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

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

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

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

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

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

Brock Hanson

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

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

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

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

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

Larsen, Hunter

Judge for: Hurricane High School, UT-US

Background: 4 Year HS Debater, 9 Year Judge (Debate: CX, PF, LD) ( IE: O.O, FX, DX, Impromptu)

Events: Policy(CX), LD, PF, O.O, IMP, FX/DX

LD Paradigm: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a value and a value-criterion. The value is the abstract good to be achieved. The value-criterion is the standard used to measure success in achieving the value. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your value? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s value? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s value-criterion succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me!

PF Paradigm: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of CNN's television show, "Crossfire" (1982 -- 2005). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are never off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV persona. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience.

CX Paradigm: Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I dislike newer arguments such as kritiks and some theoretical points.

NO SPEWING!!!!

SPEECH:

When It comes to speech I am looking for articulate and prepared speakers.

O.O: I am looking for clear well written original speeches, the speech should be persuasive and articulate. The speech should be something you are passionate about.

DX/FX: Your speech should be informative and have at least 3 clear sources. The presenter should be prepared and knowledgeable on the topic chosen, they should also provide clear points and strong arguments on their point.

IMP: I am looking for clarity, clear points and a compelling speech on the topic chosen. (If it's funny, sad, serious, ect. make me feel it.)

Professionalism, formality and presentation (including diction, lack of slang and vocabulary) play a large point in my awarding of speaker points, and the rules below are a guide to best practices.

PARADIGM: I judge on a cross between policy styles with an emphasis on Speaking / Communication Skills ; winning AFFs will demonstrate that they have presented all the stock issues (H,I,S,S,T) , while successful NEG's will show specifically why and how the AFF has failed to support one or each of the stock issues, and/or how their counter meets stock issues better or more completely. AFF's should also show that they have fully supported their case and during their scoring summary explain how NEG has failed to attack or prevail on each of the stock issues.  

NEG's should always ensure they have sufficiently attacked each of their opponent's stock points and demonstrated specifically how AFF has failed point by point. NEG should negate / address / critique AFF's H.I.S.S.T. or address stock points through their Counterplan but provide a brief roadmap before beginning.

Suggestions

1) PROFESSIONALISM & CONDUCT: Be polite and professional at all times. You should greet your opponent(s) cordially and get whatever sharing is needed out of the way as soon as you sit down (e.g.thumbdrives etc.). 

a) Do not talk to your partner during opponent's argument - you should not  not be heard  while an opponent is presenting their case, passing notes is ok, typing is ok, etc.;  b) Your diction and language should be professional at all times. Try not to use words/slang such as: like, you know, whatever, bull, umm, hell, and any other words that you shouldn't / wouldn't use in a professional setting; d) Do not smirk or make any facial gesture at opponents.

2) SPREADING*: You should speak NO FASTER than your words AND meaning can both be understood, Any faster than about four (4-5) words a second (about 250 pm), at least for me, is testing the bounds of at least my comprehension. 

3) LOGICAL FALLACIES: Watch out for what I call logical "leaps." An example of this would be when you arguing a position and you use a citation for "more" than it stands for;  this is unacceptable in either direction, keep your arguments simple, tight and intelligble. Then provide a scoring summary that reflects those arguments and provides a brief overview of your view of your opponent's shortcomings.

4) THEORY: I have a high threshold for theory and don't consider it a voting issue.

5) SCORING SUMMARY: Each side should provide a two - three minute Scoring Summary, unless you think you need more time to address issues that arose during cross -  that details their accomplishments and their opponents failures; thus AFF should cover how they supported their H.I.S.S.T. and how the NEG failed to address or conflict their evidence while the NEG should point out specifically which H.I.S.S.T. points the AFF failed to support or address, or/and then why their counterplan offers better H.I.S.S.T.  

GOOD LUCK! Debate is by far the best thing you can do to advance yourself in school, college and life.

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

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was in forensics all four years of high school (mid-1980's) and debated Cross-Ex (policy) with the same partner all four years. By the end we became quite good and made it to semifinals in state our junior and senior years (but sadly never won). It is fun to be associated with debate again, now as an assistant coach and judge, but my how things have changed! Between spewing, spreading, flashing, even using computers instead of 4x6-inch evidence cards, policy is a totally different animal. I feel that arguments and discussions are more "wide and shallow" than "narrow and deep" these days. That's fine, but I rarely give the win to a team whose strategy is to "shotgun" and overwhelm the other team with so many (arguably superficial) arguments that they cannot counter them all. I much prefer a debate where there is actual thought and good arguments and clash over key issues/weaknesses (aff or neg) than both teams hitting the search button on their computers to find some pre-baked counter to each point. Good thinking, respectful clash, and killer non-BS arguments make for an enjoyable, satisfying debate.

Specific aspects of my judging philosophy/paradigm:

Stock issues: I think these are important, but they are not the sole determiner of my vote, and neg needs to bring up the weaknesses, of course. Solvency is an important one. The aff can show significant harms but if they cannot show (with evidence) that their plan will reduce or remove these harms, then it is hard to support the plan. But, the neg needs to point that out and maintain that throughout the debate. CPs etc will also be evaluated through the lens of policy stock issues to the extent that is appropriate. Keep things on-topic with the resolutions, as well.

Kritiks: You are welcome to run Ks, and I recognize that it is common that people have stock generic Ks they run against every aff case, but they will have to be very, very good to win with them; I prefer policy debate that sticks to real, pragmatic issues and... policy!

Speech sharing/flashing: I guess this has become the norm. Philosophically, I don't like flashing because it removes the burden of *listening*, which decreases the quality of the debate. You are free to flash, but try to be efficient. Most importantly, remember that as the judge, I do not have access to the files that you are flashing (and I don't want them). So, make it clear to me what you are discussing and referring to. If you say, "the card at the top of page three," I will have no idea what you are talking about.

Spreading/spewing:ItisfineifyouwanttospreadduringtheconstructivespeechesbutIaskthatyouspreadonlywhenreadingthecardandthatyouslowdownatinybitandsignpostwhereyouareinthestructureofthedebateandalsospeakclearlywhenindicatingthesource(authorandyear)ofyourevidencecardsifyouspreadthroughtheentirespeechthenitwillbehardformyoldearstokeepupandmyflowwillgetmessyandifIamnotflowingwhatyouaresayingthenitwillworkagainsyouIpreferthatteamsspendmoreenergythinkinganddevelopinggoodarguementsanddevelopatacticalstrategythantryingtoradtheequivalentofthebibleineightminutes.

Nuclear war: A few years ago I judged a debate in which the neg said that the aff's case to train dolphins to swim stretches of ocean with advanced sensors on their backs will lead to nuclear war. Really? Really?? Fortunately, the aff said, "Ok, folks, let's take a step back and acknowledge the absurdity of what the neg is postulating." The policy topic certain years might involve geopolitics and under certain circumstances nuclear war might indeed be a possible outcome. But please keep it real and reasonable.

Games, hypersensitivity, BS: The worst round I ever judged was actually at a state tournament. A female participant pretended(?) to take issue with a member of the other team using the term "you guys" during cross ex, saying that it was a manifestation of gender bias engrained in today's society and that her team was disadvantaged from the start because of this denigration of women. The other team should have ignored it, but instead tried to explain that historically cavemen were the food gatherers while the women stayed at home with the kids, and that helped establish today's societal hierarchy. It went downhill from there. Participants were crying, apologizing, another judge became upset with the frame of the arguments and huffed out of the room. I wish I could have given a loss to all involved. My requests: please stick to the debate issues and don't try to play games.

I'll close with this postscript to my high school debate experience: I graduated from high school over 30 years ago and today in my career I find myself working closely with and having to convince individuals, committees, national governmental agencies and international organizations to agree with my point of view and adopt policies or direct money towards the causes I am championing for. I'm pretty successful at that and credit the training I learned during cross-ex debate. It all comes down to listening, digesting, considering the others' perspectives and presenting arguments in a way that are digestible and enthusiasm-generating. Professionals have low tolerance for BS or insincere arguments, and the real world does not involve kritiks. (Imagine if the bank loan officer you were asking for a loan responded, "No, I will not grant your loan because that is supportive of capitalism that is the root cause of many of today's problems in the world.) As a debater, I encourage you to learn listening and critical thinkng skills, to not race through things and to step back and look objectively at the situation you are dealing with.

Thanks for reading.