General Notes:

• Please include me in the email chain callielynne26@gmail.com

- Warrants are what make me vote on arguments- isolate the specific warrants you want me to remember because I won't remember every warrant from every card in the constructives

-Please slow down a little bit on your typed analytics, especially if they are most of or at the beginning of your speech. Argument tags will help me flow your analytics but no worries if you don't have them. Just know that I can't flow every word as fast as you can say them.

Argument Thoughts:

K Affs and Framework- I've read these affs and thing they can be really cool if you know what your aff does or does not do and can explain that. I find that I lean towards affs that are in the direction of the topic not being as big of a violation of framework as others, but I am also willing to vote against these affs if the neg can explain why this is bad. The cleaner the framework flow is the happier I will be.

Topicality- Good T debate is specific T debate. What affs do they include? What successful teams are reading topical affs?and reading a case list are all some examples of viable options. Make sure you answer all of their standards sufficiently, this often(though not always) means that for T to be a viable 2NR strat at least 3 minutes of the block should be spent on it. I have also found that I am more persuaded by ground args than limits, but I'm willing to vote on limits if it is more specific than generic blocks your varsity's varsity wrote.

Theory- The more I've judged the more I've realized I am not super willing to vote on theory. I will if I need to and am much more likely and willing to vote on theory if it is specific and contextualize to the round. I have no idea how to evaluate two teams reading generic theory blocks and if the round turns in to this it will be so much harder for me to vote on theory.

CPs- Handle theory appropriately. Make sure you explain what your counter plan does and have good perm answers.

DAs- I like DAs with clear internal link analysis. If it is vague and something along the lines of "X causes the economy to decline which causes a nuclear war" with no explanation of how the economic decline causes a nuclear war I will have a hard time defending a DA scenario on the ballot.

Kritiks- Make sure you can explain the alt and defend it in CX. I think the best K debate is specific K debate, so if you can read lines of their evidence to prove the link and/or isolate multiple links that is best. You should also make sure you are winning at least some risk of the alt solving or doing something good.

I debated policy in highschool- a long, long time ago, but I really loved it. I enjoy judging, but I haven't done much so I am not updated on the most modern kritiks and theories. I'm pretty traditional. I lean policy maker, but I will vote on topicality if it's relevant. You'll have to be very convincing to get me to vote on a kritik or more 'out of the box' argument. Speed is fine if you are clear. Please slow down for tag lines and analysis. It's important to me that debators/speakers be respectful of others and polite in rounds. You can absolutely be passionate and forceful about your arguments without being dismissive of others in your rounds. If any type of abuse does occur, it's fine to point out ot briefly, but I'll be aware, so please don't waste time whining about it in your speeches. I will be a little out of my element judging rounds other than policy, but I'll do my best to be fair and thorough.

Rounds on the topic: 12

Tournaments I’ve judged at (2018-2019):

Greenhill

Local Utah Tournaments

Affiliation: Rowland Hall

General Notes:

1. Yes, I want to be on the email chain madisonbark@gmail.com
2. Generally, I flow on paper.
3. I will try my best throughout the debate to make a fair decision and treat both teams with respect. I will expect you all to do the same when it comes to talking to each other and talking to me.
4. Prep should end when the email is sent.
5. Don't be mean. It’s okay to explain why the other team messed up but I’m not persuaded by “that was the worst 1AR I’ve ever heard” type comments.
6. Speak clearly and don’t spread through your blocks. If I can’t flow you then I can’t vote for your arguments.
7. I prefer depth over breadth.
8. In the 2AR and 2NR spend time on the things you want me to evaluate and vote on. Write my ballot for me in your 2AR/2NR.

General Arguments

1. K Affs – Need to have some type of advocacy

2. Performance – I’m not going to penalize a team for “dropping it” because there was no clear definition of what it meant.

3. Framework/T-USFG: My preferred strategy against K Affs along with one other argument that is a viable 2NR.

4. Kritiks – Should not morph into different kritiks after the 1NC. Advocacies can’t change in the middle of the debate. I will hold the 1NC to whatever their alternative was. I like new page overviews on the kritik. If it’s one off kritik help me figure out what you’re answering in the neg block, it isn’t as clear as you think.

5. Topicality – Tech over truth. Even if the aff might be reasonably topical I would rather vote on a team that explains why their interpretation is best for the topic.

6. Counterplans – I will judge kick them if you tell me to.

7. Specific Arguments I do not like. (As I judge more rounds I will add more to this list):

a. Agamben

b. Death Good

Substance

DA’s: My ideal 2NR against a policy aff is usually a DA or a CP and DA. Be tricky and smart about the arguments you make. Keep your evidence as updated as possible. Clearly explain the internal link, I’ve seen way too many politics debates where it’s like “republicans win the house and then extinction from nuclear war” and it’s just very unclear how we get there and I don’t like that.

CP’s: I’m sympathetic to CP theory but it’s kind of unlikely I’ll vote on it unless you spend some time there and it’s just conceded or if it is a blatantly “cheaty” cp. That being said I like tricky counterplans because I think it shows that you’ve really thought out your strategy against the affirmative.

Theory: I don’t really like theory that much but I will vote on it. I find international fiat theory and other things like that kind of annoying. I do not like things being made voters for no coherent reason whatsoever. Be judicial in the amount of theory you read and the things you make voting issues. I won’t vote for something super blippy if it’s at the top of the 2AR/2NR for one second. If you're going for theory I think you should go all in and commit to it as a strategy. I don't mind if you go for it especially if they dropped it because it makes my decision really easy but for me to vote on it you need to spend time on it.

Topicality: I like topicality. I’m willing to vote neg on T if they win the T debate regardless of whether or not the aff is logically topical. I really like T debates and I think that it’s one of the best parts about debating the topic. If you just want to throw t into the 1NC to make them answer it but have no intention of going for it that’s fine but if they scandalously under cover it just go for it. I hold a pretty firm line on no blatantly new answers in the 2AR, especially on T.

K Affs: I would prefer the aff have an advocacy statement. I'm not going to say that I'll never vote for an aff without an advocacy statement but based on my past record I am more sympathetic to framework. I have not historically been a huge fan of performances especially if they don't come with some substantive explanation of why the performance is necessary to your advocacy. The aff should not change significantly in the 2AC. I am much less likely to vote on framework if you clearly illustrate how your aff connects to the topic. Be tricky with framework. The key to winning a framework debate running a K Aff (to me) is adequately defending why the type of education you create is valuable.

Framework: I really like framework, I think one of the best parts about debate is debating how the game should be played. The amount I lean towards framework really depends on the execution of the affirmative. I am very sympathetic if the aff has no relation to the topic or if the aff is intentionally vague and changes throughout the debate in order to prevent you from meaningfully answering it. I am very persuaded by procedural fairness and TVA arguments.

K’s: I don’t know a lot about philosophy so if you want me to vote for you I need an explanation of your argument. I hate when kiritks become something blatantly different than the 1NC in the block. I prefer more concrete kritiks over postmodernism. Don't expect me to have any understanding of what you're saying if you don't explain it well. I hate giving an RFD where a team is clearly frustrated about not getting my ballot and the primary reason they didn't get it is because they got so lost in the jargon of whatever philosophy they were reading that they forgot to connect it to the debate.

Speaking Tips

1. Don't spread through blocks.

2. Speed is not the end all be all. It’s good to be fast but not good to be un-flowable. Good debaters are fast or clear, great debaters are fast and clear. Be both.

3. Organize your speeches. The easier you make it for me to understand how you see the debate the easier time I will have voting for you.

4. Points

a. 27 and below: I didn’t like something you did in the debate enough to dock your speaks for it. You did something offensive or mean. I will talk about it after the round, your coach might hear about it after the round. It may have caused you to lose the debate or just for me to be upset.

b. 27-28: your speaking style, clarity, or execution in the debate had significant issues.

c. 28-29: You spoke well and I expect you to do well in the tournament. There were some small issues but overall I think you are a good debater.

d. 29 and up: I expect you to break and or possibly win a speaker award. You killed it. I was impressed.

Other philosophies of people who influence my view on debate:

1. Mike Shackelford

2. Joey Amiel

3. David Walter Bernstein

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

- Add me to the email chain: devon.cantwell@gmail.com

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

Leo Doctorman

He/Him

Yes email chain(and questions): leodoctorman@gmail.com

Affiliated with Rowland Hall Debate(Asst. Coach)/John R. Park Debate Society

Experience: 4+ years policy @ Roho

Currently Debating @ University of Utah

Tl/dr:

You do you. I vote off the flow but have lost of opinions.

Background:

• 4 years national circuit policy at Roho

• Currently debating LD and BP collegiately

• I was a 2N

My beliefs about debate:

• Efficiency/Clarity>Speed

• Clash over tricks

• Kritik is a verb

• Engage, don’t exclude

• Case debate = undervalued

• Cross X = binding and important

• Debates are won before they begin

• Truth is important, but tech can define it

• There is inherent value in research and discourse

• Debate is game!

Overview:

I have a deep appreciation of debate as an activity and as a community. I will strive to do everything I can to ensure a equitable debate. Debate is a game, and games are fun.

I will try to not intervene with my decision. I vote off the flow. All that I ask is that the 2NR/2AR slows down(a bit) and works to write my ballot. If I can’t flow it, it’s not in the RFD.

Don’t ask just put me on the chain. If you don’t flash analytics then slow down on them. In addition, generally slow down on tags. Otherwise I’m cool with speed so long as you’re clear. In fact, speed is good. Emailing is not prep if you are quick about it.

Some truth claims are non-negotiably false, dropped or not. Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, etc. claims are always false.

My Voting Process: After the round I will reread all evidence I view as pertinent to my decision. I will probably take a while to decide. I will write the easiest ballot possible and won’t do work for you if I don’t have to. Disclosure and critiques are good for everyone and I will always try to provide these.

What my ballot does: My role as a judge is to determine the winner and loser. That’s it.

My ballot probably isn’t the link to upending debate norms. There is no narrative or radical argumentation that gets tied to my ballot. You need to win a spillover argument to change my mind. Judge instruction is good. If you want me to do a certain thing with a ballot, make the argument.

General:

(I’m stealing this format but I personally found it helpful)

Policy-----------x--------------K

Tech--------x------------------Truth

Fiat is good-x----------------------------------Fiat is bad

Cross-X is a speech------------x-------------------Cross-X is prep time

K affs: I don’t mind K affs. But they need to do something. It should also be tangentially related to the topic. I think K affs are ideologically good for debate, they are also pretty strategic.

K affs that have clear, strong advocacies that are well developed and backed up will make for an excellent aff round. Inability to access your discussion through the USFG is convincing. Justify everything you do.

Performance is an ends to a means. If you read a poem but don’t attach it to an argument you’ll probably lose. Same goes for narratives.

T-USFG: At the end of the day, the T-USFG debate is less about if ‘rules are broken’ and more about if the K aff ruins the fairness/education/etc. A well run T versus a K aff is very convincing. T with a TVA is even more convincing.

Fairness----------x-------------------------Dm/skills

1 off T----------------------------x--------Diverse strat

Theory(Non-T): Meh. Not really my schtick. If its dropped, I’ll vote on it. Don’t replace answers with theory. Don’t plan on going for theory before round. I’m probably sympathetic to a Neg’s multiple worlds, but I think condo is a good arg if a team is truly skewed out of the round. Theory is a check on abuse, use it for that. Nothing more.

Condo good-x--------------------------- Condo bad

T: It’s cool. Being on topic is important. Go for it if you need to. I will scrutinize your interpretations as a means of determining reasonability. I believe that in-round impacts definitely exist. Impact it out. Tell me where the abuse stems from. The most important part of T, next to your interp, is the internal link to your impact. Why does not defaulting to your interp explode limits? Even if you lose that your interp isn’t as good, it can still garner impacts if you win that it is uniquely key to limits. 2NR/2AR needs to slow down a bit and delineate standards.

Limits good(depth)----------x-------------------Overlimiting bad(breadth)

Reasonability-------------------x-------------Competing interps

Kritiks:

After I started doing Parli in college, I have shifted to the K pretty dramatically. I have a pretty good knowledge of many lit bases and I love the K debate.

Kritik is a verb. You should be doing something with the argument, not simply describing why “cap is bad”. You should provide a stable alternative, preferably not just rejecting the aff.

Framework is underutilized by both the aff and neg. I start my judging process on every K debate here. I’m probably willing to frame out a team that doesn’t have an interp, or looses that they get to weigh their arguments.

I believe strongly in kritical specificity. The more specific, the better. Contextualization is key.

If you can’t explain your alt, you’re in trouble. Be ready to define what the world of your alt looks like. It’ll make your life easier on the perm debate. Mechanisms to deploy your alternative(i.e thought experiment, rejection, counter-methodology, fiat, etc.) are very important.

Yes floating piks----------x--------------------Tell me why not

Perms--x------------------------------obviously

VTL is inherent------x----------------------------Sometimes No VTL

Reading a K you don’t understand-------------------------------x--Reading a disad

CPs: CPs are great. A good CP debate is awesome. CP specificity is important, and should probably have a solvency advocate. I’ll vote on a perm if the aff beats the net benefit and/or proves it’s not mutually exclusive. Solvency deficits won’t necessarily lose you the CP if you explain how you solve sufficiently. Solvency is a net benefit.

Explain your perms

I’ll judge kick if you can justify it

2NC CPs are probably abusive.

Lit=legit----x-------------------------------- “I don’t like weird CPs”

DAs: Specific DAs are good. Generic links usually kill uniqueness. Overbroad uniqueness usually overwhelms the link. This being said, very few disads are ‘true’, but they can be true enough. Impact calculus is important and undervalued. I also think that ‘topic DAs’ are a good fall back and can be debated very well. A creative politics disad will impress me. The newer the cards, the better the disad is.

Case: Case debate is undervalued. I think it’s a perfectly fair strategy to read fewer off and incorporate a higher level of clash on case. Turns, such as dedev, can end up being strategic 2NRs. Circumvention arguments can turn into NBs for a CP. One thing that’s difficult to judge is the brightline for presumption. This being said, never go for defense unless you think it’s a clear cut win.

Pet Peeves:

• Old politics cards

• Not knowing your K

• Excluding opponents

• Too many buzzwords

• Extending cards not warrants

• Not disclosing. Lacking a wiki page or at the very least disclosing past 2nrs/ the aff will go very, very poorly in front of me. It is good for big and small schools. The exception is new affs.

• Miscut/cited evidence: If you aren’t giving cites, I’ll ignore the cards. If you’re doing anything more sketch than that, I’ll drop you.

• Not having evidence: Obviously not for obscure/new args. Analytics are still cool. But for topic disads/CPs, or common affs, it just doesn’t make sense. The wiki is a thing. Go recut some evidence. There are thousands of well-cut cards coming out of camps. No excuses.

Speaker Points:

I will award good speaking with good speaker points. I will award wittiness, passion, efficiency, strategy, clarity and boldness with good speaks. I appreciate aggressive debate, but not overtly rude debate. I will detract speaks for exclusionary language, unintelligibility and strategic issues. My speaks reflect strategy and execution as much as speaking. If I can’t understand I’ll say clear maybe twice and then stop flowing.

My speaks reflect the tournament.

Misc:

Baudrillard---------------------------x-Balsas

Death Good-------------------------x-Death Bad

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.

Policy:

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 (tfhenry@granitesd.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.

I'm pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.

Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)

I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.

My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.

Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.

Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.

if you want to add me on the email chain at leevivian859@yahoo.com

the UBER basics -

use humor, be bold, and have fun!!

Just explain links well, I am fine with wonky arguments as long as they're logical, & tabula rasa

if you use racist, ableist, sexist language I will be very upset

please don't interrupt your partner in cross, also let your opponents answer your questions lol

I did policy, pf, speech, oh and I do british parli and speech in college at the U of U

I go by she/her/hers

pretty basic right ...

policy/debate in depth -

the K debate, I am a huge fan of it. I enjoy a good K debate, just make sure you're prepped for fw and T. I am not a huge fan of voting for T against K, but will do it if ya know needed. I think that lots of the K's I have seen this year aren't linking to the motion very well, neg in specific hasn't been linking to the affirmative . SO like please just make it a clean debate for everyone in the room.Debate is supposed to be a safe space, mentally as well. I can follow most args, I do personally believe debate should be a space to have a voice and be advantageous of this unique space ie identity politics and what not. I do not like to see identity or traits of a case/person used or commodified to win the ballot.

oh if ur alt is rage pls give me a headsup but I am still 100% okay with running it. I just wanna know ahead of time lol

Topicality- I think t debates are good, although procedurals aren't my favorite form of debate. if youre going to read t, read it offensively not for a time suck. I won't vote on it if there aren't violations or voters/reasons to prefer. easy right. oh t is always an a priori issue

t- theory I think theory is always good, it brings a little fun to debate. once again there needs to be a reason its read, not just because you wanna

politics da, if your da is a year old its prolly too old. things are changing, so these da's need to be following what is going on or being relevant.

cp - for this topic specific I don't really like the parole cp, I think courts makes more sense, but once again you do you. I am fine with whatever. so perms in this topic are a little funky, bc its still something you should do going against one.

whatever other da. like cool, I get it, go for it. Gotta go for some basics right. OHH if you read a meme da and it makes me laugh, higher speaks to you, and if its good even more kudos. (this doesn't mean you should read it because you think ill like it more or whatever, I just have this because encase YOU want to run it, that's okay)

pls do voters/rob I do listen to those and heavily weigh it out. I am fine with tag team cross x, I love performances, and clash. clash. clash.

if case goes uncontested, I usually pay heavy attention to that. make sure youre clashing with the case, why its bad, why it won't work, at least something pls.

if you have more questions about pls ask.

ok 👍 still kinda simple paradigm lol I know

 Conflicts: Park City

PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued

Things that make me happy:

-       Great signposting

-       Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

-       Lots of evidence

-       Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

-       Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

-       Jokes

-       Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

-       Improperly citing evidence

-       Miscutting/manipulating evidence

-       Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere. 

What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you. 

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.

CPs/’Advocacies’?

Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.

Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.

Speed?

Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.  

Other technical things: 

-       I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

-       If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

-       I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

-       I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)

Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

                     - pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

•Confident presentation/vocal presence.

•Well sourced arguments/warrants.

•Witty and well thought out refutations/counter arguments

•I am open to a variety of arguments.

•(LD) Counter-plans that can reveal grey areas in an otherwise black and white argument style.

•As with how judges should be, the key to winning my vote ultimately is persuasion.

Hi, I'm Ryan! I’m a former captain and the current coach of the East High team in Salt Lake City, Utah. [Insert obligatory High School Musical reference here.]

I’m totally open to any argument. Seriously. Ks on either side are fabulous. T is fabulous. Performance is really fabulous. But please don’t assume I’m familiar with the lit. Always explain what you're talking about and treat it like it’s, you know, the start of something new. Also: I value analytics and explicit voters over massive card dumps.

Utilitarianism is not a criterion if you don't explain what "good" you’re providing the greatest amount of people.

Speed? Great! Word vomit? Not great! C’mon, you’ve gotta get’cha, get’cha, get’cha, get’cha head in the game.

I give speaks for presentation, creativity, and HSM references. Break free! Don’t stick to the status quo.

Disrespecting your opponent will result in the intervention of a very unhappy judge. Respect is not debatable. You gotta work this out.

TL;DR, use your best judgment, and you’ll bop to the top. I know you can! Bet on it.

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.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• 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
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us