.com for any questions, and for adding me to the email chain.

I've seen a lot of stuff, please feel free going with any debate style you prefer. Try to assume I don't know a ton about what you are reading.

If you want to win in front of me, please try to go top down - what is the framing I should look to at the end of the round, what is the most important impact/voting issue/whatever, and what is the link to that offense. I pretty much look at what offense is there for me to vote on at the end of the round, and try to sort out which offense wins. You can't go wrong with more depth on your link arguments in front of me, as long as there's a reason to vote for those links.

I don't have strong opinions either way on theory arguments, critical affs, T violations, ect. Do what you like and convince me what the debate should be about.

The debates I like the most are ones where you play to your best strengths, and debates with plenty of actual argument interaction. I have ADHD so the best way for me to disengage from the debate or miss an argument or just not care is to read blocks at each other and not make any explicit, direct challenges to your opponents arguments. If you're not going to actually debate, it makes me want to flip a coin, because you're leaving me to decide which arguments were best myself (I'm always trying my hardest to be fair, but I'm not going to give good speaker points if I'm left trying to compare two ships passing in the night)

If you have any specific questions or concerns, feel free to ask me.

Here's the thing. Debate is 200% about learning and providing a good, uplifting and positive experience for everyone. Don't be jerk. Attack the arguments and not the people making them.

That being said, all is fair in a policy round. Give me clear voters at the end and speak clearly. Theory arguments are my least favorite but if that is where the round takes you or that is your expertise, don't let me stop you. I'm here to learn just like everyone else.

Brock Hanson

Precious Assistant coach, Rowland Hall St. Marks — five years

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

Role as judge in debate — I attempt to enter debates with as little preconcieved notion about my role as possible. I am open to being told how to evaluate rounds, be it an educator, policymaker, etc. Absent any instruction throughout the round, I will most likely default to a role as a policymaker.

Purpose of philosophy — I see this philosophy as a tool to be used by debaters to help modify or fine-tune specific parts of their strategies in round. I don’t think that this philosophy should be a major reason to change a 1AC/1NC, but more used to understand how to make the round as pleasant as possible.

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

Prep time — Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/when the speech-email has been sent. I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, but I will usually keep prep as well to help settle disagreements

Evidence — I would like to be included in any email chain used for the round using the email address below. I will read un-underlined portions of evidence for context, but am very apprehensive to let them influence my decision, unless their importance is identified in round.

Speaker point range — 27.0 - 30. Speaker points below a 27 indicate behavior that negatively affected the round to the point of being offensive/oppressive.

How to increase speaker points — Coherence, enthusiasm, kindness, and the ability to display an intimate knowledge of your arguments/evidence. Cross-ex is an easy way to earn speaker points in front of me - I enjoy enthusiastic and detailed cross-ex and see it as a way to show familiarity with arguments.

How to lose speaker points — Being excessively hostile, aggressive, overpowering, or disengaged.

Clarity — I will say ‘Clear’ mid-speech if I’m unable to understand you. I will warn you twice before I begin subtracting speaker points and stop flowing - I will attempt to make it obvious that I’ve stopped flowing in a non-verbal manner (setting down my pen, etc.) but will not verbally warn you.

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

Affirmatives - I don’t think affirmatives should be inherently punished for not reading a plan text, as long as they justify why they do it. I am probably more interested in ‘non-traditional’ affirmatives than a big-stick Heg aff.

Counter-Plans — Speeding through a 20-second, catch-all, 7 plank, agent counter-plan text will not be received well in front of me. However, super-specific counter-plans (say, cut from 1AC solvency evidence) are a good way to encourage debates that result in high speaker points.

Disadvantages — Specific, well articulated DA debate is very appealing to me, but super-generics like spending are a bit boring absent an aff to justify them as the primary strategy.

Framework — Engagement > Exclusion. The topic can be a stasis point for discussion, but individuals may relate to it in very different ways. (See Role as judge in debate)

Kritiks — Easily my 'comfort-zone' for debates, both for the affirmative and negative. Creativity in this area is very appealing to me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that whoever reads the best poetry automatically wins. Be smart and articulate about your arguments, and make it seem like you care about what you're talking about. The 'K’s are cheating and so they should lose' -esque arguments aren’t especially compelling, but if you can intelligently explain why the hippy-anarchists sitting across from you should go back to their coffee shops and beat-poetry, I'll vote on it. Performance as a method of supporting arguments is welcomed and enjoyable insofar as it is grounded in arguments.

Theory — I think specific, contextualized Theory arguments are much more persuasive than generic, broad-sweeping theory claims. Spending 5 minutes on Theory in a rebuttal does not grant you an instant ballot, inversely,15 seconds of blippy violations it at the end of the debate makes it difficult to pull the trigger absent blatant concessions. I’m more comfortable and better versed in regards to theory arguments than with topicality. I am very persuaded by arguments against performative contradiction. I understand the strategic utility of having multiple lines of offence in a 1NC, but would prefer to evaluate 1NC’s holistically as a constant thought.

Topicality — Topicality is perhaps where I’m least experienced from an argument standpoint, and thus don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates, I do, however understand its utility against blatantly abusive affirmative. In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Feel free to ask before round or email me if you have any questions

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

Judge-Rhyder Henry, Pronouns (He/Him) Paradigm (Short and sweet Version Copper Classic)

Experience-2 Years High School @ Hillcrest High School/NHC

Positions- 1A/2N (I have a slight biased and idea of how I like to see both of these speaches conducted)

TLDR: Summary How to get my ballot- Debate how you want to debate, and give it your all.

1-Debate is a game, and educational, I lean more towards Structured impacted arguments that are extended.

2-Case Aff Notes: DEFEND SOLVENCY!!! Neg Notes: CASE TURNS!!!

3-T/FW- They are distinct. If you impact framework as T, I generally will lean aff on things like reasonability, Even if you won your framework arguments. Topicality, is Contextual and specfic, Framework is a tool to help me evaluate arguments, methodology, ETC....

4- Ks- Always a good option, I am familiar with most lit. Feel free to run them as long as you can explain them and explain why its a reason to vote neg, Things i dont like on k debate is. Alt=Reject aff or something similar? If you are rejecting the aff then explain why rejeciton is a neccessity to soving the mindset your challenging.

5-DAs, Generally go off of who mitigated whos impacts more, And reasons why the DA should O/W the case!

6-CP Specfic Cps go very far for me, It almost always gaurentees competition. I like Conditions, Consults etc.. Just explain it well and prove solvency.

7-Perms, Not an advocacy more of a test of competition. I was never a fan of multiple perms but you do you!

Things I enjoy seeing in round.

1-Humor is always nice to see

2-K Affs are pretty creative and enjoyable to engage with.

3-I have a soft spot for good theory debate

4-Respect

5-Respect and Intensity, Can work well together. That being said you can still be intense and aggressive while still being respectful.

6-Cross ex is your chance to prove to me you understand and have an interest in your arguments!

Notes: May Result in a Small Speaker Point Increase.

1-I like the Red Balloon Emoji, Do with that what you will!

2-I enjoy Political Satire/Humor/Comics.

3-Orcas are awesome #Savethewhales

4-Tell me what can go through the Green Glass Door?

Follow this link for my super extensive paradigm: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Henry,Rhyder

Director of Forensics at Juan Diego Catholic High School - Draper, UT

Coach of TOC Qualifiers in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015

Debated at Idaho State University

2010 NDT Elimination Round Participant. 2010 + 2011 CEDA Quarterfinalist. 

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

For all debate events and especially policy debate:

I have coached all the events at the national level and I have been coaching for 20 years. I spent the first 10 of those years coaching college policy debate. I like all forms of argumentation except cheap theory tricks. What I like is less important than what you are good at. I would like to see what you are best at.

There are two things that I despise about how debate has evolved:

1) I despise the emphasis on the speech doc: this is a speaking activity. I value persuasive speaking. I will be flowing on paper and I will not be looking at a speech doc while you talk. I will be looking at you, listening to your voice, and flowing. I also call for very few cards after the round so as to put the emphasis on the round that happened not the one in your coaches' heads. Persuasion matters. Pathos matters. Nuanced Evidence comparison in the round matters. Tactical ability matters. Style matters.

2) I despise the lack of creativity that I observe in the arguments: I am especially bored by the way that jargon flattens our characterization of things to ready made labels so that everyone speaks and thinks the same. My favorite DA debaters I have ever watched have their own singular ways of characterizing impacts and even their 1NC shells have unique structure and emphasize different internal links than the standard form. My favorite Kritik debaters of all time see the connection between the content that they are presenting and the form that they use to communicate. They try to do something new and they take some risks.

One last note: I understand that debates can get heated but when the debate gets personal I get cynical and I wonder why I am still giving time to the activity.

For speech events:

Exaggeration seems fake to me. Realness and subtlety draw me in. When a student puts an emphasis on the ideas and the scholarship of the activity they get extra points from me. Polish and perfection are not everything. I would rather see a speaker with some rough elements of their delivery who is taking a chance to express something of meaning than a perfectly rehearsed speaker delivering a safe speech without a lot of conceptual depth.

The foundation of my philosophy is that debate is a game. This is important in that I believe strongly that everyone who wants to should be able to play. That means that treating each other with respect, and sportsmanship are very important. If you lie to me, or your competitors or do anything to intentionally belittle anyone's efforts you will awaken my wrath. You should always debate to the best of your ability but if you are debating a team that clearly isn't up to your competition level please try to make it quick and painless. If you don't need to use all your speech time don't and in those situations because I am a coach I tend to reward debaters who are kind  and helpful to those who are still learning.

I appreciate debate as  forum for education and expression and believe that my role is simply to try to do my best to evaluate the round through whatever method you effectively present to me. I have been participating in this activity in one way or another for 20 years. That has benefits and disadvantages to you. I am willing and able to evaluate any style of debate and my preference for what you choose to do doesn't exist as long as you do your thing well. Because I have seen so many debates, I do appreciate creativity in argument choice, and strategy.

I am not as good at flowing as I used to be so signposting and clarity are key. If the round comes down to whether you uttered one sentence or not somewhere in the round that is not a position I would trust my own flow in so debate better than that. If an argument is really important you should flag it as such. 

My understanding of most philosophy/philosophers/Kritiks is very basic. So, you need to be clear in your explanations  of any positions that involve these things. My own debate preference was theory, D/As, and C/Ps as a result those positions are easiest for me to evaluate. While I often very much enjoy performance/identity debates they are the most difficult to evaluate as I find they often call for judge intervention. Because I believe debate is a game (your game not mine) I do my best to just follow where you take me in a round. That means anything goes. To answer the typical questions: speed is fine (being unclear can cause you problems), tag team is fine, playing media is fine, anything you can justify through argumentation is fine. 

Specifics on my experience: 3 years high school policy TOC qualifier, 4 years college policy debate (CEU, Georgia State, Weber State) NDT qualifier. 12 years various coaching positions. Have coached TOC qualifiers in all events. 

Have fun! Please ask if you have any other questions.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. 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 be ahead in my mind.

Hello! I am a former coach (quadruple ruby level) of Hillcrest High School (UT) that has 10 years of experience with all high school speech and debate events (though policy was my specialty). I stopped coaching debate to pursue graduate school and have earned my PhD in the Life Sciences. The skills and experiences I developed through speech and debate are continually incorporated into my research and science communication, so even though I have not been actively involved in high school debate since Fall 2015, I have maintained the scholarly and adaptable open-mindedness that I find essential to evaluating speech and debate rounds.

Some General Notes:

- I like to take a lot of notes during speeches! I use the flow to help me track the progression and clarity of arguments through the round and will turn to my notes to help make decisions about dropped arguments, key ideas, and extensions.

- I am good with jargon, technical language, and fast talking. I have a plethora of experience and remain familiar with key terms used to describe parts of arguments as well as discipline-specific knowledge in intro-level humanities and high-level STEM content areas.

- I value professionalism and respectful conduct. In debate we are critiquing and evaluating arguments not the people making the arguments. Be sure to extend that courtesy to all, as debate should be an inclusive space where we cultivate critical thinking and communication skills.

- I see my role as being that of an active listener that wants to encourage your continued engagement in speech and debate. I will work to foster positive learning environments and provide constructive feedback that will hopefully transcend the boundaries of a single round and help you cultivate transferable skills across debate and your other academic/professional trajectories.

Policy (CX):

I am receptive to all types of arguments, including the more technical side of theory debates, the framework and discourse of Kritiks - on the aff or the neg, and well-crafted Counter Plan and DA combos. I'm here for it. And I am happy to listen to you explain your reasoning/justification - whatever your strategy may be.

Thekey to the aff winning the round is to show me that affirming the resolution through their plan has the potential to create a better future than the status quo OR that by affirming I am challenging current discourse that is an essential pre-requisite to taking policy actions.

The key to the neg winning the round is to show me how/why the aff plan specifically is problematic (e.g. ineffective, counter-productive, etc.) either because it has the potential to shape a world worse than the status quo OR that the affirmative's advocacy generates/perpetuates some kind of harm (e.g. discourse, ontology, epistemology, etc.).

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

Given my policy background I am a flow intensive judge. This means I will be looking for you to extend your arguments throughout the round and to provide warranted analysis and interpretation.At the end of the round I will ask myself: "under the framework provided as the ideal weighing mechanism for this round, what are the impacts to voting aff and what are the impacts to voting neg?"

- If affirming the resolution has the best potential for upholding the winning framework I will vote aff. The aff needs to show me clear links and impacts that are accessed/supported by the winning framework and needs to sufficiently address negative arguments to build a strong case for how/why affirming is theoretically, practically, and/or morally the best decision.

- If negating the resolution has the best potential for upholding the winning framework I will vote neg.The neg needs to show me why the aff cannot access their impacts and thus not uphold the framework (defense) as well as demonstrate why voting aff may actually cause worse things to happen and thus means I should reject the aff under that framework (offense).

Style Notes: I am adaptable and will not prioritize/prefer any one style over another. Here are some specifics:

- Both sides, you can run a V/C combination or a Standard, just be sure you explain why this lens is the best framework for the round. I will default to consequentialist framing if the framework debate is a wash (e.g. impact calculus based on links and turns).

-Affirmatives you can run a K Aff, but you still need to show me why that means I affirm the resolution.

-Negatives, you are welcome to run off case positions, these should be clearly indicated as "new pages" for the flow and must include clear links to the affirmative position and/or case.

-I am good with fast speaking, just make sure you are clear (absence of clarity while speaking means I can't record your arguments/comments which hinders your effectiveness as a communicator).

Public Forum (PF):

This debate form was undergoing rapid evolution when I was last involved due to the influence of policy and LD styles being increasingly incorporated into the event. I am not sure what this debate form looks like today in terms of style, so I will echo my similar comments from above.

I am open to any arguments you want to make, I am capable of listening to arguments at fast speed as long as the speech is clear, and I take many detailed notes of arguments to help me evaluate the round.

Ultimately, what I am looking for is a thoughtful and well-reasoned interpretation of the resolution, with clear links and warrants for the potential impacts/outcomes proposed by each side. As the round continues I am looking for comparative analysis between pro/con flows and for synthesis of the key ideas (e.g. voting issues) associated with the cases/contentions.

Speech Events:

I am excited to hear from you, and will evaluate your speaking skills and speech content with fairness and cultural awareness. Generally, I am swayed by clear organization, thoughtful reasoning/justification, and creative strategies. I am a strong proponent of cultivating a growth mindset to facilitate learning and will seek to provide constructive feedback to that end.

Assume I want to be added to your email chain: andre.d.washington@gmail.com

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

IMPORTANT CHANGES: After 5 years of judging a wide range of debate styles, I think I've come to the conclusion that I just can't connect with or enjoy the current iteration of HS high theory debate. Being able to act as an educator is an important reason for why I judge, and I don't think I can offer that in your Baudrilliard debates anymore.

This will be my sixth year with the program at Rowland Hall, and 10th year of debate overall.

I love debate and want students to love it as well.

Do what you want, and do it well. ---

Kritiks: Despite the revision above, you absolutely should still be reading the K in front of me. I am fine with the K. I like the K as it functions in a greater neg strategy (ie, I'd rather judge a 5 off round that includes a K than a 1 off K round). However, I went 1-off fem K in highschool for many rounds, so I am genuinely pretty accepting on this issue. Given that I don't spend a great deal of my time working through K literature, I think it's important that you explain these to me, but that's basically what a good K debater should expect to do anyway.

Disads: I cut politics every week. I love both sides of the politics debate and can benefit you as a judge on how to execute these debates well.

Counterplans: Counterplans of all shapes and sizes are a critical place to form a strategy and I enjoy these debates. Theory is to be argued and I can't think of any predisposition.

Topicality: I think that debaters who can execute "technical" args well are enjoyable enough to watch and judge, and I think I can probably benefit as a judge to any technical debater. I think that any violation, on face, has validity and there are no affs that are so "obviously" topical that they cannot be beaten on T.

Kritikal affs: I am not ideologically opposed to K affs at all and even enjoy these debates, although I primarily work on and with policy affs so I would say explanation is still key.

Framework: I find that good framework debaters know how to make the flow accessible to the judge. I think that there are a number of compelling claims and debates to be had on framework, and they can be just as strongly argued as anything else (including your kritik or kritikal aff).

I view my role in the round, is as a critic of the debate. Therefore, I rely upon the four competitor's to tell me how I am to evaluate the round, what's important in the round and where I am to look, to evaluate the round. I will fiercely defend my role as a critic, as I will not connect the dots, or complete incomplete arguments to the defense of teams.

these rounds are safe spaces