Top Level:

Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him

Title the subject of the email chains: "[Tournament Name] [Round Number]: AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]"

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting. Blue highlighting in the round is fine but if I ask for a card doc after the round please send it in green. Thanks!

No PDFs/Google Docs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

I flow by computer and ear. I will not be using the doc during the speech (besides the 1AC and 1NC) but will read cards based on what I have on my flow during prep/after round if I feel it is crucial for my RFD.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

I like KvK debates, but not any more than I like Framework debates. I prioritize explanation in the round compared to card quality.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Kritiks:

I prefer most work to be done on the line-by-line.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate (which happens quite often).

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have a defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

0 risk of an impact is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) makes me sad and more likely to let aff terrorize you

Im Kaelyn iv been doing speech and debate for one year. What I'm looking for is clarity and not to spread.

He/Him

CCHS 2020-2024

Corner Canyon AH

Put me on the email chain (NOT A SPEECH DROP unless email is broken) henryjosephatkin@gmail.com

I will evaluate any arguments made in the round and will judge based on the round to the best of my ability, however these are generally what I prefer. All of these are allowed just my preferences. Just gonna stress this again, you do you. Don't over adapt to me.

tech > truth. if you can't beat the argument that rocks are people you deserve to lose

Advantages

Soft left aff's are cool! Big stick impacts are boring and probably wrong!

Use your 1AC advantages!

Add on's are cool!

DA's

Love a good DA

This might be a hot take but the UQ debate on DA's is underutilized.

Generic ptx da's are kind of annoying especially if the link is just pc and you never explain more. If you don’t know who switches their votes on a politics da that’s a little sad. That's not to say I don't like ptx da's, i just think people should put more work into link's than "republicans mad"

unique DA's are great. I will enjoy the debate a lot more if you go for the unique DA than the generic one. Unique meaning like new and fresh not like ... unique to the world of the aff lmao. I sure hope your da is uq

I don't love intrinsicness tests but I find that neg teams are terrible at debating them so go for it. I would really like an interp about what a valid intrinsicness test is. I feel like there's a better way to check against silly DA's

Zero risk is a thing

CP's

lean aff on things like multi-actor fiat and process CP's but lean neg on questions of international fiat, pic's and probably a couple other issues. Uniform 50 state fiat is silly. especially if you use them being closer to the people as a solvency advocate. but again i'll try to be tab so debate that out.

better than most for intrinsic perms to beat cp's with germane net benefits.

Advantage CP's and PICS are my favorite kind of cp, process cp's with a dumb internal nb are my least favorite.

Hey 2A's, your solvency cards aren't solvency deficits to an advantage CP. Stop trying to say they are. Hey 2N's, if your cp text is an entire dissertation, stop. please.

you should debate about judge kicking, I'm willing to go either way but probably lean toward not kicking. if there is no instruction i won't kick the cp or alt because that's intervention

T

Probably better for limits than ground, I don't really understand why neg teams have a god given right to their generics.

Plan text in a vacuum is silly.

probably better for reasonability than most judges but still lean slightly towards competing interps. reasonability isn't just a blank check for the affirmative though, all i means is that they have to prove their model of debate is good instead of better than the affs interp. so if you give a 2ar on reasonability but don't answer the negs offense i will make a very quick decision.

I will not vote for an aspec shell hidden at the bottom of the a T shell.

K's v Policy Affs

K's are awesome.

I have read queer pessimism, cap, security, anthropocentrism, and k's that talk a little bit about disability and imperialism

I have not read but have learned about anti-blackness, afro-pess, variations of model minority stuff, baulldriard (although I'm not a huge fan), Biopower, fem, set col, imperialism, cosmo, orientalism, academy, and queerness in area's other than pessimism and some others I can't think remember rn.

I know nothing about most postmodernists, Nietzsche, Bataille, Buddhism, complexity, cybernetics, Virillio, Heidegger, Deleuze, Foucault, Necropolitics, variations of death good and other stuff. Not to say you shouldn't read these, just that you should explain them. Which you should do anyways.

If your K is a UQ CP + DA it will lose to perm double bind every time, I'd prefer a framework round unless you have something new and tricky. new and tricky is fun and good

I'm not going to make up some middle ground on framework, I'm going to pick a model of debate and go with that. If either side wants to run a middle ground framework bc they think it'll be easier to win than their "you link you lose" or "no k's" framework, then I'm all for it. But I'm not going to do it for you. This means I care about framework a lot more than I think most judges do. Unless i have some reason not to i almost always resolve the framework debate first and then filter the rest of the debate through framework as I resolved it.

On the FW debate if you can connect what you're arguing to what it teaches people to argue/advocate for it will be much better, i find this specifically a problem with affirmatives. You are not solving extinction. you are advocating that it's good to try and solve extinction through the government. win that extinction is a real possibility and that your fw teaches people to solve it, not that you solve for your scenario. I do not share the moral panic many judges have about k fw that makes the case 0 or aff fw that makes the K 0. i love k tricks lol, fiat isn't real.

If you have performance don't forget about it after the 1NC

My ideal debate is a soft left aff vs the k

K aff's--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I have very little experience with K aff's but I do think they're really cool!

If FW

Impact turns are great, I'm better for one's grounded in your 1AC than generic impact turns.

Fairness could be an impact.

If you have performance don't forget about it after the 1AC

KvK

These debate are super fun! I don't have a ton of experience in them (only done one) but I really enjoyed it and I really like watching them!

I think K affs almost certainly get perms (never heard a reason why not that didn't rely on winning T first) but the threshold for the perm will probably be pretty high

The last thing is that I'm always really annoyed when K affs change what they are halfway through the debate to skirt links.

misc

theory is a question of models, interp and a counter interp. contextualize your offense and defense to the interps, people never do!

I will evaluate anything that goes dropped as true, but you still have to extend the entire argument in your last speech and tell me why it makes you win.

VOTERS ARE HUGE, 2NR 2AR it is your job to tell me why you won this debate. It makes it way easier for the judge and is just generally good practice.

Condo is probably good. I don't particularly understand why more advocacies spreads the aff thin but more t-shells, aspec, etc don't. i also don't understand why everyone thinks it's the only reject the team. I think rejecting the team requires a huge risk of offense. reject the team args are probably the only time i probably don't work on a normal offense defense paradigm.

I don't flow cross but I do think it's binding.

when evaluating debates i evaluate each flow separately and list out the offense and defense on each flow and then evaluate those arguments to see who has offense on that flow and how much. in cases where it makes sense (like fw on K's or pdcp debates) i will evaluate those first before the rest of the flow. then once ive done that with all relevant flows i list the offense each side has out and i try to weigh them against each other (hopefully y'all do this for me in the 2nr/2ar). then based on who has more offense i make a decision. then i look back at the 2r of whichever team has lost and make sure i have thought of every argument and could answer post round questions of "why did x not do y". if that happens and i'm confident none of the arguments in the 2r change my decision i vote.

pet peeves

i think that i have a lower threshold for getting annoyed at people being rude than many other judges. i am not afraid to tank your speaks and call you out in the tab comments. this is mostly a problem with male debaters to non-male partners and opponents.

your plan text should mean something. recently one of the best teams in the country read this plan text "The United States federal government should adopt a socialist job guarantee, financed by fiscal policies designed to facilitate regulated market socialism." what on earth are fiscal policies designed to facilitate regulated market socialism. same thing goes for cp's. i once saw a cp that was "the united states federal government should dedicate itself to regulated capitalism". what. They do that already. xecgvhjkj;lkj.i would probably vote on vagueness/spec against these types of things if the arguments are made and won

when judges decide they don't want to exclude the K or the case despite one team clearly winning framework because they like ... just don't want to. im giving you the arguments you win lol.

You cannot just reinsert rehighlightings, you have to read them

off time roadmaps that make arguments and are more than just telling me where to organize my flows

"I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

reading out the resolution at the beginning of the 1AC as if I don't know

Introducing yourself and your partner in the 1AC. I can see who you are on the ballot

Being called "judge". please call me henry or don't refer to me at all, but also I get that it's engrained in your head so I won't be upset if you do

avid hater of rules that Utah middle school debate has (no theory, no K's, its an auto loss if you're untopical (like that's objective lol), no verbal feedback, basically grab all of what makes policy work and get rid of it). waiting for the day that someone reads a 1NC that's one CP and 5 minutes of conditional planks because theory isn't allowed so that's not cheating. if I'm your judge at MS state I believe these rules do not apply

the end

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=370052

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

Feel free to ask me anything

I won't vote for any theory about what the other team is wearing, don't try it. also an exception to my tech over truth lol

i try to follow community norms on speaks (according to some data in a facebook group. on average i've given out a 28.66. ways to get good speaks are to be a kind person (in and out of your speeches), wasting as little time as possible between speeches and starting on time, making good strategic decisions, being clear so i dont have to follow along with the doc, and keeping my flows clean.

If you bring me chocolate milk (or hot chocolate in the winter) I'll give you an extra .1 speaker points

I also have many references to other paradigms, ill give you speaks boosts if you know who they're from. (i am now realizing i have forgotten what many of the references are so uh oops ig)

Being racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, etc = L and 0.

Corner Canyon High Debater (get it, HIGH debater)

Class of 2027

Add me to the email chain - benig.shan@gmail.com

I did all the events of debate in high school. I really hope this will be a great round. I have some general expectations for the events I judge so I will put down some general and some specific stuff I’m looking out for. You can consider me a flow judge for debate and a flay judge for speech. I’m also a Tabula Rasa, so treat me like I know nothing.

It’s good etiquette to disclose your cases. I am going to be mandating this in all tournaments I judge unless told not so by tabroom. Policy is two hours of debating so disclosing really helps me and your opponents to keep track of your arguments. If your opponent asks you the affirmative that you’re running, you kinda have to tell them. You can share the case in round but it’s etiquette that you tell them what you are running. I’m not going to be voting on disclosure theory for this because that's just a waste of time. Just to clarify, this applies to policy only. You aren’t required to do this for LD or PF unless it's a NatCirc Tournament so I don’t really care. I don’t care how fast you go but share with me your doc if you do. Even if you share the doc, slow down while you are reading card tags. There is a thing called stealing prep… I will give you roughly 45 seconds for you to share docs mid-speech. If there is an internet issue that I’ve been notified of, I will extend my grace time notably but your opponents can prep for the time you take to send out docs. So what I recommend you do is to suck it up and motivate yourself to be faster. Don’t be condescending… I hate it when you indirectly insult your opponent and I go nuts. The least thing you want to do is piss me off. Passion is great and shouting in passion is fine but don’t drown your opponents with it. For speaker points, I start a 28 and you gotta do wonders for it to go up. If your cases are highlighted yellow and fonted in Calibri, I will give you guys an extra speaker point. For Speech, just be good, meaning that just use good toning fluctuations and involve me when you ask rhetorical questions. I will expand specifics for all events below so yeah, it’s only getting started. If you guys have a confusion about this confusing ahh paradigm, email me or ask me in round because I prefer that I would explain rather than being assaulted verbally for being a terrible judge for my decisions. If anyone still doesn’t realize how I judge, I’m tech>>> truth.

(Still coming)

I have been doing debate, only LD, for 3-ish years, counting the current year.

I have very little experience if at all in any other events so please bear with me.

LD:

Actively use and link value and criterion to the debate

Try not to drop more than 20 seconds

I can follow slow spreading and if you plan on going faster please be prepared to share the document to me and your opponent

Please try to use sign posting

I can follow progressive: Counterplans, k's, and other things alike. Bear in mind that if your goal is to confuse your opponent and end up doing so I will most likely doc you points and the potential win, the goal of LD is to debate over a topic, not to show that you can 'yap' more. Furthermore, if your goal is to argue the topic isn't fair please be aware you are at a judge bias disadvantage as I 'hate whining', please don't whine.

CX:

Not going to lie policy ain't my jam and I have never done it before. I hope that you can direct the round and not expect me to know what you are doing at all times. If it is complicated theory I am most likely not going to understand.

Speech:

I expect memorization in oratory and I have no clue if you guys are allowed notecards in extempt as I am writing this

Please note I have very little experience if at all in speech events

August Brown (he/him) augustbrown0711@gmail.com, add me to the email chain!

Hi all! I am a freshman debating at Whitman College in NPDA (parli). During high school I competed for 4 years in progressive policy debate.

Debate:

Please assume I have no knowledge of the topic. I can keep up with the formatting of conventional arguments but I'll need you to actually explain your topic-specific keywords.

Spreadingis completely fine, but slow down on tags and enunciate! I have a higher threshold for enunciation than other judges since I struggle with audio processing. I will call clear twice, and if I still can't understand you I will not flow.

Be kind to each other in cross! There is a clear line between being assertive and being mean. I also will not tolerate misgendering, misogyny, racism, etc. in round and I will vote against you if these happen since tangible in-round impacts matter far more than your hypothetical plans. If you feel unsafe during the round, don't hesitate to speak up or even email me and I'll do my best to address it.

This likely only applies to novices, but if you don't understand what you're reading or don't have the tech, analytics are better than making things up. Card dumps only help if the cards actually reinforce your args.

Policy/progressive debate specific:

Tech>truth unless it's egregious or blatantly harmful.

I hold PICs to a high theoretical standard and usually lean aff on the theory debate. I expect specific solvency evidence for your process/agent counterplans. Advantage CPs with very obvious solvency are the exception--just articulate it well.

Topicality is not fun or educational for either team to read unless the aff is seriously violating your interpretation. Aspec, extra-T, effects T, vagueness, etc. are also difficult for me to vote on as they tend to be run as time wasters with no actual educational harm. If you have an impressive, precise definition, a TVA with evidence, and a good caselist under your interp, I'll consider voting on it. But it should be clear to me that the consensus of the literature agrees with your interpretation.

I love Ks and K affs, but so many alts have absolutely no solvency and/or specificity. Please thoroughly explain your alts and why they actually do something, especially if you claim that rhetoric is more significant than material change. For K affs, I want to see good 2AC defense of why you need the ballot and why you can't just do the TVA - that being said, don't let this discourage you from running something you're really passionate about, I would love to hear it!

Also I love impact calc! Don't make me do the work of weighing your arguments when you can explain exactly why your case outweighs every off or advantage.

I will reward extra speaker points for any of the following:
- Crocs with sport mode
- Say a Mean Girls quote in your speech (must be in-context to the round)

Speech:

Consider me to be a lay judge for speech. I'm not aware of the norms y'all use in rounds, so let me know if there's something that's particularly relevant to the round that you'd like for me to know.

I am currently a high school debater, and I am serving as captain of my debate team, I've done exclusively LD for about 4 or so years.
Consider me an uninformed judge for all events except LD.

LD:

I value the use of blocks, back when I did MS debate I loved blocks so much I made a 96 page long document full of them with my team. Esp. in MS Debate where you have LOTS of time to prepare for a topic, there's no excuse to not come prepared.

I think it's really dumb that most LD'ers at the MS Level don't... polarize? By that I mean you need to be strictly showing why it's moral/immoral, just/unjust. You need to prove that your case is more moral/just than your opponents, that's like LD 101.

Link your framework back to your case, don't forget the framework!

CX:

I have never competed or judged CX before, so I only have a very vague understanding of it, I expect that you signpost to help me out, I won't understand any super complex specific policy-stuff. I'll likely vote off of a flow and who dropped/what points were stronger.

Email: ddagar1039@gmail.com

Tech over truth

Debated for 3 years, 2 years on Utah middle school circuit LD, one year HS PF. I went 10th in PF and 2nd in impromptu at state. 2022-2024

I teach the middle schoolers at my school how to debate, so I know what a good round looks like.

I've judged for several middle school tournaments before, so I do know how to write a good ballot.

Debate:

I vote on fallacies. They are the number one thing I vote on. I want you to use fallacies in the rounds because that is what TRUE debate is and that is how to be a TRUE debater.

I competed in a few policy tournaments in middle school, so I know how policy rounds should go. I'm fine with spreading, just send me the doc on the email above, I can't decipher your spreading and write a good ballot at the same time. I would rather you be clear than fast. As a judge, I like clear link chains and impact debates, source debate is fine, but it most likely won't be the reason you win, so don't waste time on it. If you make me laugh, +1 speaker points. In cross-x, you can be aggressive, but don't be abusive, it ruins the debate. Weigh your impacts, they're one of the biggest things I vote on. Signpost and go down the flow, I will follow you but don't make it hard for me. If your arguments are abusive, I won't vote on them. If your only way of winning is through abusive arguments, you don't deserve to win.

LD specifically:

Extend your framework and impacts.

If you go overtime, I give a 15-second grace period, try not to go over it. I won't give you the loss for it, but I will decrease your speaker points.

Speaker points:

25> You were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just plain mean.

25.1 - 26.9: You weren't understandable and made the debate hard for me (and my flow) to follow.

27 - 27.9: You're doing well but need some work.

28 - 28.9: Top half and you are doing well

29 - 30: Good job!

hello, i'm caden! i'm 17 and i go to corner canyon! i've done high school debate for a year, and i've competed in impromptu, oratory, informative, congress, and shortform interp. next year, i'm planning on doing ld! in a round, i'm looking for a clear voice. it makes it much harder for me when i need to decipher what you're saying. in that same vain, no spreading please :). i also like the contentions to be clear. make sure to transition well. that's about it! i'm so excited to judge!!

i’ve been debating for 4 years, i'm a sophomore on the ahs team, and i went to nationals in 2024

ld: i prefer traditional debate, with focus on values. if you win the framework you typically win the round. voters are extremely important not only for me but also so i can see that you fully understand the round and can lay out all the reasons you should win. clear speaking, linear arguments, etc, are also appreciated. i do not flow cx.

speech: i'm looking for an informative speech with clearly outlined points. if it’s an interp then characterization is really important.

of course, always be respectful, whether you are giving a rebuttal, talking with your opponent, or in cx (being abusive in cx will lose you speaker points)

i will flow the round separately, but all my other notes will be on your ballot.

hi! im brynn-- im a senior at corner canyon and have been debating for 4 years. i've done all the debate events and a little bit of speech but most of my experience is in ld.

im generally a tech over truth judge so please cite evidence!

i don't usually flow cross-- i'll pay attention and count it towards speaker points but if you want me to weigh something said in cross please bring it up in your next speech!

this means that your cross is not your time to give a speech! you should be using that time to ask your opponents questions, not to spend 40 seconds summarizing your case. cross is only useful if you use it to ask questions.

please be respectful in cross-- its ok to cut someone off if their answer is unneccessarily long but dont call people names, don't tell your opponent to shut up, etc. etc.

please do voters!! tell me why I should vote for you: why do your impacts outweigh your opponents impacts? what is the most important impact of the round? (this is where scope/magnitude/probability/timeframe comes in) (also framework(ld) and framing(cx))

please signpost and do off-time roadmaps!

my thoughts on various arguments:

disads: i think ptx das are kinda boring but im willing to vote on them.

cps: please if you run a cp explain why it disproves the aff. i would love to clean the oceans but if you can't prove that its mutually exclusive to the aff then im not going to vote on it. this means that if you're aff and neg runs a cp you should perm it!! tell me why they could both happen!

im ok with pretty much all types of cps

ks: i dont have a ton of experience with ks other than the basic ones (cap, consumption, etc.) so feel free to run a k but beware its not exactly my area of expertise.

i probably have more thoughts but im so sleepy so i cant think of any but if you have any questions feel free to ask them!!

most importantly make sure youre keeping the debate space safe and fun-- sexism/racism/homophobia isn't ok even if its a joke arg, and neither is being blatantly disrespectful to your opponents.

good luck yall are amazing!! <3

Hi all! If you're a middle schooler, much of this information is not relevant to you. Here's the TL;DR: If you're reading a K, please understand it at least vaguely. Give me offense. If you're reading theory, please know what you're doing. Read it for the sake of making a competitive and fair debate, not just to win. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Skip all the hooks and anything about stock issues. You don't have to preempt topicality. If your coach told you to prove an attitudinal inherent barrier, they are silly.

email me with questions: wharrison2052(at)gmail.com

add me to the email chain (there'd better be one! speechdrop is evil. i hate the nsda fileshare. i'd rather you paste your speech in the zoom chat than send through one of those abysmal filesharing mechanisms. but if you're reliant on school emails or something i'm fine with whatever): wharrison2052@gmail.com

if for some reason i'm not judging policy, i'll judge based on arguments that are present in the last speech. if you're in pf and you're spreading, join policy but i don't really care. if you're in ld and you're spreading, find a partner and join policy but i still don't really care do what you wanna do.

not being a meanyhead > tech > truth

TL;DR: i'll adapt to you, don't lose to switchside. if your strat is to run 13 poorly developed off against an aff that isn't breaking new, i'll be sad.

general

my optimal debate is a soft left aff vs a 1 off k and some great case turns. 2ac add-ons are underrated. i'm willing to read evidence after the round, flag it as such in the 2n/ar and i'll go back and look. this doesn't mean you don't have to warrant out extensions.

DA

intrinsicness is a great strat in front of me. case specific disads are great. impact turns are undervalued. zero risk is a thing and i'm very open to framing arguments about not evaluating low risk impacts. BUT you still have to prove low risk lol.

CP

unless it's an advantage cp with obvious solvency, specific solvency advocates please. if you're not changing the 1nc shell round to round i'll be sad. if you don't have a solvency advocate i'm crossing the cp off my flow the moment aff reads an intrinsic perm. if you do have a specific solvency advocate you can say intrinsic perms are bad and you can probably beat the intrinsic perm. if your cp loses to pdcp i'll be sad. if you impact turn the crappy internal net benefit i'll love you. agent cps are boring, pics are good, tiny pics are bad and i'll reject the arg pretty quick but probably not the team.

against terrible counterplans the perm and theory are probably equally good in front of me.

T

really? if there's a plan it's probably topical. t usfg and t substantial might be valid. but i get it if it's actually not. anyways i really dont care too much about how good your interp cards are unles they really demonstrate lit consensus (intent to define is probably good). use standards and voters more than your interp please.

Theory

i don't like debating about rules for the sake of making the other side debate about rules. debate about rules if you think they're good rules that have been broken.

condo is good but i'll vote on it if it's egregious enough and clearly abusive. new affs probably bad but i probably won't vote on it i'll just give neg tons of leeway on basically every theory issue. if you're reading theory as a time skew i'm definitely not voting on it. reject the arg resolves almost everything except condo.

Policy vs K

death isn't good. baudrillard is insufferable if you take it seriously. baudrillard is still insufferable if you don't.

stop it with your super long overviews and get to the point. that doesn't mean don't explain your k, it just means explain the relevant parts more. line by line link work is great.

plan focus is probably bad. perm overwhelms the link arguments are annoying. write an aff that makes the k grasp at straws, then win the perm. or win the impact turn. "no Ks" framework is not it in front of me.

K v T

k affs should have a link to the topic. 1ACs that are well set up to impact turn framework and that critique the ways discourse around the resolution is bad are good. 1ACs that criticize practices in the debate community and provide a debatable solution are good.

lots of k affs lose to switchside + TVA. don't let yours. please be interesting, prompt critical reevaluation, and have genuine reasons why you can't just read it on the neg and go soft left on aff. (baudrillard is silly and a turdface and i'm willing to vote neg if they just read 5 minutes of direct baudrillard quotes in the 1nr eg “Every woman is like a time-zone. She is a nocturnal fragment of your journey. She brings you unflaggingly closer to the next night.”) fairness is an impact but it can be outweighed and the uniqueness debate is there. i need you to prove thatdebating about state engagement is bad, not just that the state is bad.

if your aff is performative i need a clear articulation of the role of the negative in such debates and it should be clearly established what things are offense/reasons for the ballot before the 2ar.

extra speaks for good puns or clever mean girls or monty python references. +0.2 if you give me a new artist + a work of theirs i should check out + a preferred recording. if i'm deciding your speaks and it's between 28.9 and 29.0, yellow highlighting makes the difference. cyan and green are gross but i understand accessibility reasons.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=242890

i vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is i'll boost your speaks

abby.holland.ut@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)

CCHS '24 (2N all 4 years)

she/her

policy

middle school

most of this probably doesn't apply beyond the general notes. Please extend warrants and evidence from speech to speech. Impact calc and judge instruction is super important! if you're interested in high school debate I'd love to answer questions!

general

tech>truth

I'm fine with any speed just please enunciate and slow down on analytics. if I can't understand you I'll call clear twice and then stop flowing. slow down a tiny bit on online debates

please explain acronyms at least once so I know what you're talking about

I've been told its pretty easy to tell what I'm thinking based on my facial expressions, I don't know how much this translates to debate rounds

TL;DR: I'd rather watch a good round than a round that's worse because you overadapt to me, so do whatever you want just explain it well. Everything below are just my preferences and ramblings. Impact calc and judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are really important to me, line-by-line is great, the more work you do to minimize judge intervention the easier my decision is and the less confused/frustrated you will be with my decision.

DA

DAs are great, run whatever as long as you run it well. Case-specific DAs make me very happy and super generic DAs make me sad but I understand their use.

I LOVE politics DAs! That being said I think generic links such as PC are usually poorly explained (PC is fake change my mind). I have a higher threshold for voting for vague links. Specific links are amazing here and I think you should know how key politicians would vote in the world of the DA. (bonus points if you have a CP that avoids the ptx DA with specific evidence key politicians would support the CP)

i'm willing to vote for intrinsicness

IMPACT CALC please! zero risk is a thing, framing can take out a DA if its done well

CP

Great, you do you. Specific CPs are better. Please have solvency advocates and a net benefit. Stop writing CP plan texts that are multiple paragraphs long (looking at you 2Ns). I'm probably not the best judge for in depth competition debates, but i'll do my best and i reccomend you slow down a tiny bit in these debates

I lean neg on most theory, except I'm aff leaning on multi-actor fiat. uniform 50-state fiat is silly. condo is good

you should debate judge kick

T

contextualized interps are better. Please slow down a little on analytics

I won't vote for aspec hidden at the bottom of a T-flow, label it clearly. This also means I'm more lenient on 1ar answers to hidden aspec

Case

Case debate is really underrated! Utilize in-depth case debate and case turns!

K v. Policy Aff

I love these debates, a one-off k debate against a soft left policy aff is probably one of my favorite debates.

I've read cap, queerness, security, and anthropocentrism. I have some knowledge of afro-pess, fem, setcol, and a little bit of baudrillard (although I really dislike baudrillard). Feel free to read other Ks, just make sure to explain them clearly!

if your K is secretly just a CP + DA in a trench coat pretending to be a K it probably loses pretty easily. I'm going to pick a framework based on the flow, not a middle ground. Line-by-line debate is better than super long, not contextualized overviews. Also please be able to actually articulate what the world of the alt looks like and how it interacts with the aff.

If you have an element of performance, make sure to link it back to your solvency (also I think performance is super cool and would love to see more of it!)

K affs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I don't have much experience with K affs, but I think they're great! Just make sure to explain it well. I think they should have some link to the topic

I don't think I'm qualified to have a leaning on K affs v. FW, I'll vote for either. fairness is an impact, but I prefer it as an internal link

KvK

I have almost no experience with these debates but I think they're cool, so do what you will with that information.

Policy Affs

I love soft left affs! Please have a solid framing page

2as please make your plan text mean something, wtf are fiscal polices designed to facilitate regulated market socialism

LD

I'll probably judge this similarly to how I would a policy round, please explain how your value/criterion frames your impacts!

other events

I have less experience in speech, but I'm excited to judge all events so don't be worried!

Misc

Be a good human! Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Read re-highlights don't just insert them

your off time roadmap should tell me what order my flows go it

I'll evaluate dropped arguments as true, but you still have to extend a warrant and explain why it means you win for me to vote on it

I'll probably dock 0.1 speaks if you say "I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

I'll give +0.1 speaker points for mean girls or legally blonde references in context (movie or musical)

feel free to ask me anything

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=244725

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

I have done policy for years. I debate in high school. Run what ever you want. MAKE SURE TO STRESS IMPACTS. I love impact calc.(bonus speaker points if you are a funny fellow)

*last updated 10/5/24*

Rowland Hall policy debater (2N) -- class of 2027

general notes / tl;dr ---

Add me to the email chain: emerylieberman@rowlandhall.org

Please disclose! Even if you’re a novice or the tournament doesn’t require it, it’s good practice and etiquette.

Debate is a game.

Tech > truth, BUT you will have to work harder to get me to vote for a factually untrue argument. I have a low threshold for how thoroughly you need to respond to a stupid argument.

I don’t care if you spread, just slow down for tags, analytics, and anything that’s particularly important

If you drop offense, especially straight turns, you’re going to have to work REALLY hard to come back from that

I like judge instruction, but am not a fan of judgekick

Don’t just repeat the tag of your card and call it an extension

Don’t steal prep

Don’t be rude. Your speaker points will be seriously hurt if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise mean or problematic to anyone before or during the round

If you have any questions about a round or my decision, email me!

---------------------

Novice:

Do whatever you do best. Being a novice is about learning the ropes, don’t be afraid to make mistakes and figure things out. Debate how you were coached, that’s always a great jumping-off point. That said, don’t run anything that’s not in the packet or make up new args from cards in the packet. When I was a novice, this happened to me a few times, it’s not fun and ruins the debate. It’s unethical and against the spirit of what the packet is meant for, which is giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

Cross:

Be confident in yourself and your case. I don’t flow cross, but it’s a great time to gain or lose speaks, make impressions, and set up arguments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategy, analysis, mastery of nuance). I listen closely to cross and include cross performance in my assessments. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks. Be respectful to each other but it’s great to be aggressive. Cross is binding, but I will only evaluate it if it’s brought up in a speech.

Affs:

I don’t love K affs, I definitely prefer policy affs but as long as you win T or any VIs I’ll probably vote on it. Soft-left affs are great too, I think the way you debate framing is always interesting team by team. Most importantly, make sure you actually understand ALL of your aff, no matter what it is.

Disads:

I prioritize the link debate. If it’s a disad like inflation or politics, make sure your uniqueness is up to date. Otherwise, I think they’re pretty straightforward.

CPs:

I can appreciate both a creative CP and a basic CP that gets the job done. I love perms, so make sure you answer all of them. If a perm is dropped in the block and extended in the 1ar, there's really no way to save it.

Your CP MUST have a net-benefit (even if it's internal) for me to vote on it. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but here we are.

Ks:

I don't have the most experience running Ks, but I know quite a bit about them and have nothing against them and have won on a few myself. Just make sure to explain yourself thoroughly no matter what, the K’s number one priority, as with any other argument, is to be coherent. That means solid links and impacts, and the alt has to be a call for a ballot. A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff or prefer the alt. My favorite K is SetCol, if that does anything for you.

T / Theory:

I think T and theory debates are boring unless the other team is doing something seriously wrong or abusing the resolution in some way. I will vote on T / theory if it’s dropped or inadequately answered, but don’t expect me to like it.

I prefer fairness over clash in terms of voters.

Counterplan theory is a reason to reject the argument. Severance / intrinsic perms is also a reason to reject the argument.

Reasonability and competing interpretations are pretty equal in my mind.

I hate RVIs. If you run one it would be a detriment to you.

Hello every one, here is some information about me and my paradigm.

I have been doing debate since 5th grade and my main event is policy. I have experience in CX, PF, LD, and FX.

My name is pronounced Jar-E-us, not Jair-E-us (so not like Jar in the name Jared). If you need to refer to me in the round, please do so by "judge".

For email chains, my email is debaterjarius@gmail.com. This is the one I prefer for rounds. Subject: {TOURNAMENT NAME} Round {Round #} Aff {code/school} vs Neg {code/school}.

For Policy
I have a good enough understanding of policy to be okay with any argument (abiding by the tournament/division rules of course). I am okay with T, K, CP, DA, ADV, Theory, contentions, and pretty much every argument. I am okay with speaking quickly at the MS level and formally spreading at the HS level but make sure to be articulate so I can truly understand what you are saying. I am a tech > truth judge, but do not say anything, I still look for reasonability and not just logic.

Here are things that I will be valued in the round along with fundamentals.

TL;DR
Speed is fine, lack of clarity isn't

Tech > Truth, but be reasonable or I probably won't vote for it

Bigoted arguments = loss

Please extend or you have conceded the argument

K-Affs are interesting, but difficult to vote on unless you can prove otherwise

CPs work best with DAs or Case Turns, or as a TVA - nothing else

Condo is fine, but it's not a win on your advocacy

I need to constantly hear the case debate attacked/defended in ALL of the speeches, I do not care about a random DA or CP, being emphasized in the middle of the round

Good time management is key, Focus on what is most important always

Kicking out is fine, please actually do this by the 2NR/2AR if it is advantageous

No new args post the 1NC from either side unless it's T or Theory

Speaking of T, responding to it with extraneous arguments (like it’s on the wiki, you could have prepped, etc.) is not a good response to T! ????

There is no need for constant eye contact with me, as long as I can hear, I will be flowing

BE NICE.Everyone makes mistakes, but please be nice to your opps. In round bashing of someone’s arguments or character will result in low speaks (and potentially a loss!)

Constructive Speeches
For me, all arguments that each side will be running must be presented in the 1AC or 1NC. So if you bring in an argument in the 2NC, unless it is T or theory, I will not be considering it in my flow. Present all evidence as early as possible in the round. Theory and T are okay to bring in post-1NC and pre-1NR.

Rebuttal Speeches
To put it simply, extend or get rejected. You HAVE to extend every argument you brought into the 1AC and 1NC to the end of the round - unless you formally "kick out" of it - for me to consider it and vote for it. Any argument that is dropped at any speech cannot be brought back into the rebuttals as a voter issue for me. I will only consider voting on things that were continued into the 2AR and 2NR.

Impact Calculus
I love good impact calculus, not just weighing your arguments against the opponents, but also proving why your metric is better for the debate and how it supersedes your opponent (if they are different), or works better for your position (if they match). Make sure that you are able to really prove to me why voting for your side is not only a good idea but a necessary measure to prevent harm in the hypothetical debate world.

If you are going on Impact Calc, please weigh your most important arguments first against theirs. If the impacts match, do not weigh on magnitude alone.

Attacks
Most people understand the constructive, particularly the 1Cs but you will need good attacks after that. I particularly like turns to prove how the opponents aren't able to actually meet their burden, especially impact turns. I also like proving why that attack matters to the debate. For example, if you attack their solvency, prove to me why that solvency deficit is bad for the Aff and a reason for me to vote. Attacking on the stock issues is good but I really enjoy turns also. That being said, double turns are not okay and will make me reject one of the turns.

K-Affs
K-Affs, while interesting to hear, are gonna quickly deter me from the Aff because of how unfair it can get for the neg very quickly. I will vote for it once you are able to prove that it actually is topical or that your aff comes before topicality and is productive to the debate world. Please, please, please, prove why you’re right. And please, please, please, don’t expect me to buy “T is Sloppy” arguments when I just don’t know what you’re doing with your 1AC (maybe extra speaks if you get the reference).

Ethical Violations
Any sort of discrimination in the round will result in me stopping and even ending the round. You cannot be offensive at all to any group, even a group that is not in the room, and expect me to be tolerant of such behavior. Make sure that you are being respectful to everyone.

If someone is accused of cheating, I will stop the round to assess the situation. Here are some things to me that are not cheating:

• Reading cards in the 1NR or 1AR
• Connecting to wifi
• Spreading
• Reading a novice Aff from a different camp (specific to novice policy)
• Reading an aff not in the camp files
• Reading an off in a different camp
• Needing to go to the bathroom in the round (it happens to everyone)
• Opponents passing notes to each other or speaking to each other during your speech
• Opponents typing on their computer during their partner’s speech (I wouldn’t know what they are typing anyway)
• Not sending analytics in the chain
• Making a speech doc and putting only cards in it and/or sending it. (If you are adding cards, then it is prep)

IB Seiji Aoki

DAs
A good DA to me is one that is able to turn the case in some way. Make sure that you are extending all parts of it in the following speeches even if the opposing team dropped a part of it. Prove to me the DA weighs in on the aff and makes it a key voter issue if you can. Keep pushing and keep in mind what the DA adds to the debate. I like to see how this particular argument changes the way I should view the affirmative in the debate. It also helps you to weigh in and can lead to some turns.

When extending, prove to me why the DA matters more than the aff. If you do not do this, I will make the choice to evaluate the meaning the DA presents on my own.

CPs
The best CPs are ones that tag alone a DA, especially ADV CPs which otherwise could be per-mutated easily. I’m okay with all types of CPs and I really want you to focus on the net benefit in the later speeches. If the DA is winning and your CP is attached to that DA, there is a pretty good chance that I will vote for the CP and the DA because of the combo it brings. That being said, if the DA is losing, it becomes harder for me to want to get for the CP since the net benefit becomes irrelevant.

A CP will be the most net-beneficial to me if the DA that it is paired to turns the case and is mutually exclusive in terms of triggering the DA.

T
I really enjoy a good T argument but there are multiple ways to go about it incorrectly. First, if you are going to run T, then prove to me why the aff being untopical matters to the debate. Some questions you may want to consider answering are “What effect does this have on the real world?” or “Why does T become a voter issue?". Especially post 1AR, I want to see why T is important to the round, what real-world value it provides, and really hammer home the reasoning for why it matters. If aff wins on T, it is not an automatic win for the affirmative. I also don’t consider the “they could run on-case against us” a valid response to a T because you can always make up an argument as to why a plan will fail but will not always be able to run DAs that will link into an Aff plan. Granted, I’m not gonna buy every T, but I will be considering a heavy amount if I do buy it and aff will need to respond to it fully for me to consider the aff as answering it properly. Do not run a T for the sake of a T; I will not buy it if you do not make it specific enough to the plan.

Arguments like “It’s on the wiki” or “You could have prepped for it before hand” or “We disclosed” or any of the sort are not valid responses to T! ???? If you, as an Aff, respond to this, I won’t even bother weighing it. It’s such a BS idea since T isn’t saying that prep is impossible, by that the debate quality goes down because the affirmative does not directly relate to topic literature in a fair or educational way.

K
Politically based Ks are fine as long as you can prove that the particular K is objectively important to the round, as in it actually solves important issues that the affirmative does play into. I like to see Ts that can measurably make the debate world better and not just be a way to whine about the Affirmative in some way. With a K, I really enjoy theory debates as they can help with proving why the K is fair/unfair and if they should be considered in a round. Go beyond the debate world impacts and go into the real-world ideas behind running a K in the first place. That will help you gain more edge in your theoretical debate. A good framework for the neg and aff is a must because it helps me see why your K is important to the debate or how the aff needs to be weighed despite the pre-fiat. If you are not able to prove this, there is a significantly high chance you will lose on the K. Don't run Ks on things that have to do with the people debating, I will consider it as a theory arg on it immediately if you do. No preference in the Block if you answer the perm first and then the link first, but please explain your impacts.Have thorough alt explanations. If your K has no actual praxis, unless you kick the alt and go on framework, I will not vote for your K.

K: I challenge the assumptions

Theory: I challenge the debate model

Negative Framework
A really good neg will show me how their framework of the debate is important to maximizing the educational or ethical potential of a debate. You cannot simply read a card and expect it to suffice for me, go really hard on why the way you prove the worldview is important to the round and the debate space as a whole.

Theory
I like interesting theory arguments to prove the way a debate round should operate. I like to see things like conditionality and T, but also other Theories that expand and challenge the debate mold in an interesting and productive way. Explicitly explain the ideas behind why your theory is important to the way debate must work out to keep it fair and educational. I really like to see people go in on the abuse because you can present real-world impacts from it. Err-ing your side is good, but it’s not gonna make me consider it as a voter issue and makes it seem too techy and makes the argument solely for a debate purpose and not for a precedent.

Conditionality
I do not have a bias towards the aff or neg on the condo. I am okay with 2 CPs and 1 K from the negative side. If you do run multiple CPs, please try and kick one of them so I can evaluate the world the way you would like me to. I am also okay with a judge-kick in the 2NR if the neg so chooses.

Sign Posting / Off-Time Road Map
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make sure to do this! I have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to truly tell 100% of the time what response goes to where unless every argument is super unique from each other. This will help you in speaking and making the round neat and clear. When you do an off-time road map, please say what type of argument you are running in the order you are running them. For advantages or affirmative arguments, you can just say on case.

E. G.

I will be presenting a DA, then a CP, a T, and a K, then move into "on" [case].

Speaking Scale (Speakers, pay attention)
I offer grace periods for both Speech and Debate events. It typically is 30 seconds before and 30 after for speech and 15 before and 15 after for debate. I will actually stop you after 30 seconds in debate and you may finish your last sentence. Stuttering and slipping up is not going to significantly dock you points unless it is way too consistent. I use multiple factors in determining how many points I give you. Such as time, fluidity, vocal range, and politeness in speeches. If you are louder, it should be a point to convict and not to get mad at the other team or me. I do not use cross-ex to evaluate who should win a round, but I will award speaker points to good questions and answers. I will not factor in pre-round interactions as a means of determining the winner. It is appreciated but will not be considered. If you spread, make sure that it is clear and that you slow down when reading authors, taglines, dates, and analytics. Swaying, moving your hands too much, moving unnecessarily, and not making proper eye contact will dock speaking points.

30-speaker-point scale:
>25, you are not winning the round most likely. (I will never give a score less than 25 most likely unless you are actually offensive in some way.)

25-26, you are doing some things correctly, but you still have a lot to work on

26.1-27, you are slightly below average. Keep up the work, but you have room for improvement.

27.1-28, you are where you need to be. Still not perfect, but you are getting there

28.1-29, you are above average. What you are doing is good but it’s still not perfect

29.1-30, you did everything correctly or almost everything correctly. You have a real understanding of speaking.

100-speaker-point scale:
>60, you are not winning the round most likely. (I will never give a score less than 60 most likely unless you are actually offensive in some way.)

60-70, you are doing some things correctly, but you still have a lot to work on

71-80, you are slightly below average. Keep up the work, but you have room for improvement.

81-90, you are where you need to be. Still not perfect, but you are getting there

91-99, you are above average. What you are doing is good but it’s still not perfect

100, you did everything correctly or almost everything correctly. You have a real understanding of speaking

I award low-point wins to the team who won and the round ended in either a tie or with the losing team winning on speaker points.

Evaluation
I will try to evaluate speaking points as soon as that person stops giving speeches for the rest of the round. When determining who won, I will listen to who mainly outweighed their opponent and who won on the key voter issues. If you do not present them themselves, I will end up determining which arguments seemed to be the key ones during the.

Email chains or flash-driving speeches
I do not count this as prep since you are not (hopefully) making the next speech. I do not like yellow highlights, please use green or blue highlights. Please also only highlight the card, not the tagline, author, date, or any other part of it. I do own a flash drive, but I would prefer that everyone uses e-mail chains so I can keep track of the round later if I need to determine the winner or update my flows at a later time. If you do use a flash drive, make a copy of the document and save it. Do not take them off the drive entirely until the round is over.

Card Cutting in Speeches
When you are reading a long card and need to stop reading it if it's not highlighted, then please say "Cut the card here." This is just so I know when you are not reading the card anymore and I can move on to the next one.

LD
I have some experience with LD. Make sure that you make your impacts moral or if they are tangible that they tie into your value and value criterion. If you do not do this, then it becomes more of a solo PF round, which is not something I want to have in an LD round. Do not spread in LD, you can speak fast, though. It's okay for you to run Ks and theory. I don't think you can run counter plans and it wouldn't make sense for the negative either since it's mainly about how the resolution is or isn't moral and not that the resolution is or isn't good.

I’m not super familiar with value philosophies. If you make an argument saying the other debater’s arguments don’t uphold their FW or how your FW is superlative to theirs, or any of the sort, explain to mewhy this is super clearly.

PF
I like to see you guys use proper evidence but also deliver it properly, effectively, and convincingly for me to vote for you. If you do not do that. I don't have much to say other than just make sure you are following basic debate principles.

Have Fun!
I want you guys to enjoy debating! It's a special thing to participate in it should be fun to learn how to expand your knowledge in a game-like way! Winning isn't everything and should not be the sole reason why you debate.

Hello! I’m Vall, a college freshman studying philosophy & political science with a focus on public relations. I competed in speech and debate throughout high school, and this is my first-year judging.

Some things I am looking for…

Congress

presentation

- Especially in the Utah Circuit, I value good presentation almost as heavily as good argumentation. This is a performative event, so don’t expect to get the 1 from me if you’re reading off a computer in a monotone voice. iPads are fine, though I prefer legal pads as a method for speech-giving.
- To build off that, DO NOT READ YOUR SPEECHES! I need to see a lot of eye contact. 90% of your speech should be you looking at me, not your notes. That doesn’t mean you need to memorize your speech. Familiarize yourself with it, but don’t memorize it. Like telling the story of Cinderella, you don’t need to read it to know it!

- I don’t love the stereotypical ‘Congress’ voice. Don’t force yourself to sound like something you’re not. Be natural and genuine; portraying pathos is more effective when the tone of the emotion you’re using is built off your natural voice.

Argumentation

- THIS IS A DEBATE EVENT; CLASH!! Unless you’re the author/sponsor of the legislation, I am expecting you to adapt your speech to the arguments made in the round. Reference other senators, drop names, agree, disagree, prove them, disprove them, but for the love of God don’t just ignore them! There is nothing I hate more than a 6th cycle constructive. This isn’t an oratory event for a speech you wrote 2 weeks ago and forgot about it until you were on the bus to the tournament— this is a debate round where you NEED to adapt your arguments.

- PLEASE PLEASE don’t do 3-point structures! They are messy and you cannot get the point across for them in a 3 minute speech.
I am a 1-point/block structure debater, but I can tolerate 2-points if they’re argued/articulated well. I know 3-points are popular in Utah but it’s a horrible argumentation strategy and will most likely get your forgotten in the round. Don’t do it.

- I will drop constitutionality arguments. They are lazy and often unmeasurable.

As a negation speaker, your job is to defend the status quo. Don’t overdo attacks in your speeches, because at the end of the day if you don’t give me a reason to vote for YOUR SIDE, I will go with the other, irregardless of how much you attacked them.

Round preferences

- I know each judge/coach has their own opinions of how a congress round is supposed to run, but here is how I find them to be most efficient.

1. In Utah, very often there will be 5-7 bills in each session to be debated. PLEASE select 2-3 as a chamber and debate them only. This way the round will be a lot smoother, timely, and there will be a lot more density in the debate.
2. Only move to Previous Question (PQ) after everyone has gotten a chance to speak (if they so desire).
3. Keep division of houses to a minimum. It is the PO’s (chair’s) job to break cycle if necessary.

PRESIDING OFFICER (A.K.A. “CHAIR”)

The presiding officer’s job in a chamber is to run it as smoothly and efficiently as possible. The least noticeable you are, the better you are.

POs will always get a breaking rank from me if they perform well. Here are a few things I’m looking for.

1. Share your recency sheet before the chamber has come to order.
2. Clarify your gaveling procedure BEFORE any speeches are given.
3. Be firm when cutting off questioning blocks.
4. If no one has an AFF/NEG to give, break cycle to continue debate. Don’t leave it up to the chamber to recess & waste time figuring it out.
5. Don’t mess up recency. It is essentially your main job, and I will be keeping track of it as well.

Here are my expectations:

Role of the Affirmative:
The affirmative's primary responsibility is to affirm the resolution through presenting a constructive case supported by evidence and logical reasoning. The affirmative should define key terms, provide clear value criteria, and offer contentions that directly support their case. It is the affirmative's burden to prove the desirability or superiority of adopting the resolution.

Role of the Negative:
The negative's role is to negate the resolution by challenging the affirmative's case and presenting their own constructive case. The negative should refute the affirmative's arguments, present counter-evidence, and offer alternative value criteria if necessary. Additionally, the negative may introduce disadvantages or arguments against the resolution.

Cross-Examination:
- Each debater may cross-examine their opponent during the constructive speeches.

Rules and Guidelines:
1. Respect: Debaters must maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
2. Time Limits: Debaters must adhere to the specified time limits for speeches and cross-examinations. Time signals will be provided to ensure fairness.
3. Evidence: Debaters should provide citations for all evidence presented in their speeches. Misrepresentation or fabrication of evidence is strictly prohibited.
4. Clarity: Debaters should speak clearly and coherently to ensure their arguments are understood by the judge and opponent.
5. Logic and Reasoning: Debaters should use logical reasoning and sound arguments to support their case and refute their opponent's arguments.

Judging Criteria:
- I will judge will evaluate the debate based on the clash between the affirmative and negative positions, adherence to debate rules and guidelines, and the strength of each debater's arguments and evidence.
- I will consider which side best upholds the value criterion and provides the most compelling case in support of their position.

Good luck to both debaters, and may the best arguments prevail!

Some background knowledge :)

I am Veda, I don't mind being called Judge. I have done all debate events, impromptu, and extemp, and I know my way around other speech events. I've placed first in Domestic Extemp at state as well as regions. (Regions I've placed first for the last two years.) I've placed 5th in PF and did Policy at State. Other than that I'm a captain and teach others how to debate. I recommend you all have fun and be respectful!

I appreciate clear and concise arguments. While I don't mind redundancy in debate, I don't enjoy it in speech events. I'm fine with you timing yourself, I'm decent at time signals but I get distracted. Leeway time, I prefer 15 seconds and just finishing your sentence. If you keep going over time, eventually I will ignore your points (And if it gets to the point I will just cut you off.).

~ Debate ~

If a card is requested during cross I'd like to also see it. I may also call cards but that is very rare.

I do judge on cross, however, I don't rely on it, it will only come up if it's a close debate or just messy. I don't mind spewing, just articulate well so I can understand what you're saying. Please have respect for your opponent, I don't want to judge a screaming match during cross.

I look for creativity and unique arguments, and while I don't judge based on 'uniqueness' it just catches my attention. If you make a 'uniqueness' argument against your opponents, I will dock points because that argument in itself isn't unique...I value an actual debate about arguments.

Voters, Tell me WHY I should vote for you!! Flowing, I will follow along as best as I can, but please make sure you're getting every point down. If you confuse a point and confuse your opponent it throws off the round... Be sure to call out your opponent if they drop an argument. I'm fine with K's and theories (NO THEORIES IN PF), however, make it make sense!

PF, Congress, LD, and Policy are all the same. Just be CLEAR! I don't want any confusion on what point you are making.

Bottom line, if both teams are head to head it will come down to cross and time management.

~Speech ~

For any speech event, please have trigger warnings. It's not for me, it's for your opponents. (I won't judge off this, it's just a matter of respect. :) )

Having the basics down in your speeches; triangles, hand movements, eye contact, tone, and volume are all very important to me! It makes it easier to watch :)

If there are two great speeches it will come down to time management. (Who went over or who filled it up properly)

If you've read this far and still have questions, please ask! I appreciate having things clarified for everyone.

I am typically a policy judge, and I judge off of the stock issues. I believe that there are 6 stock issues, being Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency, Significance, and Plan.

I have 7 years experience with debate, and I try to be the fairest possible, but I am biased towards some of the fancier arguments.

I am partial to arguments against logical fallacies, as well as evidence attacks. When you have no evidence, you have no argument.

I want clash, address points well, defend well, both with evidence. For policy, tell me which stock issues you have at the end of your rebuttals, for both policy and LD, give me voters at the end, why you should win, etc.

West SLC '27

LD main

Background Info

Be from a BASIS school: -.2 speaks for bringing parents to circuit tournaments

Bring me boba: +.2 speaks

Don't be -ist or -phobic, L20

Prog Lder, run whatever you want if you can explain it

Spread to your own ability, I have the 'tism which worsens my already bad flowing, I can understand full spreading though 70-80% is easiest to flow

I can judge LD or CX, L if I'm your speech judge

For policy assume my topic knowledge is confined to generics

Add me to the email chain: streimsutton@gmail.com

I don't like:

Floating PIKs, there is a time in place for an extremely well run floating PIK, an extremely rare one. Unless you're ready for a miserable theory debate that you have the cards or analytics to win, don't.

Tricks, I'll never vote for them

Clipping, it's cheating

I don't intervene, don't assume I'll know what you're talking about or that I'll base my ballot on already known info

Screenshots, this isn't a debate of one's character, if you want to run disclosure theory and have evidence of out-of-round abuse, that is fine

Don't ask for marked docs unless they skipped a considerable quantity of cards

I like:

Impact calc, good clash on impact to determine which impact is actually the X risk, and or which has more magnitude, happens faster, etc

K debates, I will vote for any K. Explain it to me like I know nothing and what the impacts are. Any generic K I will understand without extensive explaining, Cap K, Racial IR, Setcol, Imperialism.

I prefer case-spec CPs rather than generic ones, I don't kick unless told to

For ROTB arguments, I am a good judge, I enjoy them and weigh them high

Affs should have advocacy/plans

TL:DR run whatever besides tricks

K/Larp(Policy) > T > Tricks

Misc:

Speaking your 2NC off the flow - +.2 speaks

Doing your 2AR in Ukrainian or Russian +.1 speaks

Send me your docs in a color that is not yellow

Don't over-adapt to my paradigm

Better paradigms to reference - Yao Yao Chen, Seiji Aoki, Ishan Sharma, Spencer Swickle

I'm Brooks Udy, I'm the Debate President at Herriman High School, and I'm so glad that I can be here to judge up and coming debaters. Something that you should know about me is that I leave a LOT of feedback, with both positives and negatives, so you can learn to be better. In Highschool, I competed in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Parliamentary, Congress, and Big Question debate, and Extemporaneous and Informative speaking. I know these events the best, but I have spectated and helped coach students in many other events, and I will do my best to judge impartially, leaving my biases at the door.

DEBATE:

The most important thing for me in Debate is flow, even if your opponent says something that isn't quite true, if you don't address what they said, it flows through. Pre-prepared speeches are important, but in a heated debate, I want to see you pick and choose arguments that work best to take down what your opponent is saying.

I can understand fast speech, as long as you still have good diction, to me what you have to say is more important than how you say it, even though I still value presentation skills.

If you say a fact or statistic, tell me why it matters in this round of debate

Ask me at the beginning of the round if you want time signals, or if you would rather time yourself

SPEECH:

In speech events, how you present your information is just as important as what you have to say

Give me a road map of your speech

Take a deep breath before you begin

BOTH:

Be respectful of your fellow competitors, even in a heated round, personal attacks or disparaging comments will not be tolerated by me. Even a rude comment in the hallway to another competitor does not sit well with me

Try to make eye contact and engage me in what you have to say

Have fun! It is a big deal that you've made it to the state tournament, you should be very proud!

Please add me to the email chain - izzyutgaard@rowlandhall.org

I compete in national circuit varsity policy for Rowland Hall - National Qualifier + Policy TOC Bid :)

I'm kind of a lay judge in anything but policy sorry

Please have full citations available/card docs

Dont steal prep

Judge instruction is great

Disclosure is a good practice

Other paradigms I agree with: Mike Shackelford, Caitlin Walrath, Andrew Arsht, Layla Hijjawi, David Bernstein, Zach Thiede, Eli Hatton

Good luck!

CX

Clarity > Speed ofc - That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments but if you aren't clear I will stop flowing (i reward humor, clarity, ethos, self-awareness, clash, good research, and bold decisions)

Signposting is super helpful so please do it

Flex prep, disclosure, open cross, etc. are fine as long as everyone is good with it

Cross won't be part of flow/RFD unless something is explicitly conceded, so put it in your next speech and I'll flow it

Tech > Truth (a dropped argument is a true argument unless i am convinced otherwise or theory is won)

Debate is a game and respectful engagement with the other team is important. Be good stewards of the activity! (aka don't be a bad person - i do NOT stand for racism homophobia, sexism, etc. and i will kill your speaks or even drop you if it's bad)

Rehighltings/intrinsic perm texts must be read and cannot just be inserted

I have a solid amount of topic knowledge on the IP topic, but please break down any acronyms

Case

Case turns are underutilized

Others (ex. topicality or perf con) are always at the top of the ballot, make sure they don't go unrefuted if they are run against you

For Middle School: On the neg PLEASE don't under extend an actual substantive argument to "attack" the aff's stock issues it's not that deep

K Affs

Yeah sure just have clear ontology and don't lose to T-USFG

Theory

Most theory debates aren't impacted well and are used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic but I am unpopular in believing that theory is a useful tool in debate if used correctly, extended/warranted properly, and actual abuse is present, then I am willing to vote on it

Judge kick is a logical extension of condo. And condo is probably good

Please explain any form of violation and its impact

CPs

Process CPs are educational unless I am convinced otherwise, but make sure they are competitive

Intrinsic perms are a good strategy if you do it right

Ks

Explain your alt please, I just have to know what it does

Generic links suck either read a specific link or explain

I'm not that well versed in niche K lit, but I'm familiar with typical cap, set col, fem, orientalism, cybernetics, etc. and know how Ks work so don't be afraid to run something in front of me

Framework is key so don't underextend it or undercover it

DAs

Strong case debates (especially turns case) and impact calc is what will win you my ballot here

Explain the link because why would I care about your DA if you just yap about your impacts but not how the aff triggers them, bad links mean bad disads and bad impacts.

"Censorship is the greatest enemy to democracy, other than itself"