I mainly debated policy all through high school, but I have competed in almost every event. I'm currently one of the assistant coaches for Cedar Valley HS.

First Time Parent Judge :) Please be civil and respectful when debating.

Paradigm for BQ:

If you have a framework, please explain it and why it matters. I like sign posts and clear taglines.

I do not like spreading, as it is difficult for me to process as quickly as you speak. If I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based on the arguments. If you do speak more quickly, please speak clearly and enunciate.

I don’t mind passion, but I prefer you to convey your arguments in a respectful way.

It’s fine to argue about definitions, but please don’t make it the entire debate. It’s so boring.

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.

tl;dr

tech > truth, but i'm more likely to be persuaded by dynamic and engaging speakers

i'm bad at flowing. removing cards from your case and slowing down will enormously help you win my ballot.

if you try to use tech to box out less experienced/trad LD opponents you will not win my ballot. slow down, drop the jargon and meet them at their level to have the best chance to win.

i don't really care about cards, make smart arguments.

i flow arguments, not authors. if you reference an argument by the author, i will have no idea what you are referring to

i like K debate but i'm not experienced with it. slow down, explain in plain english, and clearly label the parts. K affs are cool but i prefer it if they still defend the resolution.

collapse, collapse, collapse. going for everything wins you nothing

Long Version for Tryhards and People With Too Much Time

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am now the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell. If you run disclosure T against a trad aff with no plan text, I sign my ballot before the 1AR.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is ascourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I will sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do. There is no educational value to an activity where your opponent can't engage with you.

On Critical Debate:

I like a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a non-topical K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors. I don't flow authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF: If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy, and as a judge I have an obligation to uphold that norm. That means no plans, no counterplans, no theory, and no topicality.

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

Hello everyone! My name is Tyler Le. I have done debate for two years, specializing in Congressional Debate, Public Forum, Informative Speaking, and Spontaneous Argument.

The Spiel:

I have a home in Congress, and we all know it's much cooler and more interesting than actual Congress. I did both Speech and Debate throughout high school, so I am very familiar with what it's like from your end. Hopefully I will provide you the feedback we needed ourselves. For all speech elements, whether speech event or debate speaking, as long as you're clear in speech, spread however you like. Speak with confidence and precision, and you're "speeching". For debate, the general term for what I look for is clash, this meaning whether you weigh your arguments better, whether you drop contentions or not, etc. The whole part of debate is fighting the arguments, so I need to see that. You won't win the round with insults or fists.

As for feedback, please tell me (in simple terms) what you are looking for me to respond to.

Speech Events

I will focus my attention on speaking ability, message delivery, engagement, and relevancy. Remember that an audience wants to listen to your speech and feel as if they're apart of the discovery, so speed is not necessarily the name of the game. Stay on topic, stand strong, and your speech will go places.

Debate Events

Support, support, support. Your argument stands as strongly as you stand on your argument (if that even makes sense). I'm focusing on how engaged in the debate you are, whether it's contentions you keep up, points you make against an opponent, or small technicalities you catch. Keep decorum when you debate, and be respectful of your opponent; after all, they're your opponent, and not an enemy.

Good luck, and I hope you go far in speech and debate!

What's up I'm Mac, I did Debate senior year, I competed in DUO, HI, Impromptu, and Congress.

General things I like to see:

Weighing/clash (depends on if the event could benefit from it)

Don't use a lot of jargon without explaining (pretend like I know nothing about the topic)

Be confident (your argument is a lot stronger when your confident in your speech. Confidence Is Key!)

Good flow (It's a lot easier to score you when I can keep track of the debate)

Being respectful (be nice to each other, and be respectful to them when they are competing, who knows they might be a new friend?)

Have fun and be funny (I know tournaments are stressful, but a good joke goes a long way lol)

Everyone can be statistical, not everyone can be funny

Other stuff:

If you're looking for specifics based on event, feel free to ask me what my paradigm is.

all in all, be nice to everyone, make some friends, try your best, and enjoy the moment.

• 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!