Debate Experience
4 years at Highland in SLC, Utah.
3 years of policy, 1 year of LD that was progressive by Utah standards, but probably not as progressive as some circuit debaters.
I mostly debated in Utah, although I did some circuit debate at tournaments like Alta and UNLV.

Revised September 27, 2015 (Young Lawyers/Beehive Bonanza):

My involvement in debate since graduating high school has been limited to judging at a handful of tournaments. This means that my judging style has become more traditional than what it used to be. I am not opposed to any style of debate on principal, but there are certain arguments that I will be less likely to understand, such as some kritiks. Similarly, while I don’t dislike speed, I probably can’t keep up as much as other judges. How fast is too fast? I dunno. 

This year, I am going to start voting based on who I think did the better debating (as per the ballots used at most tournaments). To me, “Better Debating”, while entirely subjective, reflects a variety of (what I think are) reasonable expectations for debate, like

• How interesting you are (Translation: Would I rather watch you debate or read my cell bio textbook?)
• How organized you are (Translation: How many cups of tea will it take to get rid of the headache that looking through my flows has given me?)
• The quality of your arguments (Translation: Re-read your case right now and ask yourself if your second contention is really as good as you think it is.)
• How convincing you are (Translation: Is listening to you like listening to PETA trying to persuade me to become vegan? You’d better hope it isn’t.)
• Are you engaging with your opponents arguments (Translation: Debate without clash is like a football game where every kickoff is returned for a TD. The only difference is that your speaker points will be much, much lower.)
• Your understanding of the arguments you read (Translation: Did you actually prepare your case or did your coach say "Read this, have fun, peace out" without explaining it to you?)

I also don't think there is any such thing as an argument that is "right" in the context of debate. Just arguments that are better articulated to me. With that being said, there are definitely arguments that are objectively not true.

In the past, debaters who have won my ballot do a better job of explaining to me what arguments they have won, why they have won those arguments, and why those arguments matter in terms of my decision. 

Pet Peeves:

• Disorganized, boring debaters who make weak arguments
• Debates without clash
• Sports metaphors
• Recycled, cliched statements like "I can only see an aff ballot", or "As a brief, off-time roadmap".
• Reading an argument without purpose (Contrary to what your coach has told you, I don’t need you to define the word “The”. If you are never going to bring something up past the 1ac, don’t read it)
• People trying to shake my hand at the end of a round (DON’T. I will pretend to be sick. And chances are I won’t be.)
• Arguing with me (not the same as asking questions) about my decision (You lose 1 speaker point for every 30 seconds you argue with me)
• Being rude to your opponent (Wanna see how low your speaks can go?)

The most important thing is that you have fun and debate the way you feel most comfortable. I promise that I will do my best to accommodate any style of debate, and to be flexible in my decision making. There is no right or wrong way to debate.

If you have questions, email me at
yotam6@gmail.com

Good luck. I guess.
-Yotam

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

I judge tabula rasa. I expect debaters to convince me what arguments to vote on. I flow the round but it is the debaters responsibility to be clear about where on the flow they are arguing. This is most easily done by referring to specific structural elements of the each teams case, or citing the card author that the debater is responding to.

While I try my best to be a tab judge, I do prefer not to vote on theory. However if theory is argued, goes uncontested, and there is little else to vote on — then I might vote on theory.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

Experience: 3 Years Lincoln Douglas Debate (Alta), 1 Year Judging

I will give the caveat that I was a fairly traditional debater in high school, so I am more apt to that style.  Debate however you'd like though!  I don't care if you are extremely traditional, extremely progressive, or if your case is something else altogether. All I need is some sort of decision mechanism, i.e. how should I be determining who wins the round?  Typically this takes the form of a value/criterion or a standard, but it doesn't have to conform to that paradigm.  If it's not abundantly clear how you are either affirming or negating, then I would like an explanation of that as well (e.g. if you are running some sort of outlandish argument on the neg that doesn't seem to immediately relate to the resolution, give me some reasons why it actually negates the resolution). 

Theory:

I absolutely welcome discussions about the way that debate should occur when you are in round.  Be forewarned though, I never once ran formal theory when I debated (i.e. a proper theory shell).  If you rush through theory assuming that I know the stock theory arguments, you'll probably be unsuccessful in convincing me.  Don't run theory because it's another argument, run theory because you believe it.  It's a powerful tool to check abuse, but I think it's far less valuable when people use it frivolously.

Speed:

I'm okay with and can understand a medium amount of speed, but I am prone to dislike speed.  Here's why: debaters suck at it.  I have nothing wrong with the concept of going faster in a debate round.  If you are clear and I can understand what you are saying then you are good to go.  If I can't keep up though, then that's a problem.  I should be able to hear and process 3-4 out of every 5 words that you say (I think 60-80% is fairly generous).  I will not assume to know what you said if you go faster than I can comprehend (I don't care if I know every word of the card you're reading).  If you think that as long as you slow down for tags and authors then you can speed through the rest of the card incomprehensibly, then you're going to have a bad time.  In lieu of my speed preferences, I will give each debater two audible "clear"s during the round.  This is your signal to slow down and speak more clearly.

Flex prep:

If your opponent is okay with it then I'm fine with it.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, whether to clarify or to supplement, don't hesitate to ask before the round. 

Director of Forensics at Juan Diego Catholic High School - Draper, UT

Coach of TOC Qualifiers in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015

Debated at Idaho State University

2010 NDT Elimination Round Participant. 2010 + 2011 CEDA Quarterfinalist. 

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Email for chain: calenjsmith@gmail.com

Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.

Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.

Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.

I am a Speech and Debate Coach for a High School in Salt Lake City, UT.  I occasionally judge both Policy Debate and Individual Events.  When I judge Policy Debate I am looking for significant voter issues.  I do not choose them myself unless forced.  I wait for the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote.  I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me.  I like to think of myself as Tabula Rasa, knowing of course that that is almost impossible.  But I do not care if you run a policy, performance, and or Critique, or what you wear or say during the round specifically regarding issues etc.  I can adjust.  I promise I am smarter than I look. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here.  However:

1. Be courteous- you can have confidence but don't be a jerk

2. Humor is appreciated

3. Debate like you want to be there
4.Sound smart--look like you know what you're talking about. You build ethos by knowing your arguments like the back of your hand.
5. Be bold.
6. Don't lie- I will probably vote against you just for lying.

When I judge Individual Events I really like to hear things I haven't heard before.  I am looking for a well constructed speech with a flow.  But I like stories.  Even in Impromptu.