So I have debated high school debate two years and college for one so far.

I have read all forms of literature and understand basically any argument topical or kritikal

I can follow most arguments regarless of style but I do require you give me reasons to vote for you

basically I am ok with speed and willing to vote on anything. just do you and I will let you tell me where to vote

I run relatively loose rounds so perform if you want

I do like to give critics and disclose in round

I will answer any questions in round

Judging Philosophy

High School debate experience: 2 year of policy debate

Colligate experience: 1^st year at Weber State

My name is Benjamin Moss any further questions contact email benmoss54@gmail.com

 Generals:

I give the debaters the luxury of running the debate round unless you specifically ask, I don’t like to see people abuse there prep time so as soon as the speech is ready and time stops prep is over. If you continue prepping you speaker points will drop. When It comes to general arguments I’m not picky being newer to the game, I like to have you as a debater explain your arguments to me versus being block or card heavy. First when you’re reading if you are unclear I will tell you to clear up, If you don’t clear up I will disregard that evidence because I won’t do your work for you.

I Flow on paper in columns

Voting:

There are specific arguments that I like more I do tend to understand straight up arguments more, though if you have a kritik it’s not like I won’t vote on it. Again once you present your kritik I expect you to explain it not just specifically for me but I enjoy debates that are more even where both side understand the argument and can debate it well. I will vote on theory arguments but you do have to explain why they out way the affirmative or the negative strategy.

Argument versus Argument:

Straight up debates: I like to see all arguments on a flow but especially straight up impact debates, if you can show me how the debate applies or cross applies to specific arguments. I also love to see the impact level of the debate, tell me why things out ways and why they do. I’m not the type of judge that won’t buy into an argument, but again if you don’t explain why the impact matters in the round I’m going to have a hard time voting on it.

Kritik versus Straight up: Being young in a debate nature I prefer policy debate, but this is where It comes down to weighing the kritik versus the policy plan and why it’s important to way this argument in the round. I do tend to like kritiks that have links to the affirmatives discourse on an argument. Though I’m totally open to debaters running any arguments. I like the ability for debaters to show tons of creativity and style in rounds, I feel like no debate truly is all that good if you don’t truly buy into some of the arguments that you run.

Kritik versus Kritik: Again not as familiar with critical affirmatives but I tend to love creativity in these strategies going around the debate world today. I tend to lean more on the negative side on these arguments because I tend not to know why to vote on the affirmative. But when it comes down to who wins the round it’s truly all about execution the team that executes the debate the best on the critical side wins, fair and simple tell me why and how you want me to vote and do it better than the other team and you’ll likely win. 

Experience:
Policy debate student- Kearns High 00-03
Debate coach- Juan Diego Catholic High 2011-2022

I'm a progressive LD judge, moderate CX judge. I hate the idea of a judge paradigm. I don't believe my preference should determine what is presented in the round. I am not opposed to particular issues or topics, nor do I prefer certain issues over others.

The expectation for any round is that you present well formed arguments, provide support for your case, and refute your opponents case. I can handle any speed you can deliver, however it is your responsibility to be clear.

I vote strictly off my flow. If you are not clear, I do not flow. I will not tell you to clear up, it is your job to know if you are being an effective communicator. Likewise, if you don't tell me where to flow something (for example, on my opponents second contention), I will flow it straight down -which may not bode well for you.

In any round, you need to give me a reason to prefer you. Impact your arguments. Well formed, quality arguments will be reflected in speaker points.

As a general summary of my judging philosophy I think that debaters should do what they want and I just want it to be well explained and executed well. 

Theory
I tend to think that conditionality is fine and that most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument and not the team. However that does not mean that I am opposed to voting for it if you decide that it is your best option to go for theory. I don't find most of the theory arguments on the politics disad. (ie. fiat solves the link, bottom of the docket) are not the most compelling arguments to make in front of me.

Counterplans
I really don't have a preference what kind of counterplan that you read in front of me. If you are reading a complicated process/PIC/plank CP, I prefer that you take a second in the debate to explain all the parts of the CP and how they resolve the aff. I do prefer that you have a specific solvency advocate for the affirmative. I am not a huge fan of consult counterplans and prefer that you do not read them in front of me. That being said if you think that you have some sweet consult cards for an aff, feel free to go for it. I will not reject the counterplan for the negative unless it is explicitly stated in the 2NR.
When you are aff I think that your solvency deficits need to be well articulated and explain how it implicates the solvency counterplan. I think that permutation explanations need to be consistent between the 1AR and the 2AR, I have noticed in debates when the 1AR just extends the "permutation" with no explanation and then the 2AR gets up and waxes poetically about how the permutation solves everything, and I am not about that.

Disadvantages
I think that when you are neg there needs to be good turns case analysis instead of just asserting at the top of the flow that it "outweighs and turns the case". Other than that I don't really have a preference about disad debates.
When you are aff I think that the link turn needs to be very well explained as well as "case solves the DA" analysis.

The K
I love the K. But I think that if you are going for a root cause argument then it needs to be explained in context of aff impacts. I think that the link story is a lot more compelling if it is specific to the affirmative, general overarching claims ie. "they constructed a threat somewhere" is not very compelling in front of me. I generally default that the aff gets to weigh their impacts against the K, unless the negative makes a reason why I shouldn't. I also am not a fan of the 6 minute overview, just because it is a k debate that doesn't mean that line by line goes out the window. I also appreciate when permutations are answered individually instead of the classic "group the perms".
On the aff I think that the framework arguments about why it needs to be a competitive policy option and that K's should not be allowed, are not very compelling.

K affs
K affs are dope and it's preferably what I run, but I do prefer that they have topic relevance, but you do not need to defend fiat if you think that is what works best with your aff. I also need explanation of your advocacy, don't just assume that I understand all of your k jargon. I also think that if you are going to read an plan text/advocacy statement you need to choose if you are going to defend it or not. I have seen many times when a team will sort of defend it to mitigate offense on framework and then defend no part of it if there was also a disad read in the debate, stop toeing the line and just pick a side.


Topicality
I tend to think that most affs are at least reasonably topical. I think that in order to get my ballot on t questions there needs to be a clear impact. I think that to get my ballot when going for t, there just needs to be a reason why I should care about your interpretation. That being said I am still open to voting for t if it is executed correctly.

Professionalism, formality and presentation (including diction, lack of slang and vocabulary) play a large point in my awarding of speaker points, and the rules below are a guide to best practices.

PARADIGM: I judge on a cross between policy styles with an emphasis on Speaking / Communication Skills ; winning AFFs will demonstrate that they have presented all the stock issues (H,I,S,S,T) , while successful NEG's will show specifically why and how the AFF has failed to support one or each of the stock issues, and/or how their counter meets stock issues better or more completely. AFF's should also show that they have fully supported their case and during their scoring summary explain how NEG has failed to attack or prevail on each of the stock issues.  

NEG's should always ensure they have sufficiently attacked each of their opponent's stock points and demonstrated specifically how AFF has failed point by point. NEG should negate / address / critique AFF's H.I.S.S.T. or address stock points through their Counterplan but provide a brief roadmap before beginning.

Suggestions

1) PROFESSIONALISM & CONDUCT: Be polite and professional at all times. You should greet your opponent(s) cordially and get whatever sharing is needed out of the way as soon as you sit down (e.g.thumbdrives etc.). 

a) Do not talk to your partner during opponent's argument - you should not  not be heard  while an opponent is presenting their case, passing notes is ok, typing is ok, etc.;  b) Your diction and language should be professional at all times. Try not to use words/slang such as: like, you know, whatever, bull, umm, hell, and any other words that you shouldn't / wouldn't use in a professional setting; d) Do not smirk or make any facial gesture at opponents.

2) SPREADING*: You should speak NO FASTER than your words AND meaning can both be understood, Any faster than about four (4-5) words a second (about 250 pm), at least for me, is testing the bounds of at least my comprehension. 

3) LOGICAL FALLACIES: Watch out for what I call logical "leaps." An example of this would be when you arguing a position and you use a citation for "more" than it stands for;  this is unacceptable in either direction, keep your arguments simple, tight and intelligble. Then provide a scoring summary that reflects those arguments and provides a brief overview of your view of your opponent's shortcomings.

4) THEORY: I have a high threshold for theory and don't consider it a voting issue.

5) SCORING SUMMARY: Each side should provide a two - three minute Scoring Summary, unless you think you need more time to address issues that arose during cross -  that details their accomplishments and their opponents failures; thus AFF should cover how they supported their H.I.S.S.T. and how the NEG failed to address or conflict their evidence while the NEG should point out specifically which H.I.S.S.T. points the AFF failed to support or address, or/and then why their counterplan offers better H.I.S.S.T.  

GOOD LUCK! Debate is by far the best thing you can do to advance yourself in school, college and life.

I'm an assistant coach at The Harker School where I coach primarily Speech and Congress. I have been a head coach of a full service high school program, currently I'm a law student and mom. I did Policy in high school and college. If you've got specific questions for me that this paradigm doesn't cover, I'm happy to answer any and all of them before the round.

POLICY:

Counterplans- Do your thing with counterplans. So long as there's a net benefit they're all fine with me. I do prefer creative/specific counterplans to generic ones, but I would rather see a well-developed generic CP debate than a shallow but aff-specific CP debate.

Disads- Be up-to-date on your uniqueness. If you're going to go for just a disad in the 2nr, make sure you win at least some case defense as well. I will vote for that kind of a 2nr.

Kritiks- I love a good K (and by "good" I mean well-explained and well-debated). Explain your alternative. I am least familiar with postmodern criticisms, so those may require a little more explanation in front of me, that being said I am comfortable judging those debates.

K-Affs- I love these a lot. Please run them in front of me. I'm open to whatever you want to run here. As far as the plan text/advocacy statement issue goes, I have no opinion. You want to run an aff without a text, go for it, I'll vote for it.

Performance- Same as K affs. Just please run it well. Affirmative or Negative, perform your heart out. Please don't be abrasive in these debates, I've seen too many performance debates go bad, I don't care to see any more. There's nothing better than a good performance debate, and there's nothing worse than a bad performance debate.

Theory/T- I don't love to vote on these, but I'll vote the way you tell me to vote. That said, in order for me to vote for theory and T, you need to win in-round abuse or that potential abuse is the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to debate.

Framework

Negative - I really enjoy K affs and identity affs and I generally think that they belong in debate (or at the very least they have a positive impact on debate) so framework may be uphill battle in front of me. However feel free to read it in front of me because despite my love for weird affs, I definitely see the strategic benefit of framework and I do think that it is a key part of neg ground.

Affirmative - I am generally more persuaded by "weigh the aff" interps as opposed to "the squo or competitive policy option" interps. I think that the K belongs in debate. It will be very hard to get me to vote for framework against a K, but that's not to say that I won't vote for it if you win it. I think that your time is better spent substantively answering the K.

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

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

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.

Pet Peeves

1) starting off full speed. Unless I have judged you before, start off at around 70-80% then work your way up to however fast you want to go.

2) Being rude to your opponent. Be aggressive, be assertive, just don't be offensive or demeaning.

3) Don't argue with my decision, I'm not going to change my mind. That said, ask all the questions you want, I'm more than happy to answer them.

4) "Extinction" is not a tag.

Some other stuff

I'm fine with speed.

Impact comparison is important. "Two ships that passed in the dark" debates are extremely frustrating; good impact comparison is a way to avoid that.

I listen to cross-x, but I don't generally flow it as closely as I flow a speech, so if you want to bring up something from cross-x, reference it specifically.

I prefer excellent debating over excellent evidence; I think that cards should be used to back up an argument, not as a replacement for one. On a similar note, I'm not a fan of card-dumps, but I understand their utility.

I really dislike calling for cards, so I probably won't.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in person or email me at hannahsodekirk@gmail.com