Talk Slowly!!

Please signpost

I don’t like Ks, Counterplans, or anything super progressive. They should stay in policy.

Less on the framework based debate and more on the actual topic.

I vote on argumentation, more offense than defense.

Please have evidence in your cases, I won’t just take your word that something’s true, please have something to back it up.

I don’t vote/pay attention to cross examination, if something happens that you want me to vote on, say it in your next speech

Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

Hello! Welcome to your scary spooky judges’ paradigm.

First, I’ll start with the basic things I look for when judging as to not bore you with my life story if you don’t care, but if you’re interested that will be below.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ME

· I expect professionalism and respect in rounds. Not just towards me as a judge, but more importantly towards your opponent(s). This especially relates to crossfire, I will not be judging your crossfire, but I will judge how you treat your opponent(s) during it.

· You will get tons of points from me if your arguments are organized and easy to follow. If I don’t know what you’re talking about it's going to make it harder for me to actually judge your case that I know you've worked tirelessly over. #BloodSweat&Tears

· I will not give time signals (especially in Policy) because I need to be paying attention to what you’re saying and not the time.

· I’m a chill judge and am not super strict on time, so if you need to finish a sentence or a thought (as long as it’s short) I will allow grace periods.

· As far as speed goes: I’m the person who is grading your performance and giving you a win or lose, it’s in your best interest that I understand what you’re saying, that being said it’s up to you how fast you speak.

· Make sure to cover Voters at the end of your speech, I will base a lot of my final verdict on them.

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT ME

· I’m a National Qualifying Humorous Interp-er so I think I’m supper funny. Please laugh at my jokes… I mean why wouldn’t you? I’m hilarious.

· I was President of my high school debate team 2 years ago (I know, I’m old).

· I have a dang lot of shiny debate trophies from my time in debate due to rarely ever entering in only 1 event at a tournament. #SpeechKids #QuadrupleEnteredOnce

· I’m currently studying Marketing at the University of Utah and I love it

I have experience in a wide range of debate and speech events. Here are my paradigms for some.

LD-

I did LD for 3 years. I love a good ethical, ought and should debate- if the topic allows for it. Please note that I don't think solvency of the problem is what LD debate is. We need to touch on how the actions we take will impact in the real world, but to win my ballot you must win the moral and ethical debate- ought we to do something not just would it solve the problem (unless you use Consequentialism for V or C and win framework). I studied some philosophy and ethics in college but please make clear what your value and criteria are. That way both me and your opponent's know exactly what you mean. Make your contentions clear and logical. Framework is important and I like you to tell me what you think the voters should be for the round. Clash will always keep me more engaged and I think it is a key part of any debate, so I will be factoring that into my decision. If you run K's or progressive you better make sure they are VERY good, topical and still allow for clash.

Impromptu-

I love impromptu. Please try new things. I will judge based on devilry and content. I love if you can include some humor, because we all need a good laugh! I like structure in a speech and a take-away. What should I get out of listening to you for the last 7 minutes?

Policy or Team-

I did team my first year of debate. I can flow fairly fast but if I put my pen down you have lost me and it might be worth your time to go back a bit and catch me up. I don't mind well done spew but if I can't understand you it won't matter how fast you deliver your content. For policy I don't mind topicality, solvency or similar arguments.

Exempt-

I follow both domestic and foreign events so present information that is current and correct. I will judge on content and delivery.

When reading my ballots please understand that I try to offer some ways you can improve with every round. I always liked ballots like this because I felt I could take that and be a better debater. These are NOT my RFD. My RFD may include some of those. For example, if you failed to make an argument that was necessary to refute your opponent than I might put it both places. I am not a huge fan of K debate so if you run one, you better make sure you get better solvency and/or lower impacts and MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. If it's in LD you better also make the argument that it is the most ethical course of action. I promise to always try my hardest to be fair and make my RFD be who had the better round.

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!

I was a traditional debater, and I continue that trend in my judging. I specifically look for solid value/criterion framework debate, with good clash. Don't try to make any limits or grounds arguments. Telling me to drop a contention, argument, or card from the flow will not make it so. Prove the argument is null and void first. Though I'm a traditional judge, if you want to run a kritik, go for it! I love a good k, despite its non-traditional nature. For the value/criterion framework, philosophers and political theorists are phenomenal resources for finding a framework. If you're going to use such a theory in your framework (e.g. Social Contract Theory) give some credit to the people who invented it. If I don't know who's theory you're using, it becomes much harder for me to judge how you apply your framework as a whole.

Aff:

I do not want to see any plans or solvency. This is LD, not PF or Policy. Don't bring them up yourself, and don't let Neg try and pressure you into offering one. You are under no requirement or obligation to offer any form of plan or solvency on the resolution.

Neg:

You have a seven minute 1NC - I expect you to start your offense in that speech. Your 2NR is not enough time to cover everything the Aff will be able to pile on against you. If you don't cover it in 1NC, and don't tell me you'll discuss it in your next speech, I will extend it through the flow.

I competed in LD debate throughout high school. Although I typically competed in a traditional LD style, I incorporated various progressive arguments within my cases as well. That being said, I am comfortable with any kind of argument you wish to run, as long as it is clear and concise.

Here are some things I like to see:

Regarding Traditional LD:

-Strong links between both your value and criterion, as well as being able to link V/C effectively to your contentions.

-Emphasis on WHY your value and criterion matter. (This applies to all LD styles.)

K's/Theory:

-If you choose to run a K or theory argument, the way you choose to critique/kritik or the theology you use as your framework must make sense within the context of the resolution. Strong links.

-I handle speed well, but keep in mind that if you choose to spread, you must still be clear in what you are saying, or I will not flow the arguments made.

-Similarly, if you are using complex philosophy/literature/etc., you must set a clear basis of knowledge regarding the text(s) in order for me or your opponent to accurately follow the arguments you make. Try not to assume that I or your opponent are familiar with the particular philosophy you are discussing.

Overall:

-Be polite in the round. No condescending, rude, or disrespectful remarks.

-Strong contentions/arguments. Although value and criterion are important, so is the evidence that supports them.

-Make the round yours! This is your debate career, and I want you to run what you want to run.

-Tell me why I should vote for you, or in other words, what the round "boils down to."

-Show impacts!

-Most importantly: Have fun!

I competed in LD during high school. I ran progressive cases, and I'm comfortable with K's, Plans/CPs, Theory, etc. I have a decent amount of policy. I like to see clean rounds- please direct me to your specific evidence during rebuttals ("Look to my Davis 2015 evidence" instead of "look to the card in my first contention"). Run anything you want, performance/progressive/traditional, just tell me where to vote.

I've debated policy all throughout high school and have been judging for almost three years.

I'm open to any arguments as long as the team can articulate them properly. Please do not run a kritik unless you are familiar with the argument, and no generic links! Other than that, I have no bias to any style or argument of debate.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

Public Forum:

I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.

Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.

Do whatever if you are good

1. Don't be pompous and disrespectful or you will lose points and will make a very bad impression. The collegial spirit of academic debate is paramount and more important to me than the actual content and skill components of the debate.

2. Speaking extremely fast or loud will not be impressive and will negatively impact how your performance is judged. Consider yourself an academic professional, thus the purpose of your statements is to be understood and make an impact. If this cannot be accomplished for the reasons stated above then you will not be judged favorably.

Good luck!

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

I am a traditional judge who will not flow any ADVs, Ks, DisADVs, Observations or any other progressive arguments. Keep to clean, clear arguments and clash. Show links and impacts. Give me voters.

I have a Masters Degree in Psychology and have practiced in the social science field for twenty years. I appreciate debaters who flow correctly and offer a clear path to their arguments.

Hey everyone!

He/his pronouns

TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.

More Specific

I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.

I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.

More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.

Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.

I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.

The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.

Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.

If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!

1. Spewing/spreading/verbal strafing or otherwise surpassing the speed of sound while speaking will not earn points. I need to be able to understand what you are saying and to know what your contentions are and the opposing team needs to understand as well for a good debate to occur. Please keep your speeches concise. Good debaters should be able to relay a high level of information concisely.

2. Rudeness to the other team will be noted. This includes being pompous, smirking, sarcasm, interrupting, etc. Please be polite.

3. Please have evidence annotated and available if requested.

4. Be aware of the time limits for each segment of your round and be prepared to time yourself.

Personal Background and experience:

I have 4 years of high school debate experience in all events (excluding policy) and 4 years of judging experience for Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Oratory, Impromptu, and Interps. My formal schooling was in Econimcs, Finance, and Accounting and I currently work as a Venture Capital Analyst. Outside of formal schooling I enjoy reading the classics, and I've done several years of humanitarian work in west Africa working in schools, on rice fields, and with churches.

DISCLAIMER:

Debate students come from various backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, abilities, and struggles. It is my personal belief that anyone has the ability to succeed in debate if they apply themselves, strive to improve themselves, and regularly re-evaluate themselves and their progress. Because of this, I hold all debate participants I judge to the same standard: the best debater wins. I have seen debaters with speech impediments and severe anxiety deliver some of the best speeches I've ever heard, I've seen students from very difficult family and economic situations dominate rounds through their professionalism and research, and I've seen students from historically marginalized backgrounds thrive in competition as their hard work and skill showed that stereotypes do not define what they can accomplish.

It is also my belief that ballot feedback greatly helps students improve as debaters. However, in accordance with the culturally competent judging initiative, research has indicated that several types of ballot feedback may be taken as insensitive, offensive, and hurtful to participants in the debate program. I do not know the individual struggles and challenges of each debater I meet, nor is it my place to. If you feel that any of my comments have been hurtful or offensive please know it was not my intention to offend you

If you feel that any of the above will create a biased, ineffective, or unfair round please contact tournament staff before the round to ensure you have a round that is objective, effective, and fair.

Lincoln Douglas:

Ld debate is the “why” of debate. Debate should focus primarily on the value/criterion and secondly on contentions. You must prove that 1. Your value outweighs your opponent 2. Your criterion effectively evaluates your value 3. Your evidence holds credence through your criterion for attaining your value by affirming or negating the resolution. I will evaluate the round in that order. While I can judge spreading, please avoid it.

Public Forum:

Public Forum, as the name implies, should be understandable and applicable to the public with quality arguments preceding quantity of arguments. Debate will be evaluated in the following order: 1. Was one side able to offer impact clac that was both significant and enduring through the round while the other was not? 2. Was one side able to offer arguments that were both reasonable and feasible in the accepted framework/world of the round while the other was not? 3. Was the evidence presented credible? 4. Was one side able to more clearly state, present, and rebut their topic in an organized and understandable manner? While I can judge spreading, please avoid it.

Speech Events:

In the words of Plato, "Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." There is not such thing as a bad topic, only bad presentation. I evaluate speeches in the following order: 1. Was the content well organized and understandable? 2. Did the body language used enhance the comprehension and presentation of the material? 3. Was the flow of the material polished and smooth? 4. Did the material take into account topic biases and give sufficient attention to resolving them? 5. Was the time allotted used effectively and efficiently?

Because all speech events emphasize different aspects of this generic paradigm, I do adjust my level of emphasis accordingly as it would be unfair to judge humorous interpretations the same as a national extemporaneous round.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh. I listen for good impact weighing that is connected to your value criterion.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh. Communicate impact or measure.
• Do not make assumptions.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

Make it the best debate possible. Be respectful of your opponent I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years.

Do not say untrue or imprecise things about the economy. I know how it works.

I’ll do my best to flow, but can’t guarantee that I’ll get everything if you are speaking too quickly

I understand minimal debate jargon. Don’t use it.

Make my life easy - provide clear extensions of your arguments and tell me why they matter.

Don’t lie. I won’t like you if you lie.

Don’t steal prep time - it is massively annoying.

If you are late, your speaker points will probably be lower.

I do not like it when debaters are rude. I get that you have to clash, but there is a line to walk, and it truly is not a fine line. It is not hard to not be rude. Do not mansplain or be condescending. Do not laugh at your opponents. I am less likely to pick you up if you do.

Don’t make bigoted arguments. I may not be as “woke” as my younger judges but it will not fly with me.

Ideally, please use the chat or file share for sharing evidence! I need to see it and it's weird for me to be on email groups with teenagers. These in-app tools are provided for your use.

Kritiks: I'm familiar with critical literature, but I want the alternative to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative. If the kritik literature is not very well known you should create a thesis level argument to provide clarity about the kritik debate.

K Affs: Everything said on Kritiks applies here as well and you should also clearly explain why you reading a k aff is justified.

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically and not just as a timeskew. Make sure that your voters are terminalized, I don't want to just be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

DA's: I'm not a huge fan of linear disadvantages but I will still vote for them. On Uniqueness I'm more likely to believe that uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link if you give me a direction of the status quo instead of the status of it (For example, on an Econ DA it's better to say the economy is improving slowly rather than saying the economy is amazing).

Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

I'm a lay judge.

When I'm judging, I weigh my decision heavily on a debater's ability to form and present a coherent rebuttal to their opponent’s contentions. As the judge, I feel that a debater's ability to listen, understand, and formulate a rebuttal in the allotted time shows me that the debater understands not only the topic… but the core of the Lincoln Douglas format.

Speaker points are usually based on ability to form arguments, and time management. That said, don't ramble just to fill time. If you run out of material that backs your contention or is useful in a rebuttal, don't keep repeating the same things over and over. You're better off being concise and ending early than rambling just to use up all of your time. I also want to see that the student takes the debate seriously, and isn’t just joking around excessively.

When making arguments, be sure to provide clear warrants that are pertinent to your argument, and show why it’s true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to reference them in later speeches when you're using them to support your contention. If I don’t believe your contentions, or if I doubt the facts you’re using to back your argument, it will impact my decision. Don’t just make up “facts”. If I feel you're doing this, I will vote against you regardless of the rest of your case.

I would prefer not to see K's or too much theory unless it's very logical, topical, and well explained. No spreading please, and no excessive debate jargon.

Last but not least, don’t be antagonistic or disrespectful towards your opponent.

Prefer traditional, and slower speech. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll give you a cue (noisily dropping my pen).

Debated Lincoln Douglas a LOT in high school.

Love clear sign posting and voters!!!!

Happy with most arguments if explained, linked, and defended well. I don't follow Ks, theory shells, or other progressive arguments as well, but you're welcome to try :)

Clean and clear speech, good tone and pacing will always win the day.

Must make the point clear, Why is the status quo wrong or right. If you have a piece of legislation you have to have a compelling reason why the status quo is not working, i.e. what are the harms.

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

I have been a debate judge for about 6 years pre-pandemic. Although not a coach, I am familiar with judging PFD, LD and Policy as well as different speech events.

Please no spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will have a hard time judging you or your team fairly.

Speak clearly.

Acronyms: Explain acronyms when initially used.

Sharing cards: Be mindful of time. If consistently taking too long to email between one another, I will deduct time from prep time.

Sportsmanship: I expect good sportsmanship to be promoted between debaters.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.