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

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Hello there^^

I like nice people who make well-thought out arguments. I'm pretty open to whatever you want to throw at me, but it's up to you to explain why I should vote for you over the other team. I don't do work for people or connect dots. Ultimately I feel the best outcome of debate is to motivate its participants to enact real change in the real world. If you cannot advocate your position in the real world to average people, you will be unsuccessful-and the debate space should reflect that.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

It's your round.

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.

He/Him/His/They/Them

I've done forensics for 4 years in a lot of different events. I competed 3 years in high school and one year in the collegiate parliamentary circuit. Overall, I'm familiar with the mechanisms of debate and comfortable with procedurals and critical arguments.

Send Files to jeremylm21@gmail.com

Specifics:

Speed:

My first language isn't English and have severe ADD, so if you spread too quckly or are unclear I will not be able to flow you. I won't flow from the file you send me on my computer, I only do so to check evidence. Although, I will "clear" and "slow" you a few times before I stop flowing. Overall, you can go fast as long as you're clear on tags, and if you're not then I will clear/slow you. SLOW ON TAGS AND CITES. I would also prefer if you didn't spread in rebuttals.

Make the round accessible to everyone, I won't accept spreading if it's used to create a barrier against those who aren't familiar with speed. Slow or clear when your opponents ask you to.

HOW TO GET CRAZY HIGH SPEAKS:

Most of my formal debate experience comes from collegiate parliamentary where cards and evidence are not used. This means a couple of things: first is that I heavily value analysis and strong warrants, second is that I'm terrible at flowing citations. In your constructive speeches it is very important for you to label each part of the argument (i.e. uniqueness, links, impacts) in each position which makes it easier for me to flow. Thus your extensions should look like "Extend the link analysis on advantage 1," instead of "Extend the xxx card."

Theory:

My threshold for theory is relatively low compared to formal policy judges. Just like all most arguments, if you can warrant it, I will flow it. The same condition applies to reverse voting issues as well. When answering theory I use standards for measuring abuse in-round, so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them and be thorough in the voters. I'll leave the evaluation debate up to you.

Kritiks:

I think K's, K Affs, and Performance Affs are intriguing and awesome. However, I am not familiar with most of the literature base with the exception for basic critiques, like Capitalism. The best way for you to win critical arguments with me is to include an analysis that treats me like I'm 10 years old. Referring back to the Speed section, my first language isn't English and I have ADD, so when you use intricate vocabulary while speaking quickly, I probably won't be able to follow your speech.

It's important that your framework is strongly warranted. My unfamiliarity with critical literature makes it so I default to a policy framework if the framing of the K isn't explained well. You'll also have to convince me the alt is better than the plan, it's usually not enough for me to vote on the K as a linear disadvantage.

Side Note: Please don't run identity criticisms without being a part of the specified marginalized identity that you are using unless you have a specific method to engage in the discussion. Commodifying the struggles of a marginalized group won't win you the ballot.

In/Out of round conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS (sexual assault, violence/gore, racial slurs, etc.) AND TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THEM BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS. I will not stand for malicious actions towards other competitors, if you fail to use someone's correct pronouns on purpose, call them racial slurs, or blatantly disrespectful, I will reflect it on the ballot. I understand that in-round aggression is inevitable, but please keep it to a minimum. I view debate as a safe space for debaters to voice themselves in ways they otherwise wouldn't have outside of the activity, please treat it as such.

I don't care if you sit/stand for cross. If you take too long to flash evidence I will count it towards your prep.

Unless told otherwise, I usually disclose at the end and give critiques. I also save my flows for the day, so if you have questions outside of round I'd be happy to answer them or give feedback.

LD:

Everything that I wrote above applies in this event, if it's a progressive round. Although, it's important to mention that I do not think that specific debate formats should be limited to a single style of debating, thus progressive or traditional methods of debating are both fine with me; if you want to treat an LD round like a Policy round, then go for it. I'm not super familiar with the format of LD debate so please time yourselves. Additionally, you will have to warrant the hell out of your Value/Criterion and tell me why it's more applicable to the topic and why it's better than your competitor's, I expect a lot of clash in this area.

Overall:

Speak clearly, warrant your arguments, be respectful, and have fun.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

If you win the flow you win the debate. Here are some things that you can do to try to ensure that the flow ends in your favor:

- Line-By-Line, don't flow straight down or make responses in overviews. If you have cards to read in response to their attacks, wait until you actually get to the attacks on the flow to read your card.

- Sign-post. Say which argument/case you are on when going through the Line-By-Line.

- Add pauses and/or transition words to indicate when a new card begins, like "And-".

- Slow down on taglines and author names.

Email: Andre.nguyen124@gmail.com

TLDR: I am comfortable with any preference/style of debate. Please include me in the email chain.

Theory: I need an impacted interpretation to vote down a team. Not just a list of violations. Please have a clear shell to explain the impacts of the violation.

DA: I need an analysis of the impacts. It is difficult to analyze the risks of the disadvantage if I can't conceptualize the timeframe, magnitude, and probability of the DA. The disadvantage also needs to interacts with the AFF's impacts and specific links are amazing. If I don't have any weighing, I won't vote on it.

CP: Counterplans are amazing if their net benefits can solve the AFF. I believe the best response to the CP is permutations or just terminal defense. I tend to, however, vote AFF against CP. The CP needs to be unique and beat the permutation.

K/K-AFF: I am well-versed in most Kritikal Debates. I enjoy new ideas and arguments within the debate. If it is high theory, I prefer a lot of analysis since I might be well versed in the literature. More analysis and weighing > evidence. I am familiar with: Afro-pessimism, Capitalism, Orientalism, and Setter Colonialism. I usually allow the K alt to be kicked for presumption if you are winning on the flow. Make the debate interesting and I will increase speaker points. Please don't run K's in hopes of impressing me. I also believe that you need a specific link to the AFF and not the world to debate the K.

T/FW: I enjoy T debates, but I need a clear shell. I need an extension on the impacts of T/FW.

Side Note: If anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc is said in the round, I will stop the round and vote you down. Once the round is over, I have made my decision. Don't intervene with my decision or I'll report you and you won't talk to me for the rest of the tournament.

If you have any questions outside the debate round, please feel free to approach me and ask questions.

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

Hello 2022 Utah State 6A Debaters. Congratulations on making it to my paradigm. I hope you are having a nice time at this tournament. See my thoughts below from 2019. They are still valid. You may notice that this is my first tournament for this year. I thought I might have been done with judging when my son didn't debate this year but I was asked to help with this tournament. So, here I am with all my oldness and such. I understand that there are some very detailed paradigms out there. This is not one of those.

Here in 2019 I am judging policy debate for the first time in many years. In a prior life (like 20 years ago), I judged regularly in policy and assistant coached in policy for Murray High School. I was a policy debater in high school and debated for Southern Utah University and for a very short time for the University of Utah. I am a lawyer and practiced primarily administrative law where I often argued individual's disability cases before administrative law judges (these were very much like mini trials). I was frequently in other courts primarily representing individuals. I don't practice law much now and am running a local business.

I view my experience in debate as critical to my personal development and the main reason I became a lawyer (unfortunately). I see it as vital preparation for doing important things later in life. While I consider myself open to all types of arguments, and very much appreciate a robust and vigorous exchange of ideas between the parties, debate is still grounded in speech and persuasion. This means that you can let 'er rip in the debate round, but you still need to appropriately communicate and persuade me. This is what is required out there in the "real world". I think it is a mistake to allow communication that is barely understandable, behavior that is rude or just plain out of control. But, despite having said that, I don't want to see a lot of arguments about the other side not being fair, speaking too fast, or the like. Stick to the issues. Also, I am now in my 50s. Sometimes I struggle to keep up with you amazing debaters. So, think about being kind to me and slowing down when you read your tags and pause at other appropriate times.

If you don't properly sign post, I can't properly flow your arguments. If directly contesting an opponent's arguments, you should directly attach your argument to your opponent's through reference to their signposting and then create your own signposts (if you don't know what I mean by signposting, ask your coach or you can ask me at the beginning of the round). Tell me exactly where to put new arguments, overviews, underviews, etc. Please don't jump all around with your arguments. Make them in the appropriate place and move on.

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

Clarity is far more important than speed. I write slower than you talk, so spreading is likely to result in me missing some points, and I can only judge on what I can record.

Theory and k's are technically acceptable, but I would prefer you actually debated the topic on its merits. It makes for a more interesting round.

I will judge only what you actually argue. Claims made, so long as they aren't obviously false, will be accepted as true until the other team challenges them.

If you're going to link to an annihilation scenario, your link needs to be super strong. Everything doesn't result in nuclear war.

I am thinking impact calc the whole time you're talking. Explain the significance of each of your points and be very clear about why it weighs out in your favor. I will reward this.

Civility is of the utmost importance in a round. Any behaviors that demean or belittle your opponent will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly in my decision.

Have fun!

Experience:

I've judged several debate tournaments over the past couple of years. I had the opportunity to judge at National's this past year. I'm familiar with most debate formats.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but not to the point that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you I'll simply put my pen down and stop flowing.

Topicality:

I like arguments that stick to the specific topic given, make sure you link arguments directly back to the resolution.

Plan/Counter-plan:

In PF do not bring up any plan or counter plan as it is against the rules.

Evidence:

I like strong evidence to back Up claims. I am an unbiased judge. I'm hoping to be convinced through strong evidence.

Civility:

I love teams that are passionate about their case, however I don't like it when that passion turns to hostility against their opponents. I'm okay with a debate getting heated, let's just keep it civil.

I do college policy at Weber State University

email: jordanstephens2@mail.weber.edu

1. I will hear any argument you have. Just make sure it has a claim, warrant, and impact.

2. I do more performative arguments so I am not the best tech wise. I should be able to hear and understand your arguments no matter the debate.

3. Cross ex is important and I will consider the things you've said.

4. Do not be rude, racists, homophobic, ect. You can be mad, loud, soft, funny. Just do not be rude.

5. Last just have fun and learn something! Be passionate. Extra speaker points for the level of spiciness you bring to a debate.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Assistant coach at Rowland Hall.

TOC 2024 Update: This is my last tournament judging, for likely a very long time. I have updated my paradigm to be shorter and more to the point. I love debate and everything it has done for me, I will work very hard to fairly adjudicate every debate that I watch. Great job for making it to the TOC and good luck! :)

Debate in front of me like your debating in front of Mike Shackelford ;)

Some debate thoughts...

I strongly believe that debate is a game, read whatever arguments you want. I will not evaluate personal attacks on other students nor some past history that you have with them. Bring that up with Tabroom or your school's administration not me.

I judge a lot of framework v. K AFF debates. I vote for K AFF's more when they go for impact turns. Fairness is an impact.

Don't hide ASPEC, it's annoying and I will let the 1AR answer it.

50 state fiat is a reason to reject the argument.

You must read any re-highlighting if you want it entered into the debate. The only times you do not need to do this are if the other team has totally cut something out of context and you are inserting it for contextual clarity. Generally speaking though, I think it is more persuasive if you just read it.

Asking what cards were read BEFORE CX is prep or CX time. Learn to flow.

1 CARD MAXIMUM IN THE BODY OF THE E-MAIL!!!! DO NOT ASK.

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.

I prefer to hear a clearly articulated argument, even if based on fewer points, as opposed to a rapidly spoken barrage of evidence. State your case, explain your reasoning, defend it. It's that simple.

Don't assume I've read every card you've passed to your opponent.

I prefer to hear the neg attack the aff directly vs. redirecting with a counterplan. If utilizing a counterplan, I feel it should be a true counter to the affirmative's plan, not just a tactic to overcome facing the affirmative's topic choice.