Quality over quantity. This means do not just try to give as much as possible as quickly as possible. I prefer to have fewer arguments that are better supported with real world examples and references to include quotes, data, and valid research references. Yes, I am open to being in the email chain. Detail and support are key. Be sure to address all areas of your arguments and counter in a way that really addresses what your opponent brought up. This attention to detail can make a difference.

In speeches and other associated areas be sure you remember the original audience in addition to the actual audience when speaking. Be clear, concise, and use the appropriate voice in all instances. Keep me interested. It should be as if I am hearing your speech for the first time.

If it is impromptu speaking, still try and be organized, creative, and clear.

Be sure to attack the arguments and concepts not the individual.

We are given a judging rubric and I will stick with that above everything.

Hi! My name is Josie Burke, my pronouns are they/she, and I did PF debate for 3 years in high school!

For debate, the things I look for in a round are clash, professionalism, and evidence. If you don't say the author and year of a card, I will assume you made it up so please say those when you can. Be respectful of each other, and I know things can get heated in round, but please try and remain respectful of each other. As for clash, it is really important that you FOLLOW THROUGH with arguments, not just say "my card says X" "well my card says Y" and let it end there. Why is your card/point better?

I flow XX but if there is anything you want me to remember, please make sure to point it out during round. If your opponent drops a point I will have it on my flow, but PLEASE point it out. It is your job to note that and it shows that you were also paying attention.

I also keep time. If we all time there's less chance of us messing up, but let me know if you would like me to give time cues or anything, I would be more than happy to.

I don't do great with speed, I know should probably be better by now, but I'm just not :P If you do typically speak faster, it's not a big deal, but just let me know before you start.

Also, make sure to have fun! We're here to learn and become better debaters and if your opponent is making you feel bad or being disrespectful, let me know immediately. Also if you have any other questions, ask! I would happy to answer anything :)

I am a parent of a Timpview High School debate student. I did not participate in debate as a student, and have not judged very many debate tournaments.

I appreciate when debaters can present their arguments clearly and succinctly rather than speed reading through a list of flow points as fast as they can.

For LD, I will evaluate the round using an interpretive framework. This establishes an approach to the resolution and presents evaluative positions to the judge. For each resolution, no matter what side you are advocating you
should ask yourself, not only what must I defend but to which degree must I defend it? Must my
position (and my opponents') be true always or true most of the time? What exceptions can be
made and which exceptions cannot be tolerated? Your interpretive framework should explicitly
answer these questions.

I did Speech and Debate through out High-School, my main event was Lincoln-Douglas. I also competed in Impromptu, Spar, Oratory, Policy, Big Questions, Public Forum, and Informative. I know the debate space and am familiar with debate Jargon.

I like to take notes during round, and will flow debate rounds that I judge.

I really value clear arguments and signposting throughout rounds. I believe that speaking ability and delivery is as important as content within cases and arguments. Well assessing a debate or speech I consider how consistency, clarity, confidence, and logic within the round.

In debate I am a big fan of cross examination, and feel that it can be used to ones advantage within a round. I will not be flowing cross, so bring it into the round.

I expect kindness in the round. However, I understand passion, and think that being competitive is important.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

General intro:

I’m an engineer and former debater/extemper who has judged off and on in the many years since including at nationals. Always feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is important, personal attacks or disrespect towards others in the round can affect ranking.

LD:

Lincoln-Douglas was my passion in my debating years. Here are a few of my views:

• LD is first a foremost a value centered debate not a battle of evidence, you need a framework and to tie each argument to it

• I’m not formalistic in judging LD there are no set rules on how to set up a framework or make arguments

• While I did debate in LD it was a long time ago during an era I've heard referred to as "traditional", as opposed to the more modern progressive era. Traditional LD was more truly value based with less spreading and focus on amount of evidence. But an increased focus on definitions and articulate arguments. I recognize that this can be difficult with many of the modern (non-value based) topics being generated by the NSDA currently.

• I understand that some new era LD coaches push adding "plans" to LD cases I'm not a fan of this in my opinion there is no place for a plan in value debate, I will not expect the other side to provide a counterplan or convert to a more policy/plan based debate if that is the route you choose in your case. That being said I have given the win to debaters who presented plans

Policy:

I was never a policy debater so I'm certainly less skilled than many but I have judged policy a bit so I'm not new to the field. Here are some points I focus on:

• I can handle moderate spreading but certainly not full nationals level speed

• Please speak to the quality of the evidence provided not all cards are equal and I will weigh the strength of the cards against each other.

• Do more than dump evidence, spend time on connecting it clearly to the plans and arguments

PF:

Public Forum is the debate I've judged the least, but given that it is designed to be judged by a non-expert that is the approach I take. Your delivery should be such that an common citizen could understand. Be respectful and share time during cross-fire. I want to see evidence but don't let it become a policy style battle to see who can read the most card with no clear connection between them.

BQ:

I love BQ it reminds me a lot of how LD was in the "good old days" before NSDA forgot how to create LD topics. Keep the arguments directly related to the topic. You get the same topic the entire year so I expect to see very refined cases the later we are in the season.

BQ should be very philosophical, given that while you should have supporting evidence you should also clearly connect it together with your own reasoning in a way that clearly clashes with your opponent.

Remember all your arguments need to connect directly to the resolution.

Extemp:

• Please cite your sources I prefer the source name and a date but at least a name

• Give a definitive answer to the question

• You are welcome to time yourself. I will also be timing and have a timer large enough you will likely be able to see it, I usually use it in count up mode so no beeping disturbs your speech.

Congress:

I will tally questions asked and usually use this as a tie breaker in rankings (if two people gave the same number and quality of speeches I will use question tally to determine who ranks higher). When you speak on bills be sure that your speech is adding to the debate, responding to what has already been said.

As far as rules for the round if I'm parliamentarian, I defer to what i'm given by the tournament and don't make exceptions to that. If I'm not provided anything i'll use the rules of the day posted on the UDCA website (assuming this is a Utah tournament)

Obviously I can't list every event here but if you have questions just ask.

Spreading good slow down for taglines,

can run any type of case.

I have debated in Utah for the last three years. Congress and Extemp being my main events, but I have also competed in a variety of other Speech and Debate events including Oratory, Declamation, BigQuestions, and impromptu.

As a judge, especially for Congress, I value organization. READ the Orders of The Day. The Chair is expected to know and refer to the Orders when needed. I love competitors that use their time wisely, and move the round forward. I also weigh heavily on respect. If you are disrespecting your chair, your fellow competitors, or your judges, that doesn't reflect well on you. That being said, ask pressing questions. Debate is about understanding your opponent, and finding holes in their arguments.

I am not going to dock someone for having a prewritten speech. I will dock someone for giving a speech that doesn't add to the flow of the debate. Learning how to change your speech to fit the debate is a valuable skill.

Generally, I am a pretty relaxed judge. I will try my best to help you all to learn and become better debaters. Ask questions!! And enjoy it.

I did Public Forum for 3 years in high school and am so excited to be back to judge!!

DO

• Speak clearly and loudly, my auditory processing isn't the greatest
• Use roadmaps and let me know where I should be flowing what you're saying
• Have sources to back up your points (If they have me judging an event that's not PF this one doesn't apply as much)
• Relax! You're going to do a better job, and it's going to make the vibes so much better for everyone.
• Ask good questions during cross. It will benefit you and make it more fun to watch for me.

DON'T

• Spread or spew
• Gender your opponent in round. This is one of my biggest icks and you will immediately lose speaker points (especially if you get it wrong).
• Interrupt too much during cross. If they're going on a tangent I don't care, but let them finish answering your questions please.
• Get too heated or upset. It's just a debate round, you'll live.
• Make too many jokes. I enjoy a little bit of humor, but I'm weighing the round on flow and the quality of your points, not how funny you are.

I will be flowing the round and judging who wins mostly on that. I'm not going to flow cross, but I will keep it in mind, especially if I need a tiebreaker. Overall just take a deep breath, be professional, and have fun!

Be respective to each other, have a good debate. We are here to have a good time, and gain education by the end of the day.

I did high school LD for two years, and policy for one and a half years. I am now on the JRP debate team.

For LD

• This is still a debate, just because it's based on morality does not mean that evidence doesn't hold ground.
• I expect a majority of the debate to be on the framework level. This does not mean to disregard evidence-based arguments, interact with them.

For Policy

• Provide clash within the round and be respectful when doing so.
• Don't have any strong emotions towards Ts or other negative strategies, run what you want.
• I am good with speed, just make sure your opponents are too.

Hello! The name's Ara, he/him :D

I did S&D for 4 years. My primary events were original oratory and informative, so take from that what you will. Here's what I'm looking for:

Memorization: Please have your speech memorized. Of course, this only applies to a number of speech events but the basic concept is the same: look like you know what you're doing, even when you're flying by the seat of your pants. Please try to limit your use of filler words as well. I know this is hard in the beginning of the season, I get it. Don't stress.

Time: Look man, as long as you get your point across with a decent amount of elaboration I won't care too much if you only went 7:41 when somebody else went 9:30. If we get to 14:00 I will verbally ask you to close.

Composition: Speech friends, please have a road map. I recognize that not everybody likes them but as a judge they're so helpful. Sign posting is also lovely but don't feel pressured into adding it if you haven't memorized it that way. I don't want to throw you off track.

Pizazz: Don't be afraid to get into it! Make me laugh, cry, and root for whatever you're talking about! Go nuts.

Shadows/Parents/Spectators: Instead of sitting in the corner and praying nobody notices please ask the room if we're all good with you being there. Watching and learning is great but ultimately it's the performers choice.

Debate kids: I am so so sorry if I am judging your round. In the words of my brother, "Use the lay rizz."

Hello! My name is Alyssa. I did policy throughout middle school and high school. I did attend policy camp in Wyoming summer of 2022. My senior year I mostly did various speech events (primarily Dramatic Interpretation). I competed on the nat circuit and won quite a few local circuit tournaments. I was fairly involved in policy for the majority of my high school career but I was also very involved in theatre and that is what I am pursuing in college. (I am currently a freshman in the Theatre Teaching Program at the U)

Alyssamiller996@gmail.com is my email for the email chain.

Speech

I have experience competing in DI, Spar, Character Spar, Impromptu and National Extemp. I typically focused my time in DI and Impromptu and I received achievements in those events. My background is in theatre so that heavily informs how I judge any speech event ( especially DI, HI, POI and DUO).

Some things I value are

Commitment: I should believe that you believe the things that you are saying, even if you think they are silly. If you are in an event where you are portraying someone else (DI, character spar...etc) you should never break character.

Diction: This means you need to speak clearly. If I cannot understand what you are saying that is not good.

Presence: You need to command the attention of the room. Be confident, have good posture, be passionate.

Eye contact: I am someone who likes eye contact. However, Never make eye contact with the judge the whole speech, thats creepy. I also like when a person gives the speech to the entirety of the room instead of only the judge. This is largely a personal preference though, honestly I'm fine with anything that feels natural.

Emotion: Depending on the event this can look different, but I do think every speech should make me feel something. Even an informative speech should make me think about a topic in a different way or call me to action. People who can make me feel something will always do better than someone who is bland and cannot.

Stuttering: I am not the type of judge to mark you down for stuttering once, but obviously the less filler words and stuttering the better you will do. I say this because everyone stutters every once in a while. What I care about is that you recover and continue to have a good speech after the fact.

Policy

some of my opinions/preferences :)

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.

I am not going to vote on what is not in the 2NR and 2AR. (don't worry 2NR I do finna be checking the 2AR lying)

performance is great, lovely even.

Who took away telling a good joke in Policy?? bring that back

I default to util framework and impact calc

Tech Over Truth.....In fact I care about 0% about truth. debate is a game :)

I LOVE AN AFF WITH A SILLY GOOFY NAME

DO NOT introduce yourself and your partner in the 1AC. I already know who is who and it doesn't read well in the policy debate space.

I do not flow CX but I do listen to CX. Please use CX to get great arguments but you have to make those arguments in your speeches. I hate a boring CX.

If you start a CX question with are you aware.... I will be sad.

K's slay just make sure you have a good link. I'm good for the K on neg. Also pls have an alt

I love a good K aff but I have never ran one myself- Ur good to run one but I do not have a ton of experience there just an FYI.

I probably won't vote for an anti spreading procedural (argument against spreading in policy debate).

T- Im not a fan of broad t definitions unless the AFF is genuinely untopical. I don't love T debates cause I am a former 2A who LOVED to write bearly topical AFFs. However, let the best debater win of course. Framework is also super important here. You have to prove both why they are untopical and why being untopical is bad. If the AFF drops T is prolly an automatic Neg ballot.

Plan text in a Vacuum is silly goofy.

Love going for Condo! However, if you go for condo with a team that does not know what condo is that's kinda just mean. You would still win but ur speaks would be BAD.

Don't Laugh at your opponents if they don't understand your argument-we were all beginners once too and ur gunna win anyways :)

Love a good reference to Legally Blonde, Musical Theatre, 2000's Pop songs, Sabrina Carpenter, anything trending on tik tok -may increase speaks

• Flow Judge: I am meticulous about flowing and closely track each argument, so well-organized arguments and clear signposting are crucial.

• Framework/Value Structure: Clearly presenting a value or framework is essential. I appreciate frameworks that guide the round and help me understand the impacts. In LD, I will be judging you on your value.
• Evidence Quality: Quality over quantity. A few solid, well-explained pieces of evidence are better than a barrage of undeveloped points.
• Extensions: Be clear about extending arguments in every speech. I appreciate when debaters directly address dropped points and warrant their extensions.
• Logical Consistency: Logical, consistent arguments are critical to winning my ballot. I am likely to disregard arguments that contradict your earlier points or lack a clear impact.

• Clarity over Speed: While I can keep up with faster speakers, clarity always takes precedence. I need to be able to flow the arguments accurately. Do not spread.
• Professionalism and Respect: I expect a respectful environment. Rudeness or condescension will not be tolerated and can influence my evaluation.

• Cross-Examination: I value a strong cross-exam that directly addresses key issues and brings out contradictions or weaknesses in the opponent’s case. Please do not look at each other during CX.
• Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity, organization, persuasive speaking, and decorum.

• Roadmaps: Please give me a roadmap before each speech.
• Questions: If you have specific questions about my paradigm before the round, feel free to ask! I’m here to make the round as fair and transparent as possible.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS