Be yourself: relaxed, prepared, focused.

I look for a few, well crafted arguments, with clear impact. What is so significant about the reasons you present?

Reasons, reasons, reasons: are the arguments you are making the most weighty, the most significant?

Showcase where you are headed (great off time road maps help me realize up front where you are headed).

Too many random, unrelated ramblings are not well received.

Tell me what you are going to tell me, then tell me, then tell me what you told me.

Key Preferences and Beliefs

Clarity is important.

Being well prepared is important.

Being kind and respectful to your opponent is important.

Judging Style

I flow using a template (which I will be happy to show you), making a few notes as you speak, circling significant impacts as you state them clearly. I do not disclose unless specifically asked to do so by the tournament directors. I feel that you will see who won soon enough and part of disclosing is offering constructive criticism (which is tough for me). I most always find something about your presentation that I liked and express that constructively. Do more of what you are good at, and less of what you are not good at is my philosophy. Most tournaments are on a tight schedule, but, if I see you in the hall, and have time, I will be happy to share some ideas with you.

I am very fortunate to be associated with you wonderful, positive, young people, desirous of making positive changes to your community.

Speech and debate has been part of my life for almost ten years. I competed at the National tournament all four years of high school and I have experience competing in every event.

My main concerns for competitors are focus, polish and confidence. Own your event. Show me that you know your speech/topic/event and you are comfortable speaking in front of others.

Background

I did LD on the national circuit, and did PF within the state. I was the region champion, and finished in the top 100 at nationals the only year I did debate.

Paradigm

I do not mind much of what you run, as long as your arguments flow.

Theory, Ks, etc., are all acceptable, and you can spread all you want. It definitely helps the course of the round if you flash your case, which I feel is common courtesy by now. If you're running theory, prove why you're running it. If you're running a K, make sure to justify your K - make it clear.

Don't just read blocks for impact calc. Still debate your opponent.

I judge mostly on impact, or solvency, so make sure to emphasize the weight they carry in your case.

Flex prep is acceptable.

I do not flow cross, and I will not call for cards. Sit or stand during cross. I don't care, so it's up to you and your opponent.

Voters aren't necessary, but are nice.

Make sure you make taglines/authors' names clear.

You tell me when prep starts, and when prep ends.

Debate jargon is acceptable. I expect that you know what to say and how to say it.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Cowley%2C+Erin

I judge tabula rasa. I expect debaters to convince me what arguments to vote on. I flow the round but it is the debaters responsibility to be clear about where on the flow they are arguing. This is most easily done by referring to specific structural elements of the each teams case, or citing the card author that the debater is responding to.

While I try my best to be a tab judge, I do prefer not to vote on theory. However if theory is argued, goes uncontested, and there is little else to vote on — then I might vote on theory.

I have no preference for the different forms of your argument. Performance based arguments, kritiks, as well as traditional models are all fine so long as you effectively articulate the role of the ballot in adjudicating the round. I have a fairly high threshold for speed but ask that you slow down marginally when reading your tags so I can keep a rigorous flow. 

My threshold for voting on topicality is fairly low. Unless the abuse is palpable I will default drop the argument before drop the debater.

If you have any specific questions let me know. Keep a clean flow and I will reward you generously!

Background

I competed in Policy in high school and a bit of Parli in college. I have judged for about 8 years. I am the head coach at Lone Peak High School.

I would categorize myself as a fairly traditional judge, but will allow most things to fly in a round. Although I competed in Policy, I don't think its format are effective in other events. I think there is value in LD debates that include V/C arguments, instead of a 1-man Policy debate. I think PF should not imitate a short version of Policy. You can do what you like (its your event) and I will still vote for a progressive case, but I think you are selling yourself and your event short.

My main concern is you provide a clear analysis to show why you are winning the arguments you are winning and impact calculus to show why they are important enough to win the entire round.

Spreading and evidence

I am probably too slow for high levels of Policy, but I can usually keep up with most rounds. At least I think I can... If you say something too fast or incoherent or in a way I can't understand, that is your problem, not mine. I will not ask for tags to be repeated, I will not ask to see the case, so you better hope I got the gist of it the first time.

I don't call for cards at the end of the round to check them for warrants. If the card is garbage, then it is the opponents job to point that out in round. If the card is the best thing ever, you better point that out in round. I would vote for 1 good card run well compared to 15 cards that are not developed or don't really apply to anything. Quality is better than quality, but you have to explain it.

Theory / K / T

I, for the most part will listen to any arguments, as long as you provide clear links or rationale as to why you are spending time on it in round. If the argument is weighted properly and the link story is there, I will vote on it. Whining about timeskews needs to have substantial reasons to consider it, a better option would be to include education as a voter.

Random Pet Peeves

Flashing is such a waste of time. I think competitors should learn how to listen to the other peoples' arguments and flow properly. Judges have to do that, too... I wouldn't assign a loss for taking forever but it is annoying...

I don't care if you sit or stand in cross-ex, I don't care if you look at the opponent, etc.

Hello

I look at the round as a whole rather than believing 1 card or arg. Is going to win a round. Esp in policy. More specifically, 

I vote for persuasion and voters.

Persuasion: delivery. Use of multiple techniques. 

Voters: why?  Tell me why you are winning.  I leave the strategies, techniques, etc. Up to you.  You tell me why you were more "successful"

As far as the finite details go, I leave those up to the debaters... Tag team cx, etc

Speed: I am cool with it. Just make a distinction between a finished card and the next tag. A pause, or an altering in speed, emphasis, etc

Good luck

I did Lincoln Douglas debate for 3 years. I competed on both the national and local circuit.

I place a heavy emphasis on framework because it shows you how to evaluate the round. Make sure to explain why your framework should be used to evaluate the round and why your framework supersedes your opponent's. Be smart with framework. If your case functions under your opponent's framework be sure to mention that. 

Kritiks  

I love critiques. Just make sure to run them properly and with well thought out links and impacts as well sufficient solvency in the alternative. If if you want them to be evaluated pre-fiatt then make sure to explain why they are pre-fiatt. 

Theory

Do not ever run theory just to run theory. There has to be actual abuse or I will drop you. If your opponent proves that there was no actual abuse I will drop you.

Voters

Voters should have 3 specific components. There must be a specific argument or card that wins you the round. Explain how this argument means you win under the framework of the round. Be sure to explain the impact (why does this matter?)

Extensions

Be clear and concise, as well as make sure to extend the warrant.

Speed

Speed is fine. Be clear. Watch me. If I'm not flowing you might want to slow down, be more clear, or rethink the argument you just made. 

All in all, debate is your event. I do my very best not to limit you. You can run anything you want as long as it is well warranted and topical.

I debated LD in high school and took state in 3A, so I know what I'm doing.  Biggest thing: stay organized and let me know exactly where you're going in your case.  While I do prefer traditional debate, I ultimately will vote for the best debater.  

this is the first tournament i've judged in 2 years

i was a K debater in policy and LD and ran nontopical affs all the time so if you've got something "weird" you wanna run i'd love to see it

currently expecting to just hear about nuke war nonstop for two days so i'd love for that to not happen

Experience: 3 Years Lincoln Douglas Debate (Alta), 1 Year Judging

I will give the caveat that I was a fairly traditional debater in high school, so I am more apt to that style.  Debate however you'd like though!  I don't care if you are extremely traditional, extremely progressive, or if your case is something else altogether. All I need is some sort of decision mechanism, i.e. how should I be determining who wins the round?  Typically this takes the form of a value/criterion or a standard, but it doesn't have to conform to that paradigm.  If it's not abundantly clear how you are either affirming or negating, then I would like an explanation of that as well (e.g. if you are running some sort of outlandish argument on the neg that doesn't seem to immediately relate to the resolution, give me some reasons why it actually negates the resolution). 

Theory:

I absolutely welcome discussions about the way that debate should occur when you are in round.  Be forewarned though, I never once ran formal theory when I debated (i.e. a proper theory shell).  If you rush through theory assuming that I know the stock theory arguments, you'll probably be unsuccessful in convincing me.  Don't run theory because it's another argument, run theory because you believe it.  It's a powerful tool to check abuse, but I think it's far less valuable when people use it frivolously.

Speed:

I'm okay with and can understand a medium amount of speed, but I am prone to dislike speed.  Here's why: debaters suck at it.  I have nothing wrong with the concept of going faster in a debate round.  If you are clear and I can understand what you are saying then you are good to go.  If I can't keep up though, then that's a problem.  I should be able to hear and process 3-4 out of every 5 words that you say (I think 60-80% is fairly generous).  I will not assume to know what you said if you go faster than I can comprehend (I don't care if I know every word of the card you're reading).  If you think that as long as you slow down for tags and authors then you can speed through the rest of the card incomprehensibly, then you're going to have a bad time.  In lieu of my speed preferences, I will give each debater two audible "clear"s during the round.  This is your signal to slow down and speak more clearly.

Flex prep:

If your opponent is okay with it then I'm fine with it.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, whether to clarify or to supplement, don't hesitate to ask before the round. 

Debated for three years on the high school policy debate circuit. broke to NFL and NCFL and broke into quarter finals at NCFL. Now a coach at Hunter High School in West Valley City, Utah.

I understand both LD and Policy Debate stylistics and I am fine with both traditional and progressive debate.

Overall philosophy:

I am fine with mostly anything you run as long as you justify each of your arguments well enough with warrants although there are a few nitpicky things that I prefer when it comes to debating, especially in the last few rebuttals. I have to add though that I enjoy listening and judging critical arguments more than traditional arguments but that doesn't mean that I would base my vote on it. When it comes down to it no matter how you debate I will vote on who debated better.

For me judge intervention should be prevented at all costs, this means that within the last rebuttals you should lay down to me where am I voting and why I am voting on it.

First off, slow down on taglines and authors, not extensively slow but just a quick brisk pace on the taglines will do just fine, other then that, go as fast as you'd like.
Secondly, if you're going to run a theory argument where I have to reject the opposing team, prove to me some type of abuse scenario, preferably in-round abuse, or else I will be hesitant to vote for it lest the other team does not answer it or drops it.
Thirdly, vague alts justify vague perms. As a judge who enjoys kritikal debating, it would be awesome if you could delineate to me how your advocacy specifically solves for the harms that you are trying to criticize. Advocacies, solvency, and methodologies are a necessity when it comes to kritiks of any type, justify each of these within your kritik and I will be a happy camper.
Fourth, when it comes to impact calculus don't just read a bunch of premade blocks make sure you have competing impact calculus with the opposing team. Apparently in the debate space people feel that just reading a bunch of cards and blocks will save them and do the work for them. Although premade blocks are awesome don't solely rely on them, I want actual debating and critical thinking, not just some kid reading off of their computer excessively in the 2NR.
Tag team is fine, but be warned that speaker points not only reflect the speeches but also reflect who does most of the work in CX as well. So think wisely before answering or asking all the questions while your partner remains silent.
Prep ends when you tell me it does unless it takes an excessive amount of time to "flash" your speech over to your opponents then I will be forced to end prep when the flash leaves your computer.

When it comes to Post-Fiat v. Pre-Fiat I tend to do whatever the debaters tell me via their framework or preferences based off of whether one arg encompasses/entrenches the opposing teams impacts, etc. I don't really err towards one side but generally if it comes down to the debate if I have to decide whether I should vote on something because it's a prerequisite to solvency of the impact(Pre-Fiat) compared to whether I actually solve for the impacts given to me in a post-fiat world (Post-Fiat) I have to err towards post-fiat because, in my sense, even if the K is a prerequisite to the impacts of the 1AC (or whatever instance you give to me) any risk of solvency for the impacts of the aff outweigh some type of solvency deficit given to me by the prereq args on the neg. of course these claims I give are debateable and if you prove to me that pre-fiat should be weighed over post-fiat in the round then I will definitely weigh it especially if thats what the round comes down to. But if you're going to have a post-fiat/pre-fiat debate make sure to emphasize the theoretical reasons why I should prefer either. 

DOs:

CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH

Run args that you feel powerful about, pathos is an awesome tool use it to your advantage

DON'Ts:

some (and by some I mean that some words I despise and other words I'm just like meh) forms of bad language - I HATE THE WORD RETARDED

I don't mind saying "guys" i feel like it's colloquialized to the extent that it includes the female body but even if, you can still run G-Lang and if you prove to me enough how this bad language is inherently bad then I will vote on it.

Don't Post-Round me I will dock your speaks!

Specific stuff

Topicality: I am not a huge fan of topicality especially generic ones because the majority of the time these generic topicalities are only ran for time skew which is totally fine but if you plan on going for topicality in the 2NR then I want you to articulate specifically 1. how they are untopical 2. why is this bad for the debate or debate in general. I am huge on standard debates if you run a topicality argument make sure to specify to me as the judge why these standards are important for debate or for you as a team and how the other team delegimitizes these standards. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for Topicality it just means I have a high threshold on it. However, if you're going to go for T in the 2NR make sure to spend 5 whole minutes on T not to split it because obviously if T is an apriori concern to me then it should be the only argument in your 2NR decision.

As the AFF I'm not big on RVIs unless you can prove that the other team is abusive through their topicality. Competing interpretations and counter standards are your best friends.

Counterplans: I don't really have much to say on this part. Just make sure to specify what the counterplan solves for specifically, how it solves, and how it doesn't trigger the net benefit.

On the aff, articulation of permutation solvency and net benefits to the permutations are a must if you plan on permutating the CP. I don't want some random perm being read without articulation of what the permutation is actually doing and how it solves.

Disadvantages: like the Counterplan section I really have little to say on this part. Most of the time disadvantages come down to impact calculus debates. whether doing the aff advocacy is good or not so this is where my competitive impact calculus statements come in. Articulate how the impacts of doing the plan are more disadvantageous than beneficial and vice versa for the aff

Criticisms: I really enjoy critical debates I think they're entertaining and really bring out the more personal aspects of debate. I thoroughly enjoy identity and biopolitics kritiks. one thing that I would emphasize for kritik is alternative solvency and the mechanism for which you use to solve the harms for which you are trying to criticize. I enjoy good role of the ballot and framework debates and why me as a judge signing a piece of paper is so crucial (or not crucial depending on if you are aff or neg) to your solvency/args.

Theory: I don't really vote on theory arguments unless I actually get proven an abuse scenario I find them to be a bit whiny at times and aren't very beneficial to debate unless there are actual harms being presented from the other team.

Body Language: I make faces, a lot of them; use it to your advantage.

saying "it's lit" might or might not get you more speaker points. depending on the context

Honesty

being polite

professionlism

staying within time constricts

effort

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

Yo, my history with debate is two years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school and two years coaching Lincoln-Douglas for Juan Diego Catholic High School (ongoing).

Judging

• As a judge my job is decide who did the better job of debating, not who conformed to my opinions/preferences best. I will not let personal beliefs decide the outcome of the round as it is not my job to tell you what arguments you should be making - simply to look for who is arguing the best.
  • Though in RFD I will mention tactics I think may have worked better, although they did not sway the ballot.
• I prefer progressive cases. PICs, Kirtks, Counter Plans, you name it.
• I am accepting of traditional cases.
• Basically run whatever argument you want as long as you can pull it off. 
• Please please please have concise arguments. I want a claim, a warrant, and an implication.
• Extend with an argument. Just naming cards will get you nowhere, as I while I am attentive to taglines, you will lose me when you ask me to extend your (for example) "Marks card" in a rebuttal, but do not give the warrant behind the card. Chances are I wont know what you're talking about and it wont end up on the flow.
• Impact calculus is something I feel is neglected in LD. It shouldn't be.
• If you drop an argument that's that. Same goes for bringing up new arguments in rebuttals. While I believe it is the job of your opponent to point this out, I will not turn a blind eye if they don't.
• I like a clear cut, line by line debate, as that is how I evaluate the rounds. Make it easy for me to flow and sign the ballot. Signpost clearly and provide offtime roadmaps.
• Flex prep is cool with me.
• I don't flow CX.
• Use all of your speech time and use it wisely to help construct your argument.
• Speak as fast as you want - but if you are not clear, I wont flow. It is your job as a debater to know your limits when in comes to speaking clearly AND speedily. I will shout clear if asked to before rounds.
• Please flash cases before hand - don't waste prep time or my time. This goes to say that you should be able to present your opponent with your case or clarification when needed, even if you're paper debating.
• I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time and time in general. I will give time signals only if asked.
• Be polite in round - be passionate and aggressive and for all means please be argumentative, but don't be an ass.
• I do not tolerate gendered language in round. You'll loose speaks, and if I find it particularly offensive, I will drop you like a hot potato.

Tell me you're "picking up Mary's Tamales" before round and I'll give you .5 bonus speaker points.

I like puns. 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I competed and demonstrated wide success in LD Debate during my three years of high school.

The most important of LD is the Value-Criterion Clash. I need methods to measure the round, and these are perfect ways to provide that. Please bring up the Value and Criterion of your case in each speech (that should go unsaid really) and juxtapose this with your opponents Value and Criterion. (Morality is an awful Value. You will be at disadvantage if your case utilizes Morality.)

Please provide Analysis of Impacts, and if it is appropriate a World-to-World Analysis is a great way to present a compartmentalized summary of why I should vote for you. Voting issues in the final speeches are fundamental and should be explained in great detail.

Clash. Clash. Clash. 

Honestly, I shouldn't have to say that. Yet, I am surprised time after time when a round seems less like a debate round, and more like a "let's-read-this-paper-that-I-don't-understand" event. Please discuss and analyze the theory behind your evidence. In my experience when a debater explicates the underlying philosophies of the sources they provide it creates more room for clash, which results in a better debate. 

Please provide an off-time road (sign-post) at the beginning of each speech. Do not spew. Speed is ok, but I will let you know when I can no longer understand you. This is Speech & Debate, so we're going to speak and debate like human beings. I do not allow Flex-prep.

In short, I'm a flow judge. I don't care what you put on my flow (types of arguments) or how it gets there (delivery and speed). I want a clear and consistent story on the flow to vote on.

I usually judge LD, but I often judge CX and PF as well. I don't care about your style of debate. I just want a clear reason to vote for you.

I flow and vote from the flow. I want to be able to look at the flow and see a simple, clear, and unbroken story about why you win based on the framework that you provide. Crystallization is important throughout to give me this story. Overviews are often effective. Your last speech should probably include voters if you want to win my ballot.

My experience with T and theory debates are more limited than circuit judges. It doesn't mean that I won't vote for them, as I often do. A blippy T or theory argument is unlikely to get my vote, however. I want the "abuse" clearly explained.

I enjoy good k debates. If you're clear about your k's thesis, its connection to the topic or an argument that your opponent made, and explain how the alternative works, then they're fun and interesting. That also doesn't mean that you should run a k. If you like them and want to run one, go for it. I think that the philosophical ideas in a k can add a lot to discussions of topics. I doubt that I know a ton about your literature on the k, however, so don't expect me to have a lot of background. Of course, usually you just pulled up someone else's k file to write the k anyways.

Framework for why your impacts matter is vital. You can win deontological positions, but you need to give offense under those frameworks too! I default to a cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided. What else am I supposed to do? I'm open to suggestions, but I'd prefer that you give me a clear framework.

Special note for PF: Please, crossfire time starts when the first person asks the first question that is not, "Do you want the first question?" or "Can I have the first question?" just like we give off-time roadmaps for the order you're going on the flow.

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand