2019 — UT/US
Beverly Ahlstrom Paradigm
Kelcey Anderson Paradigm
McKayle Bradford Paradigm
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
Paradigm * November 2019
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” criteria. 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. 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, and significance. 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 will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.
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/ Coaching Highlights:
8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho
Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018
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 & 2016
Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress
Joey Brimhall Paradigm
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
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
30- you should final
29- almost no mistakes
28- still good but some fumbles
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
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
Elizabeth Cole Paradigm
Kristi Davenport Paradigm
Rebecca Devenport Paradigm
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
Dan Dunn Paradigm
Nannette Eash Paradigm
Tim Henry Paradigm
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) , 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
Alyssa Hooks Paradigm
NATIONALS 2020: Use the email chains to avoid having to waste time calling for cards. I would advise having a speech doc ready that you are willing to send that has the cards that are most likely to be called for
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 coach for the Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart in Houston, Texas.
TLDR (1 = best):
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."
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)
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
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: email@example.com__
Text me (713)314-6230
Or ask me before the round
Donovan Jones Paradigm
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
Diana Khosrov Paradigm
Carina Kinney Paradigm
Jen Luckau Paradigm
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
Kaden Marchetti Paradigm
Who am I:
Public Forum Coach from Highland High School.
Judge TOC gold and Coach Highland NS
6 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.
I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:
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.
Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it
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 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!
I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.
I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.
4 Tips for me:
1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.
2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.
3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)
4. Have fun!
If you have any questions please feel free to ask!
I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?
Add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info
2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.
3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3
John Medley Paradigm
Noah Mengisteab Paradigm
Head Coach Duchesne Academy (2017-2020)
Private Coach for Interlake (2018-present)
Marist '16// Rice University '20
Important for 2019-2020 Season:
Evidence - I HIGHLY recommend reading card text or at least referring to an accurately cut card in the constructive and rebuttal, not just hyperlinks. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't cut cards then you might want to consider striking 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.
*** FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS - IF YOUR CARD ISN'T CUT AND I CALL FOR IT, I WON'T CONSIDER IT.
Disclosure -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 me case & speech docs and +0.5 for doing both. Misdisclosure is an auto-loss and lowest speaker points allowed.
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.
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.
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 like NSDAs), I will always give a decision and 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 who won, let me know. I'm also willing to answer more questions outside the round and email my flows for you to see how I evaluated the round.
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, Securitization, etc.) 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. I reserve the right to ask for a speech doc if you went to fast.
[I used to say "micro" spreading but bc of the war against jargon by Jeff Miller & Lyndsey Oliver, I took it out...]
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.
Yes, add me to your email chain: email@example.com
I didn't do LD in HS, but I've judged some LD rounds the past two years and coach it in a traditional circuit. 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
Ben Powell Paradigm
Danny Rosenbloom Paradigm
Jana Scott Paradigm
Gavin Serr Paradigm
Actor analysis is really important on this topic. Please give comparative reasoning as to why I should prefer your analysis to your opponents'.
I won't read the email chain unless you tell me to and you give me a specific card to read, because I still think calling for evidence is interventionist in most cases.
I am a gay socialist from the farm (literally). You do not want me to "gut-check" your arguments. Stop telling me to do that.
Argumentation in debate – particularly on the national circuit – is often very enthymematic. This is normal, natural, and understandable, as debates tend to be very short and the time crunch forces certain premises to be omitted from the discussion. Nonetheless, the team with the fewest enthymemes will probably pick up my ballot.
As it relates to theory/Ks, I think that engagement should be the rule of thumb. If your strategy avoids clash, it's probably not a strat I'll appreciate. That means if someone reads a K, you should probably just answer it instead of reading T or Theory. It also means that you shouldn't read frivolous theory or a K that inhibits meaningful engagement or dialogue (note: I don't think many Ks do that). That also means I'm going to be more appreciative of a K that is disclosed, so as to improve the clash in the round -- that's a different standard from stock cases, which should be fairly debatable to begin with in PF.
Director of Speech and Debate at Park City (UT)
If you're the type of person who think this matters (it doesn't), I qualified to the TOC in PF during high school.
It's not an argument without a warrant.
Critical arguments are underused and generally mishandled.
Weighing is super important, but it's a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.
Second rebuttal should frontline.
Defense is sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline; it isn't if it does.
Your speaks will be dramatically higher if you send speech docs.
'Evidence' only counts if it's a cut card.
Crossfire is the worst part of PF. You will be rewarded for making it productive/not annoying.
Be warned: I have aged several decades since graduating high school. I am now grumpy. I will casually give you 26s for irritating me, even if you probably deserve 29s.
I usually vote for the team that is less annoying.
Send me a Facebook message if you have specific questions. You can also peruse the following paradigms for more examples of judges/coaches that have influenced my thinking:
Sabah Sial Paradigm
I debated PF and Policy for four years and coached PF for one year. Treat me as an experienced PF tech judge.
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.
-Please time yourself. If I have to time you, it will distract me from flowing and listening to your arguments.
Things I don't like
-Shadow extensions. If you want to extend a contention or warrant, explain the significance of that in the round.
-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.
(copied from tournament guidelines)
30: Sheer perfection
29: Surpassing excellence
28: Quite solid and good
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 and based on tournament rules), I’d be happy to. If not, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Trinity Silimon Paradigm
Izchel Simpson Paradigm
Oliver Smith Paradigm
I competed for American Leadership Academy in PF for four years, and I am now in my sophomore year of college at UVU.
Warrant your evidence well, especially if you are a fast speaker. I can't vote on things I can't hear/understand.
I know this is unorthodox in PF, but I enjoy a good framework debate.
Unless you have a good reason please stand while you are speaking, if you decide to speak while sitting, I will dock speaker points.
I expect all the participants in the round to know how to argue without quarreling, how to quarrel without suspecting, how to suspect without slandering etc.
If you are going to pre flow, make sure you do it before. I won't delay the round for you.
I am okay with off time roadmaps as long as they are brief.
I appreciate creative cases and frameworks if they are well-executed. I won't vote on it, but it could get you some extra speaker points.
Creative Framework=anything other than Cost Ben
You can speak as quickly as you need, just make sure your taglines are clear so I can get them in my flow.
Signpost! Signpost! Signpost! Make sure you always clearly describe where you are in the flow.
Copied from the rules of PF.
Summary Speeches: "New evidence, but no new arguments may be presented, except responses (refutation)."
Final Focus: "no new arguments may be presented; however, new evidence may be introduced to support an argument made earlier in the debate."
The Final Focus speech should write my ballot for me. Don't spend more than 30 seconds talking about the flow, instead stick to broad arguments that you feel define the round.
I sporadically pay attention during crossfire, and I don't flow it. So, if you feel something important was said make sure to bring it up in a speech
Ask real questions and refrain from making statements.
I generally give twenty-seven's to the losing team and twenty-eights to the winners. If you want to get more, do the following things.
Warrants and Sign Posting.
Referencing Vines/Memes (Levity is nice in a debate round.)
Speaking with clarity.
A Guide to my facial expressions
Face in my notebook/computer= I understand what you are saying, and I am recording it.
Looking up, pen in hand=you are saying something interesting and I want to fully understand it.
Pen down, arms folded=you are saying something confusing or wrong.
Zach Thiede Paradigm
— It is important to me that you are VERY clear at the end of the debate. Tell me 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. This is not done well enough in 90% of debates which is a huge bummer because it usually makes voting very easy for a judge.
— I often vote on technical concessions. I will practically never vote on truth over tech, because it is just short for “I like intervening in rounds as a judge.”
— 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.
— If a team takes prep to ask a question, they can cut you off whenever they want.
— My last year of college I went for Baudrillard on the aff and the neg every debate. Take that as you will (I understand this may ruin my prefs for some people, but I went for only topical arguments the rest of my entire debate career.)
— My debate partner in college, Zachery Baker, shares a similar judging style to me (he also has a much longer paradigm). If you want a longer explanation of my judging paradigm I would go look at his page.
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)
NATHAN WILCOX Paradigm
Abbey Wallace Paradigm
Brittney Waterfall Paradigm
Andre Watson Paradigm
Go to judgephilosophies, tabroom apparently doesn't like the accent.
Melissa Weiner Paradigm
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