Hi, I was a debater in high school but I focused on Speech events (IE, Oratory, Ect.) Though I did policy and congress as well. Now I am a Sexual Assault Program Coordinator at Safe Harbor Crisis Center in Davis county. My focus is on if your argument is comprehensive and presented well.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Debate

I am persuaded by calm, well-thought-out arguments, that flow well within your framework. An over-bearing and/or arrogant demeanor will negatively impact my vote. A good debate is about an exchange between sides. This requires listening, as a good debate is as much about responding to your opponent as it is about solidifying your own arguments.

Speech

I rely heavily on delivery. I look for confidence in the speaker. I am best persuaded by a speaker when they are passionate and engaging. Most of all, however, is I need to see the speaker connected to the speech on some level, whether this be emotional, through body language, and/or through some other means.

And always remember to enjoy yourself!!!

I debated PF from 2006 - 2010. Many judging related questions can be answered by asking yourself how you would perceive the debate/your actions if you were in the judges position.This essentially means making logical arguments and having good-hearted fun.

More specifically, following these criteria will help you win the debate:

>>Signpost as you move through the speech.

>>Be clear in telling me what I should be voting on. I only vote on what is said in the debate, I don’t make inferences or links, so it’s up to you to make all parts of the argument so that it’s on the flow.

>>I vote on what’s on the flow, so help me keep my flow organized by making clear references.

>>State a clear impact analysis and be specific on why you outweigh

>>If there is a FW debate, make sure it is substantive. Don’t just re-state your FW, explain why I should prefer your FW and why you win under it. There is no shame in dropping the FW debate if it is a wash. Agreeing on one FW doesn’t mean you lose, I will just be judging both teams under the same FW, so be clear on why you still win under what was originally your opponents FW.

>>I do not vote on cross-examination

>>During cross-examinations there is no need to always ask “can I ask you a question” I prefer cx to be more informal. That also means you can sit or stand

>>Speed is fine but I need clarity and signposting

>>All your arguments need clear warrants

>>I may ask for evidence if it becomes a central issue in the debate

>>When you walk into the room try to write your name/school and corresponding speeches on the board and after the coin-flip your side.

Be respectful of the other team at all times.

Time yourself

Speak slowly and clearly.

Although it is difficult over Zoom, try to make eye contact with me.

Enjoy yourselves!

Hello! I'm an assistant coach at woods cross high school. I am mostly a PF judge, however, I love judging LD as well.

Beyond debating well, to win my ballot you must keep the following in mind:

-Good debaters provide analysis beyond just reading evidence.

-Clash is extremely valuable important to any debate.

-I love everything from simple solutions, to complex progressive arguments.

-Speed is alright, but make sure your opponents and I can comprehend what you are saying.

-I always vote based on the arguments, speech quality will only gain you speaker points.

My Personal Experience: 3 years public forum debate, 2018 5A PF State Champion.

About Me:

I did Public Forum for two years at Woods Cross High School (2016-2018), ending my career at the National tournament in Florida in World Schools Debate as a triple octofinalist, with the NSDA seal of Superior Distinction at 839 NSDA points. I graduated from the University of Utah, majoring in Political Science with an emphasis on International Policy, with an Honors certificate. I'm currently a photographer. I would love to give you feedback about your round, if you can't find me afterwards shoot me an email, victoriahhills@gmail.com and I'd be happy to chat.

Public Forum:

I can keep up with spreading, but if I can't understand what you're saying I won't flow it. I haven't judged debate in a couple years, so I expect I'll have a learning curve, though quick. Flow oriented,weigh your impacts; impact calc is necessary. Don't drop arguments and bring them back in the final focus; make sure you're consistent. Framework needs to be upheld throughout the round otherwise I won't consider it as a voter. Logical arguments can be just as strong as empirical arguments; explain your links or how your opponents links fail to uphold the resolution, or vice versa. We love a clear link chain. Don't assume I know why something's important, tell me if it matters in the round, especially with evidence <3

Off time road maps are fine, but please keep them brief. If you go past 10 seconds I will start your speech time. I don't care if you sit or stand during cross, just make sure you're on the same page as your opponents. Time yourselves. I'll keep time if I need to, but ya'll should be able to time yourselves.

Lincoln Douglas:

I know the format, I've judged LD before. Make sure to carry your Value and Criterion throughout the round. Weigh your impacts, flow your contentions through, make clear link chains. I'm not afraid to ask for evidence if it sounds sketch, but so should y'all. Don't let sketchy evidence lose you rounds, call that stuffout.

Off time road maps are fine; keep them brief. Time yourselves.

Policy:

Didn't do policy in high school, but I've been judging policy for the past two years. Flash me your cases before the round pls and thanks. I know most of the policy jargon; if I look confused then use your best judgement to clarify.

Everyone:

SIGN POST. PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

Traditional or Progressive, I will weigh your arguments objectively, but it's your job to tell me how.

I appreciate civility in round, especially in crossfire. It's perfectly fine for things to get heated, but it's not okay to make personal attacks. Debate should be a safe space for meaningful discourse.

I am a 4th year parent judge. I have now judged policy and PF about equally and some LD. I strongly evaluate the framework debate. Please make sure your arguments are backed with evidence and clear logic. Also make sure your voters and impacts are clear during the round. If you are speaking too fast, I will let you know. I dislike performance Ks.

I come from a traditional circuit, so I evaluate on a voting issues basis. For the affirmative, try to defend your entire plan because I don’t buy into kicking out of your advantages.

For the negative, if you want to refute the affirmative case, have evidence to back up your arguments.

Make your links clear, so I can follow your train of thought. I want to understand the chain of events that would lead to big stick impacts.

Please be respectful to your opponents as it is reflected in your speaker points.

Online debate: I will unmute and let you know if I cannot clearly hear what you are saying. Feel free to use NSDA file share.

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.

Congress: Clear contentions, stated clearly, well supported by citations. (ie, Contention 1 or My first Contention). Do not make me try to figure out what you are wanting to say. If examples are used, back up the example with a legitimate source. Ask intelligent, to the point questions. Answer questions efficiently without a bunch of fluff. If you don't know the answer or don't have the support for the answer, I will know it. Don't waste my time or yours bluffing around. Civility is paramount. Do not talk over each other, that is rude.

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*

DO:

-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.

updated for beehive bonanza 2018 -- i've done some research on this topic, but it was way back in august so i don't know a lot about it. if you expect me to know something about the topic, make sure you tell me in construct.

about me: i debated for park city for four years in ld and pf. i've been to nationals in both and i went to the toc in pf. i currently attend the university of utah and am an applied math and computer science double major.

tldr: i will vote off the flow. that's all.

the basics:
- i will judge the round how YOU tell me to. run what you feel most comfortable running. whether it be traditional or progressive, i'm here for it.

- speed is fine with me (under 325 wpm plz), as long as clarity is not compromised. i will call "clear" if necessary. however, if your opponents are not okay with spreading and you do so anyway, i will probably drop you. winning bc your opponents couldn't understand your args is not winning.

- i will flow the round. i will vote off the flow. i won't make extensions for you. i don't flow crossfire.

- i'll only vote on args if they're in summary and final focus. however, i understand the inherent disadvantage of speaking first and will make exceptions for defense that first summary doesn't get to as long as it is thoroughly covered in first ff.

- i think speaker points are subjective and pretty meaningless. nonetheless, they are used to break ties and determine brackets. as such, i view speaker points as an extension of your debate abilities. if you're a good debater, i'll give you high speaks. if you're an average debater, expect average speaks.

- read & extend offense. weigh impacts.

- plz don't give me an off-time road map, just sign-post.

- don't misconstrue ev. i'll call for the card if it's disputed, but i would rather everyone just reads ev that's true.

- frameworks are a waste of time, in my opinion. read them if you must, but if we can all just agree to cost-ben, i will be a much happier human.

one last thing to remember: debate is an educational environment. don't be mean and always act authentically.

if you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before the round or email me at boyana.martinova@gmail.com :)

Do NOT use the word, "firm", when saying "I stand in ... aff/neg". Please be mindful and consider every word you use.

Stay away from rhetorical questions.

ROADMAP your points.

Cite your sources.

It is pronounced "new-cle-ar", not "new-cue-lur".

Participate. I will notice if you do not.

Two great speeches are better than five mediocre. Quality vs. quantity.

Background: I did debate for eight years, competed at the University of Utah in BP/Parli/Extemp/CA/Prose. Dabbled in IPDA when I had to. Graduated 2022. I've seen some stuff. Any debate style okay, I don't really care what you read, as long as it's not wildly problematic. I judge off the flow primarily and tend to give decent speaks. Tabula Rasa as much as humanly possible. I like framework in rounds to have some sort of weighing mechanism, so if you want to win gimme a framework. If you don't like the way your opponent set up a round, gimme a counter-framework and tell me why I should prefer it (IE aff is abusive, neg doesn't have one, etc.)

Tell me the speech times; I don't remember that from high school debate lol

SIGNPOST. PLEASE. I won't do work for you. Make your args and responses clear. It takes practice so if you're new, no worries at all! :) Signposting just means saying who's argument and which argument you are responding to: "In my opponent's first point they discuss x; I have this refutation to that" and it takes practice. So please, in the very least, practice!

My philosophy is basically do whatever as long as you make it make sense; if you have more specific questions you can ask in round. Otherwise, we're here to debate. Let's do the debate thing. Just do your best. :) I'm not here to judge you- well...

LD

V/VC are good things to have. Claims, warrants, links. Your K should have links; if it doesn't and you choose not to explain how it relates to the topic/your opponents case, you probably won't win. If your K does link, then you probably WILL win. Things to consider. Impact Analysis and Framework are both good to include; how am I gonna weigh the round? You tell me.

PF

Framework is cool. Impact Calc is very important in PF because why should I care about what you're saying? Tell me. I play video games more than much else these days; I don't know what the akywxvnslsplqm is. SO TELL ME. Or I won't care and thus won't weigh it. Your acronyms are useless if you assume everyone knows every acronym ever. Cards good. PF style changes every year, so run what you want here; have fun with it. That's really what debate is all about :)

Policy

You do you; link chain/speak clearly if you're going Sonic fast: gracemo314@gmail.com I can roll with just about anything here. Again, just make sure you have links/warrants/etc.

Congress

Ask questions, give speeches, get good ranks.

Tabula Rasa, I believe that in creating a more fair and equitable debate round, putting my personal bias into how the round should be weighted would create more obstacles than are necessary, and creates a culture in debate wherein there is no evolution. That also means that emphasizing voters is critical. Present the reasons you won. If you have time, emphasize at the end of every speech what matters most thus far in the debate.

Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down a little on key components to help my flow. I appreciate road mapping. Feel free to time yourselves (I will keep time as well).

If during cross ex, an answer is being given when the time is up, I will allow a short answer past the time being up if both sides agree. I do not flow cross ex, although you must adhere to what you state in cross, in respect of fairness.

I have judged every form of debate and speech, and have been judging since 2005. My main events were Policy and dramatic interpretation, but tried most events.

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

About me:

I did PF, DUO, extemp, OO, and spar all through high school. I qualified for the region, state, district, and national tournaments in PF and was an Academic All American in Speech and Debate and Sterling Scholar for Speech and Drama. I am a current student at the University of Utah and am studying political science.

Debate:

• I am VERY traditional and don’t know much about theory or kritiks (and I personally think they should stay in Policy) but if you are going to use it please make sure you can explain it well.

• I am good with speed as long as you’re still clear. Please don’t spread if your opponents aren’t comfortable with that. I don’t think you should win if your opponents couldn’t follow your arguments.

• PLEASE do not drop arguments because it’ll probably make me drop you.

• I do like clash especially in cx but please keep it civil and don’t get snarky because I’ll dock you speaker points.

• I’ll only call for evidence if there’s a dispute about it.

Speech:

• Delivery is the most important thing for me.

• In spar I don’t care if you make it serious or funny just make sure you and your opponent are on the same page.

• If you read off a paper I’ll rank you last.

• In interps if you’re under you’ll most likely get a low score.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

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.

Misc.

-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.

Speaker Points

(copied from tournament guidelines)

30: Sheer perfection

29: Surpassing excellence

28: Quite solid and good

27: Okay

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.

Background

I competed for American Leadership Academy in PF for four years, and I am now in my sophomore year of college at UVU.

General

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.

Time yourselves.

I am okay with off time roadmaps as long as they are brief.

Case/Rebuttal

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.

Summary/Final Focus

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.

Crossfire

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

Be respectful.

Ask real questions and refrain from making statements.

Speaker points

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.

Creative Strategy.

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.

About me:

I come from a very traditional circuit. Luckily, our school allows it's students to travel and learn about the progressive debate format. Full disclosure, one of my students helped me write this paradigm. I would prefer to watch a traditional round but I am open to viewing a BASIC progressive round.

Speed:

I will not understand what you are talking about if you are spreading. It is your responsibility to make sure that I understand your case.

CX:

I enjoy cross examination. I do not appreciate snarky remarks. I prefer for you to conduct yourselves in a polite manner. I will not flow CX and I will not connect your arguments, you need to make the connection for me.

K's:

I would really appreciate if you would not read any Kritiks, only because I will not understand what you are talking about. If you do choose to read a K, you need to explain everything so that I can understand.

Other notes:

*Off time road maps are a necessity and greatly appreciated

*I am willing to give you a 10 second grace period after the timer has gone off to wrap up your final thoughts. Any continuation beyond the grace period will not be flowed.

MOST OF ALL: Make sure you are having fun! I am looking forward to judging your rounds. <3