Copper Classic

2019 — UT/US

Beverly Ahlstrom Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Kelcey Anderson Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

McKayle Bradford Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated throughout high school, with a main focus on public forum. I am now an assistant debate coach in Utah. My decision will come off the flow, and I will vote for pretty much anything that is well warranted, as long as it falls within the confines of your event.

Things I’d Like to See:

1. Thoughtful responses. Please do not read off a novel of evidence, expecting me to automatically buy your claims. Use evidence as a supplement to actual argumentation.

2. Clear links. This relates to 1. If you have obscure evidence claiming a link, with no logic to back it up, I likely won’t buy or weigh it.

3. Impacts. Please weigh the impacts of each argument, and how your impacts are preferred. If you have frivolous arguments with no impacts, I likely won’t buy them.

4. Tell me who won. Use clear voters and give me a strong summary. Additionally, my decision is easier when you give line-by-line.

5. Smile every once in a while!

Things Not to Do:

1. Waste time. If you have sufficiently countered a point, or if a point holds little weight, please do not spend an entire rebuttal on it.

2. Spend entire speeches staring at a computer screen. While I weigh substance of the debate first, speaking ability/confidence/knowledge of the topic can give an advantage in determining close rounds.

3. Be disrespectful/patronizing towards opponents.

If you see me outside the round, I will be happy to provide feedback. Feel free to ask me more questions before the round, and any you might have after as well. Good luck, and have fun!

Robert Bradley Paradigm

Robert Bradley

Paradigm- - - - - - - October 2015

I like judging.  That is why I am here.  Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures.  You can make some great friends through high school debate.  Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions.  I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate.  I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors.  During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” type stuff.  Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round.  If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.  

I am looking for significant “voter” issues.  I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice.  I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote.  I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me.  I like to think of myself as Tabula Rasa, knowing of course that such is almost impossible.  But I do not care how you structure your debate, or what you wear, or what you say during the round specifically regarding issues.  I can adjust.  Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here.  Remember to have fun! 

Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine.  Be confident without being a jerk.  If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes.  Don’t lie.  Debate like you want to be here debating.  If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself.  Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”

Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out.

Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round.  I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, topicality, significance. I am familiar with Kritik but you will need to help me with it.  Off-time roadmaps are fine.  Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.

I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment.  I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.

Judging Highlights:

3 years as a judge and coach at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho

Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 & 2015

Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah

Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah

Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach

National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014 & 2015

Coach for:

  • Individual Speech Events
  • Debate
  • Congress (I really enjoy Congress!)

Joey Brimhall Paradigm

6 rounds

PF/LD: (LD you can ignore the stuff about framework)

I have no preferences on speed or aggressiveness; debate however you best perform. If you present a framework, I expect that you'll use it. If neither team presents a framework I will default to cost-benefit analysis.

I don't flow cross. If a question is asked as cross ends, opponent may answer, but keep response as brief as possible.

Five second grace period to finish your speech.

You don't need to use prep time if you're just looking at cards, however, if you don't use prep time, don't prep for your speech.

I expect you to time yourselves. I will not time you.

Weigh your impacts, yo.

David Christensen Paradigm

3 rounds

I did pf all 4 years of highschool and went to nats and the TOC, so I’m pretty familiar with most arguments. I will weigh anything if you give me a reason. If you wanna do theory or K that’s cool as long you give me voters at the end. Voters are really the most important thing for me, so collapse on what you’re winning.

I’m fine with speed.

I won’t judge cross ex and 99% cross ex is pointless so if you’re the 1% congratulations. Bring it up in a speech. I’m cool if you get a little feisty in cross just don’t be dicks.

Make sure to extend. If you talk about it in the 1ar then drop it till FF I’m not gonna weigh it.

Framework debates in pf can get confusing and are usually a wash so proceed with caution

if you have the first rebuttal please don't go over your own case after you rebut your opponents. You have nothing to refute, there has been no ink on your side yet. Use your time rebutting your opponents.

My BIGGEST pet peeve is bringing up new arguments in 2nd summary or FF. I won’t weigh it and I’ll dock you speaks. Please don’t do it :(

I’ll disclose if I can and give verbal critiquies if you want and time allows

Speaks breakdown

30- you should final

29- almost no mistakes

28- still good but some fumbles

27- average

26- lots of mistakes, unclear

25- hard to flow

<24- you said something offensive

I will give 1/2 point extra if you make a Parks and Rec reference :-)

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in round.

Christopher Clarke Paradigm

3 rounds

TABULA RASA - From the Latin for "blank slate". As a judge I attempt to come into the round with no predispositions. Basically, I expect the debaters to 'Debate it out'!

i.e. Don't rely on the status quo . . . Offer and support your contentions while attacking your opponent's.

David Clift Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Cole Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Kristi Davenport Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Rebecca Devenport Paradigm

6 rounds

I’m a very willing lay judge. I want to give the most impartial verdict possible. Please help me out by doing the following:

Please, no observers. Having them around distracts me from the work needed to give you an impartial verdict.

Please don’t be frustrated if I don’t give you comments. Keeping up with your intellect in order to declare a fair verdict quickly enough to keep the tournament running on time is challenging. I will *work very hard* to give helpful comments, but make no promises.

Please be aware that your speed may be detrimental to your desired outcome. You may present a brilliant contention, but if I can’t understand it, it won’t help you win. Remember, NSDA says, “The objective is to convince the judge that [your] side of the resolution is preferable.” If I can’t understand you, I’ll not likely find your side to be preferable. Please slow down when identifying tags. Like another judge said, “Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.”

Please give me off time road maps. Other judges may not like them, but I find them very helpful. Also, punctuating your speeches with hand gestures indicating numbers is welcome and helpful.

Please keep emotion in check. This is a contest of rationality, not of passion, speed or volume.

Please be respectful. Be kind and civil. If you are condescending or disrespectful in any way, expect penalization.

Please know that I am rooting for you. I love that you are debating! Deep respect for your work and risk taking!

Cameron Duhadaway Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Dan Dunn Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Nannette Eash Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Tim Henry Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.


Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches ( , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

Kjersti Hodgson Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Alyssa Hooks Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I now do IPDA- public debate- with The University of Arkansas at Monticello. Currently the assistant LD coach for the Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart in Houston, Texas.

November-December LD Specific: Please for the love of debate, remember that examples do not prove the rule. Just because Trump did this, this and this: that is not a reason to affirm or negate. Make real arguments. If you're going to be reading things about assault, please read a trigger warning and make sure that everyone in the room is okay and can handle the discourse. Performance and K debate will always have a place in debate, but be sure if you're performing and are trying to link to the topic I don't have to think too hard about where you link. If you're nontopical, just own it. The same goes for a K, make the link as clear as possible.

TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 1
Framework: 2
Theory: 3
Tricks: 5
Generic: 3-4

General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."

You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.

I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.

I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."

T/Theory :
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.

I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.

I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”

Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one

Things I appreciate:
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Trigger warnings
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
-Having fun

I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.

I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.


A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.

Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: __alyssa.j.hooks@gmail.com__
Text me (713)314-6230
Or ask me before the round

Donovan Jones Paradigm

6 rounds

Experience: I did public forum throughout high school. I finished my debate career with 1123 NSDA points and an Outstanding Distinction. My partner and I took first place at the Utah 5A state tournament in 2018. I also competed in world schools debate at the 2018 National Tournament where I was a triple Octo-finalist. I'm a State Delegate for the Democratic Party in Utah and I participated in last year's Democratic Convention as well as campaigning for the midterm elections this past year. I'm a Philosophy Major at the University of Utah and I keep myself up to date on current U.S. and World News. I continue on my debate legacy, arguing with strangers in coffee shops across the Wasatch front.

Paradigms: Stick to your framework, far too often I've seen teams drop their framework while focusing solely on attacking that of their opponents. While going on the offensive in a framework argument can many times be necessary, make sure you uphold your own before anything else.

My biggest pet peeve is an argument that relies entirely on complex link chains that are supported by poor reasoning. If you want to tell me that drug smuggling in Nicaragua will lead to nuclear war between France and The Russian Federation you better have damn good sources and sound reasoning to strengthen those links. I'm not going to flow through any cause and effect arguments unless you walk me through every individual cause and effect in your link chain. Keep your sources up to date and make sure you can defend them because if there is any doubt I will ask for them.

That being said, don't just throw a bunch of sources at me and expect your arguments to flow through. You have to show me the impact the information you are showing me has on the debate, and you need to show me the source is relevant. When referencing sources in your speeches try not to just throw out a million author names because that is meaningless to me. Be specific in telling me what sources you are referencing.

I can handle some speed but keep in mind I debated public forum, if I can't keep up with what you are saying I'll ask you to slow down but after that I'll only flow what I can understand.

Try to sign post and let me know where your argument is headed.

I put a lot of importance into your ability to perform well in cross. Avoid asking stupid questions such as ones that begin with "How do you feel about" and the like. There should be some good clash in crossfire so don't let yourself get run over by your opponents but also don't grill them so hard that they can't answer the question. I pay very close attention to cross and the questions raised during it just make sure to bring up everything important that happened in it during your speeches.

Aliya Khan Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Diana Khosrov Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Carina Kinney Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Jen Luckau Paradigm

3 rounds

I look for well-supported impact & Pathos - I want you to convince me by making me care about the topic. However, I also want you to convince me by backing up your claims with actual evidence.

I research, analyze and write policy for a living. Therefore, I can sense when your argument is BS and your sources are lacking.

I am anti-speed (both the the drug and the debate style) and anti-jargon. I want to be able to give you decent feedback, but I start to lose interest when you're jabbering away at 90 miles an hour. If you are worried about fitting in your argument in the time allotted, don't stress. I would rather hear one very clear and strong argument, rather than a bunch of semi-good arguments spoken too fast for me to understand what point you are trying to make.

*If I raise my hand, you are speaking too fast. I will give you one warning. The second time, you will lose points*


-Be specific and provide context when you present your evidence, blanket claims and "'cause I said so" are not specific.

-Clearly link your evidence to your argument.

-Clearly identify and state your contention, or your opposition to the other team's contention. Don't make me wonder what you're talking about and don't assume I will remember something from earlier in the round. I am old. I am tired. My memory is not what it used to be. Most likely, it has been a very long week for me and chances are I am also starving.

-Make sure your sources are credible and recent. I can usually tell who has done their research and who hasn't. An article you pulled up on CNN or Fox 20 minutes ago is an example of the latter. As a general rule, sources should be less than 5 years old - unless they are well-accepted in theory or study (This doesn't mean you will lose points for citing an older article, however).

-Speak loud enough for me to hear you! If I grab my ear. You're too quiet.

- I DO pay attention to cross X.

Gregory Madden Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Kaden Marchetti Paradigm

6 rounds

Who am I:

Public Forum Coach from Highland High School.

5 Years of Debate mainly in public forum. I have some Parli and other debate types under my belt.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I am a champion in collegiate public forum at PKD Nationals

I am very familiar with the topic. You can throw whatever at me.

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Here's the best way to earn my ballet:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.


Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum. I have seen them before.


I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.


I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

John Medley Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Noah Mengisteab Paradigm

6 rounds


Head Coach Speech and Debate at Duchesne Academy (2017-Present)

Rice University '20 studying Political Science

Debated for Marist School (2012-2016)


Important for 2019-2020 Season:

Evidence - I HIGHLY recommend reading card text or referring to an accurately cut card in the constructive and rebuttal. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't at least refer to cut cards (i.e., just quotes) then you should strike me.

There a few reasons why I'm going to be more strict about using cut cards. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. I understand trying to fit as many sources as possible into speeches, but lying about what your evidence says ruins the ethos of the round and cheats everyone of the educational and competitive components of this activity. And I'm tired of calling for evidence that contradicts the warrant read in round.

Disclosure - Teams I've coached only disclosed a few times this past year (similar to many teams who claim to disclose). However, it's hard to refute that rounds between disclosed teams are better rounds to participate in. It allows for better strategy preparation, spreads knowledge and checks evidence abuse.

Disclosure can happen in two ways - either through the wiki or by emailing your opponents and myself prior to the round. While I won't penalize for nondisclosure, you will get +0.3 speaker points for disclosing or sending speech docs and +0.7 for doing both. Misdisclosure is an auto-loss and lowest speaker points allowed.


My views on Public Forum evolved the past season based on observations of rounds and conversations I've had with debaters/coaches. Below are some general things I expect to see when I judge your round as well as my thoughts on progressive debate.

General Thoughts:

1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm - you have to adequately defend your offense and place defense on your opponents. To me, just having defense is not enough unless you warrant why your terminal defense should be preferred over any offense from the opposing team.

On my flow, offense requires a link/warrant, an impact, and frontlining. Miss one and it will be harder for me to flow your offense.

2.) Speeches must build off of each other. It’s not enough to just read some offense or defense in one speech and only extend it at the very end in the Final Focus. Rebuttals need to be line-by-line with 2nd rebuttals frontlining major turns for at least 30-60 seconds. Any offense or defense you want me to look at on my flow needs to be cleanly extended, especially in the Summary and the Final Focus.

3a.) The Summary and Final Focus MUST MIRROR EACH OTHER! Any OVs, observations, offense, and defense you want me to look at needs to be in BOTH SPEECHES! The burden to extend defense in the summary rests on both teams. I don't care about the 1st speaking team disadvantage in summary because there are other advantages in the round.

3b.) Defense and Offense Structure - Defense on "their case" doesn’t mean you extend every arg from the rebuttal, but extending the most important ones with good analysis (like turns). Offense is super simple - any offense you want me to consider at the end of the round must be in summary. Refer above for the requirements of a proper extension. Please also DO WARRANTED & COMPARATIVE WEIGHING! I have no problem dropping you because you didn’t do a good job extending or weighing in the round. Also, most teams are really bad at line by line. Save yourself and do VOTERS!!!

4.) Evidence – You can expect that I have done quite a bit of research on the topic and will understand most topic args. For the most part, I don’t interfere with the debate and will flow and vote on any arg presented (basically tech over truth). The only times I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) would be when the args/examples presented are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anything ridiculous like "extinction/terrorism good," or when I know a piece of evidence being read is completely misrepresented. I will call for evidence if debaters ask me to or if I find it important in my decision. Cards should be properly cut (refer to the message at the top). And evidence exchange needs to be quick - I will give you 1 min to find evidence. If you go over it, I will start deducting prep time. We need to keep rounds on time. And when a team is finding evidence, no one should be prepping.

Also, it's up to the debaters in the round to call each other out and issue a formal evidence ethics challenge if I don't call for a card.

5.) Disclosure - Refer to the disclosure message above. You should disclose at national circuit tournaments/championships.

6.) Decisions - No matter the tournament (unless explicitly told not to), I will always disclose and give a detailed RFD a few minutes after the round. I am constantly thinking about who is winning along with an RFD in my mind and on my flow after each speech. If for some reason you don’t want me to disclose, let me know, and I’ll just disclose to the other team. I'm also willing to answer more questions outside the round and email my flows for you to see how I evaluated the round.

Progressive PF:

Plans/CPs/DAs - I've always been okay with “specific” plans, “pseudo” CPs, and DAs because I used them during my debate career. Just make sure you "fit" them within PF and the resolution. Debaters who complain about the rules of PF debate when it comes to plans and CPs – get over it and debate.

Kritics - I'm okay with the generic K's people try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism) but I am not familiar with high theory (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

Theory - Theory is the highest layer of debate. I am okay with just a paragraph or a full shell. For me to extend your theory argument, you need to read it as soon as the abuse occurs. For disclosure/misdisclosure, you need to read it in the constructive since it's essentially abuse before the round. Additionally, theory needs to be extended throughout the debate. Otherwise, it becomes disingenuous and your speaker points will suffer. Evidence of abuse is also needed for theory (especially disclosure related shells). Extending theory your opponents drop is a TKO (auto-win and +0.5 speaks). These theory preferences (except reading disclosure) applies to any tournament round I judge.


1.) Preflow before the round*** otherwise -0.3 speaker points.

2.) Crossfires - It's usually not important to my ballot and I don't flow them. I think it’s more for y'all to clarify your args to each other. If something significant is said in cross-fire, then bring up immediately in the next speech to make it binding. Also, be nice to each other.

3.) Speed - I am okay if you go fast (6-7/10), so long as you are clear (use to say "micro" spreading but bc of the war against jargon by Jeff Miller & Lyndsey Oliver, I took it ou)

4.) Speaker points - For me, speaker points take into account analysis and persuasiveness. However, debate is an educational activity that requires good use of evidence, so I lean more towards analysis. Scale from 27-30 with everyone starting at a 27. If you get below a 25, you did something unethical in the round. Typically, speaks I give tournaments range from 27-29. Don't expect a 30 just because you won the round.

5.) Accommodations - I'm 100% fine with any accommodations debaters might need. Just communicate what you need before the round. Opponents will also receive the same benefits. If you are an opposing team that disagrees with reasonable accommodations, get over it and just debate.


Yes, add me to your email chain:

I didn't do LD in HS, but I've judged some LD rounds the past two years. My paradigm for LD is similar to PF in that I will still look at the round on an offense/defense paradigm. I'll flow any argument you want to present to me (Ks, CPs, DAs, Theory, etc.). Speed is the same as PF. Don't spread. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. At national circuit tournaments, LD should always disclose positions on the wiki.

Questions? Ask before the round

Jerrick Mitchell Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Ben Powell Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Danny Rosenbloom Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Jana Scott Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Gavin Serr Paradigm

6 rounds

About me:

Head Coach at Park City High School (UT)

Former PF Coach at Rowland Hall

3 years of PF in high school — 2 years on the circuit

A few visual explanations of my paradigm:

A Haiku poem to explain my overarching philosophy:

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Debate in front of me as if this was your 7-judge panel:

Christian Vazquez, Marybeth Ehlbeck, Cale McCrary, Mike Shackelford, Bryce Piotrowski, Illana Cuello-Wolffe, and Nathan Witkin.

My fundamental principles:

  • Debate is a game.
  • Depth is more important than breadth.
  • Specificity is essential to good debate.
  • Structural violence usually comes first.
  • It’s not an argument without a warrant.
  • 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
  • Your opponents' 'understanding' of an argument is irrelevant.
  • Probability is dependent on the link story presented/contested.
  • Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
  • Judge intervention is usually bad.

My view of a PF round:

  • Frontlining in second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
  • Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
  • Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
  • Public Forum would be more educational if teams read critical arguments.
  • Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
  • Pre-fiat weighing is underutilized.
  • Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
  • If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
  • You MUST answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary.

My judging style:

  • If you're going to make the whole room wait while you preflow, you're going to need to take prep.
  • The threshold for winning an argument won't change based upon my perception of its validity or truth.
  • If -- as a form of weighing -- you tell me to try or die, I'll probably choose to die for personal reasons.
  • A well-weighed risk of an impact is usually more persuasive in front of me than the certainty of an unweighed impact.
  • I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
  • I dislike new weighing in first Final Focus
  • It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
  • I give the highest speaks to teams who weigh without using jargon.
  • If the frown wrinkles on my forehead begin to furrow, it's because I don't like what you're saying
  • I tend to evaluate something as zero risk only when something is dropped or severely mishandled.
  • Warrants are more persuasive than empirics — though empirics are persuasive too.

My stylistic preferences:

  • Stop speaking when the timer goes off. I will deduct a tenth of a point for each violation of the time limit; that includes crossfire.
  • Spreading is fine. I’ve never been in a PF round which was too fast.
  • Roadmaps should be 4-5 words max.
  • A case-specific link turn is more impressive than a vague impact turn
  • I think paraphrasing is neat.
  • Trigger warnings are a necessity on topics of sexual assault and violence.
  • I enjoy occasional sass.

If you have questions, feel free to contact me: serrgavin4(at)gmail(dot)com.

Debate in a way that you can be proud of, and always remember that your integrity is the most valuable thing that can be won or lost in a round.

Sabah Sial Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated PF and Policy for four years. Treat me as an experienced PF tech judge. If you want to know more about me, scroll to the bottom.

I vote off the flow.

Things I like

-Impact calculus and weighing. Don't yell buzzwords at me; show me direct argument comparison.

-Voters. Choose what to go for and what to drop.

-Roadmap and signpost. Side note: every time someone says "brief off-time roadmap," a small part of me dies.

-Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want to split your time as 2 min. offense and 2 min. defense, that's your choice. On the other hand, if you want to spend all 4 min. on offense, that's fine too. Strategize.

Things I don't like

-Shadow extensions

-Reading new evidence in second summary

-Giving me a generic framework and doing little to no weighing and expecting me to vote for you on the framework

-Post-rounding me. I shouldn't need to say this, but don't argue with me on my decision after the round. I'll talk to you about it and answer any questions you have, but trying to change my decision will just tank your speaks.

-Rudeness. You can be aggressive, but be civil.


-First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but should extend turns/offense.

-Evidence-reading is not on prep time, but don't abuse that.

-I'm good with speed as long as it's clear. I will give one warning if I can't understand, and then I will let you know that I've stopped flowing.

-I try to be visibly responsive during the round. If you see me nodding, you are on the right track. If I'm making faces, I am confused. If I have stopped flowing, you're probably repeating what you've already said and should move on to your next point.

-If you want me to look at evidence, or if I'm just curious about it, I will ask to see it after the round.

More About Me


I competed two years in policy (2014-16) and two years in PF (2016-18) at Hillcrest High School. I currently coach PF for Bingham High School. I qualified for nats and TOC in PF and competed at nats in policy, so I do come with my own idea of what debate should look like, but my role as a judge will depend on what you tell me.

Speaker Points

(copied from tournament guidelines)

30: Sheer perfection

29: Surpassing excellence

28: Quite solid and good

27: Okay, I guess

26: Needs a bit of work

25: Needs a lot of work

If you want me to provide feedback right after the round (time permitting), I’d be happy to. If not, feel free to email me at

Trinity Silimon Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Izchel Simpson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Oliver Smith Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Zach Thiede Paradigm

6 rounds


-- It is important to me that you are clear when laying out the big picture at the end of the debate. Make sure that you are explaining what you are winning and how it relates and interacts to what the other team has said and why that means you should get the ballot.

-- I often vote on technical concessions, frame your truth arguments in context of what your opponents have said so I don't think you dropped it.

-- I rarely read evidence unless there is some sort of dispute around it or I have been directed to do so by the debaters. I think this is the most fair way of adjudicating a debate for it requires the least amount of intervention on my part and rewards clarity in the debate. This also allows me to avoid drawing on information of your arguments that I held prior to the debate.

Rough point scale: 29.9-30 (perfect), 29.4-29.8 (some of the best debating I have seen all year), 28.9-29.3 (great), 28.4-28.8 (good), 27.9-28.3 (meh), below-27.8 (needs some serious work)

Immigration Topic:

-- I have a high school team that I coach for so I know a decent amount about this topic. I have mostly spent time researching DA's this year, but I have enjoyed the critical literature that this topic provides.


3 rounds

Not Submitted

Abbey Wallace Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Brittney Waterfall Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Andre Watson Paradigm

3 rounds

Go to judgephilosophies, tabroom apparently doesn't like the accent.

Melissa Weiner Paradigm

6 rounds

I view my role in the round, is as a critic of the debate. Therefore, I rely upon the four competitor's to tell me how I am to evaluate the round, what's important in the round and where I am to look, to evaluate the round. I will fiercely defend my role as a critic, as I will not connect the dots, or complete incomplete arguments to the defense of teams.

these rounds are safe spaces