Background / Experience:

Hello! My name is Kaia and I absolutely love debate. It honestly is one of my passions, so please expect and cherish my feedback (either on your ballot or in person). I also kind of know what I'm talking about.

I competed for four years at Hunter High School. During that time I was my teams secretary, VP, and President. I competed in over 500 rounds (varying events but mainly LD), and was awarded many individual tournament awards, qualified for nationals 9 times, was ranked 9th in the entire state of Utah, and ranked 1st in LD in the state of Utah. I also received my degree of Primer Distinction. I have taught many different novices throughout my time in high school, so I probably can understand what you're doing, and what you can do better. I am currently the assistant coach at Hunter High School. I have competed in and judged almost all events (everything but congress), so this isn't my first rodeo.

Also, just a side note, I apologize in advance for my awful spelling.

Paradigm:

THE BIGGEST PET PEEVE IS WHEN YOU DON'T SIGN POST. IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO PUT IT ON THE FLOW I WILL NOT FLOW IT.

I also value the framework debate very heavily (ESPECIALLY in LD debate). Please use it within the debate!

I am primarily a TRAD debater myself, but I have used progressive techniques in most of my cases. I do not care if you run trad or progressive, but I will probably be able to give you better critiques if it is a trad case. Again, just do whatever though I'm fine with either.

I do not mind aggression at all. Yell as much as you want I love a good, heated debate. That being said, if you are a bully to your opponent, or just a meanie in general there is a good chance you won't get the ballot. Just be respectful. It's pretty easy.

FOR ANY AND EVERY DEBATE EVENT I WILL MOST LIKELY VOTE HEAVILY ON LINE BY LINE. PLEASE BE ORGANIZED AND USE LINE BY LINE.

For speech events I will judge mainly on overall speaking skills as well as organization in any event. For most speech events I really appreciate hearing your sources for your information (of not in impromptu or spar).

Other than that I don't care too much what you do. Ask me if you have any round specific questions. Run whatever you want. Time yourself. Make me laugh. :D

I have helped coach HS debate at multiple schools, as well as being a former HS debater and with speech events. I participated in some college level ethics debates (non-traditional formats) as well. I have a degree in English, and History.

I give value to using clear language, and prefer that "spreading" or "spewing" not enter the room, especially online. Speed is valued, spewing is not; there is a distinction.

Crystallization and messaging is vital.

LD:

If you use K's or DA's i want to see more-specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer traditional debates with on-case arguments.

I am strong believer in following NSDA's definition of LD as primarily a values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy.

PF:

Public forum is for the public, i should understand what you are talking about, at all times. This includes crossfire questioning etc. NSDA defines it this way "...Students who do Public Forum must be prepared to debate in front of judges without any formal debate training. Being able to persuade a range of judges is a central component to this event. "

If you use K's or DA's i want to see more-specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer traditional debates with on-case arguments.

Oratory:

I love a unique topic explained in more than one way, obviously you chose your topic long before you read my Paradigm so i try not to hold topic against you. I appreciate when Orators use their full 10 minutes (or close obviously.)

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

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.

Background

I did LD on the national circuit, and did PF within the state. I was the region champion, and finished in the top 100 at nationals the only year I did debate.

Paradigm

I do not mind much of what you run, as long as your arguments flow.

Theory, Ks, etc., are all acceptable, and you can spread all you want. It definitely helps the course of the round if you flash your case, which I feel is common courtesy by now. If you're running theory, prove why you're running it. If you're running a K, make sure to justify your K - make it clear.

Don't just read blocks for impact calc. Still debate your opponent.

I judge mostly on impact, or solvency, so make sure to emphasize the weight they carry in your case.

Flex prep is acceptable.

I do not flow cross, and I will not call for cards. Sit or stand during cross. I don't care, so it's up to you and your opponent.

Voters aren't necessary, but are nice.

Make sure you make taglines/authors' names clear.

You tell me when prep starts, and when prep ends.

Debate jargon is acceptable. I expect that you know what to say and how to say it.

Speech structure and an informative analysis are more important to me that a perfect presentation. Be sure to give citations to sources that aren't common knowledge; E.g. if a claim is based on a survey I want to know when, where, and by whom the survey was taken.

For some background on me. I did debate for 3 years in high school. I dabbled in Extemp and PF, but I mainly did LD the whole time and was reasonably successful in it. I graduated in 2020. I am currently a history major at USU.

I can follow spreading, K, and theory, but I am not well-versed in it. I generally prefer traditional debate.

Questions Policy Debaters always ask me:

yes, I do allow for tag-team/open cross ex

no, I do not flow cross ex

put me on the email chain. I don't want to use flash drives. skmayers@gmail.com. please do not abuse access to my email.

General

tech and truth, probably heavier on the truth.

biggest takeaway: nothing is true until you tell me it is true. I don't have to evaluate theory before case unless you tell me I do and you explain why. these explanations don't have to be long, but don't assume I understand the arbitrary "rules" you have invented in your head for debate. this goes for all arguments, not just framework. If I need to argue evidenced arguments over non-evidenced arguments, tell me why, etc. emphasis on Tell Me Why

if no analysis is given by either side, I default to theory>framework>kritik>case>. I am telling you this for the sake of transparency, not because that is how I think you have to debate.

Ethics

Here are some ethical issues that will probably get you dropped automatically

• falsifying evidence
• being racist, transphobic, or otherwise making the round an unsafe place.

Here are some ethical issues that I don't like, but aren't a deal-breaker

• spreading. We all know this makes the round inaccessible, even if no one has written a good K for it
• being rude in CX. interrupting, not giving clear answers, etc
• using inaccessible language and not defining genre-specific terms
• any kind of blatant trauma porn
• PICs

remember debate does not exist in a vacuum, your opponent and I are both real, living people, who will walk out of the round impacted by the things that are said, for good or bad. This impact goes for both the things you debate about and the way in which you discuss them.

Argument

here are some things that I love to see :)

• Linking back to framework. Remember, your impacts only matter if you link them to a value system that says that they matter
• Well-organized points. I want to be able to flow and group your arguments easily
• I think performance Ks are super fun, and honestly think they should be used more, but make sure you have really solid framing.
• solid plan implication, a good picture of what the post-fiat world looks like. You don't need to have an itemized budget but I would like to know what I am voting for
• being able to give information about your authors and source in CX (publication details, methodology, education, etc)
• really unique contentions/arguments.
• well-run theory. honestly any theory at all, but obviously don't use it if the round doesn't actually call for it. I think theory arguments are super interesting and can add a lot to debate if used appropriately

here are some things that I hate to see :(

• dropping/kicking out of arguments
• contentions with multiple arguments that don't really go together
• lack of evidence/authors
• ignoring your opponent's claims/ lack of clash
• Saying "they basically didn't address this argument" when they definitely did. remember that I am flowing too.
• when I can tell that someone definitely wrote your case for you, and you don't really understand it personally

Presentation

• please be clear on taglines/headings, make it easy for both me and your opponent to flow
• I love confidence
• make sure you don't rely too much on a showy, confident presentation. I want content too.

overall, just try to make the round enjoyable, educational, and fair for all parties involved, including yourself :)

I can't keep up with fast talking (spewing), so I've avoided judging policy for that purpose. Please keep the debate at a slower speaking pace so I can follow. Thank you!

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Hey y'all, so I don't want y'all to change your args to fit me as a judge. I am okay with every type of argument you can run so do it! I'm guessing y'all probably want more info than that, I did LD in high school, and I currently do policy in college. K's I have the most knowledge of are Queer K's, Psychoanalysis, and Cap, if you're running some weird K that isn't common like time cube, I personally believe that it is your responsibility to make sure I understand what you're talking about. Speed is fine, but don't be unclear. As a judge I like judge instruction, tell me how to vote, and WHY.

For LD, please tell me how your framework actually affects the impacts of the round. I honestly don't care if you want to through your value and criterion out. Just tell me why I should still vote I want you to impact that out a lot.

My email is reiolsen00@gmail.com if you want to add me to an email chain or feedback after a round

For online tournaments please email me your speech docs if you have them, if you're in LD and just have it printed out that's no worries just speak clearly. If you're in policy and are going to be spreading please email it to me. I doubt you printed it out, that's a lot of paper.

I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped. Pre-crafted arguments about what your opponent has said or dropped that are obviously pre-crafted because they're inaccurate for the round will hurt your overall score -- it demonstrates a lack of listening and adaptation.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

I am a parent volunteer and am brand-new to judging.

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

LD-

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

Impromptu-

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

Policy or Team-

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

Exempt-

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

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

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

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