Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop persuasive specific links to your desired argument strategy. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I think that the policy consequences and ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link.

9. Develop and compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

Experience:

I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.

I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.

Everything Important:

I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.

Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.

The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.

Some more specific stuff:

K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.

NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!

KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.

DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.

THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.

Please reach out with any questions:

email: k.brad130@gmail.com

(pls include me in any email chains)

Background

I was a varsity policy debater at Alta High School.  I also did extemp, DI, and duo events.

For policy rounds, I will vote on anything if it is presented well but I do have some preferences for what I like to see in round.  

I love case arguments and seeing clash.

Votors are also EXTREMELY important to me!  Tell me why I should vote for you and how I should judge the round.

THEORY: I believe that theory arguments can be a very dengerous argument when used correctly.  I pay close attention to theory arguments and will vote on them.

Last but not least, topicality.  Use common sense when it comes to T.  If the aff has answered T and it just makes sense that they're topical, don't keep pushing T.  That being said, if the aff doesn't answer T correctly, by all means keep running with it.  Just don't get T crazy and run like 4-5.  3 is pushing it. 1-2 I'm completely okay with.

A few last things about me:

• Swearing: I hate it.  'Nuff said.
• I'm a Republican.  Deal with it.
• I'll try to be as unbiased as possible in rounds.

Debated in High School from 2010-2014, Judged and coached from 2014-2019. I may need a bit of time to adjust as I haven't judged since then, so bear with me. my email is dylan.paul.frederick@gmail.com for any questions, and for adding me to the email chain.

I've seen a lot of stuff, please feel free going with any debate style you prefer. Try to assume I don't know a ton about what you are reading.

If you want to win in front of me, please try to go top down - what is the framing I should look to at the end of the round, what is the most important impact/voting issue/whatever, and what is the link to that offense. I pretty much look at what offense is there for me to vote on at the end of the round, and try to sort out which offense wins. You can't go wrong with more depth on your link arguments in front of me, as long as there's a reason to vote for those links.

I don't have strong opinions either way on theory arguments, critical affs, T violations, ect. Do what you like and convince me what the debate should be about.

The debates I like the most are ones where you play to your best strengths, and debates with plenty of actual argument interaction. I have ADHD so the best way for me to disengage from the debate or miss an argument or just not care is to read blocks at each other and not make any explicit, direct challenges to your opponents arguments. If you're not going to actually debate, it makes me want to flip a coin, because you're leaving me to decide which arguments were best myself (I'm always trying my hardest to be fair, but I'm not going to give good speaker points if I'm left trying to compare two ships passing in the night)

If you have any specific questions or concerns, feel free to ask me.

Brock Hanson

Precious Assistant coach, Rowland Hall St. Marks — five years

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

Role as judge in debate — I attempt to enter debates with as little preconcieved notion about my role as possible. I am open to being told how to evaluate rounds, be it an educator, policymaker, etc. Absent any instruction throughout the round, I will most likely default to a role as a policymaker.

Purpose of philosophy — I see this philosophy as a tool to be used by debaters to help modify or fine-tune specific parts of their strategies in round. I don’t think that this philosophy should be a major reason to change a 1AC/1NC, but more used to understand how to make the round as pleasant as possible.

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

Prep time — Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/when the speech-email has been sent. I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, but I will usually keep prep as well to help settle disagreements

Evidence — I would like to be included in any email chain used for the round using the email address below. I will read un-underlined portions of evidence for context, but am very apprehensive to let them influence my decision, unless their importance is identified in round.

Speaker point range — 27.0 - 30. Speaker points below a 27 indicate behavior that negatively affected the round to the point of being offensive/oppressive.

How to increase speaker points — Coherence, enthusiasm, kindness, and the ability to display an intimate knowledge of your arguments/evidence. Cross-ex is an easy way to earn speaker points in front of me - I enjoy enthusiastic and detailed cross-ex and see it as a way to show familiarity with arguments.

How to lose speaker points — Being excessively hostile, aggressive, overpowering, or disengaged.

Clarity — I will say ‘Clear’ mid-speech if I’m unable to understand you. I will warn you twice before I begin subtracting speaker points and stop flowing - I will attempt to make it obvious that I’ve stopped flowing in a non-verbal manner (setting down my pen, etc.) but will not verbally warn you.

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

Affirmatives - I don’t think affirmatives should be inherently punished for not reading a plan text, as long as they justify why they do it. I am probably more interested in ‘non-traditional’ affirmatives than a big-stick Heg aff.

Counter-Plans — Speeding through a 20-second, catch-all, 7 plank, agent counter-plan text will not be received well in front of me. However, super-specific counter-plans (say, cut from 1AC solvency evidence) are a good way to encourage debates that result in high speaker points.

Disadvantages — Specific, well articulated DA debate is very appealing to me, but super-generics like spending are a bit boring absent an aff to justify them as the primary strategy.

Framework — Engagement > Exclusion. The topic can be a stasis point for discussion, but individuals may relate to it in very different ways. (See Role as judge in debate)

Kritiks — Easily my 'comfort-zone' for debates, both for the affirmative and negative. Creativity in this area is very appealing to me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that whoever reads the best poetry automatically wins. Be smart and articulate about your arguments, and make it seem like you care about what you're talking about. The 'K’s are cheating and so they should lose' -esque arguments aren’t especially compelling, but if you can intelligently explain why the hippy-anarchists sitting across from you should go back to their coffee shops and beat-poetry, I'll vote on it. Performance as a method of supporting arguments is welcomed and enjoyable insofar as it is grounded in arguments.

Theory — I think specific, contextualized Theory arguments are much more persuasive than generic, broad-sweeping theory claims. Spending 5 minutes on Theory in a rebuttal does not grant you an instant ballot, inversely,15 seconds of blippy violations it at the end of the debate makes it difficult to pull the trigger absent blatant concessions. I’m more comfortable and better versed in regards to theory arguments than with topicality. I am very persuaded by arguments against performative contradiction. I understand the strategic utility of having multiple lines of offence in a 1NC, but would prefer to evaluate 1NC’s holistically as a constant thought.

Topicality — Topicality is perhaps where I’m least experienced from an argument standpoint, and thus don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates, I do, however understand its utility against blatantly abusive affirmative. In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Feel free to ask before round or email me if you have any questions

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

Judge-Rhyder Henry, Pronouns (He/Him) Paradigm (Short and sweet Version Copper Classic)

Experience-2 Years High School @ Hillcrest High School/NHC

Positions- 1A/2N (I have a slight biased and idea of how I like to see both of these speaches conducted)

TLDR: Summary How to get my ballot- Debate how you want to debate, and give it your all.

1-Debate is a game, and educational, I lean more towards Structured impacted arguments that are extended.

2-Case Aff Notes: DEFEND SOLVENCY!!! Neg Notes: CASE TURNS!!!

3-T/FW- They are distinct. If you impact framework as T, I generally will lean aff on things like reasonability, Even if you won your framework arguments. Topicality, is Contextual and specfic, Framework is a tool to help me evaluate arguments, methodology, ETC....

4- Ks- Always a good option, I am familiar with most lit. Feel free to run them as long as you can explain them and explain why its a reason to vote neg, Things i dont like on k debate is. Alt=Reject aff or something similar? If you are rejecting the aff then explain why rejeciton is a neccessity to soving the mindset your challenging.

5-DAs, Generally go off of who mitigated whos impacts more, And reasons why the DA should O/W the case!

6-CP Specfic Cps go very far for me, It almost always gaurentees competition. I like Conditions, Consults etc.. Just explain it well and prove solvency.

7-Perms, Not an advocacy more of a test of competition. I was never a fan of multiple perms but you do you!

Things I enjoy seeing in round.

1-Humor is always nice to see

2-K Affs are pretty creative and enjoyable to engage with.

3-I have a soft spot for good theory debate

4-Respect

5-Respect and Intensity, Can work well together. That being said you can still be intense and aggressive while still being respectful.

6-Cross ex is your chance to prove to me you understand and have an interest in your arguments!

Notes: May Result in a Small Speaker Point Increase.

1-I like the Red Balloon Emoji, Do with that what you will!

2-I enjoy Political Satire/Humor/Comics.

3-Orcas are awesome #Savethewhales

4-Tell me what can go through the Green Glass Door?

Follow this link for my super extensive paradigm: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Henry,Rhyder

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

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. 

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.

Assume I want to be added to your email chain: andre.d.washington@gmail.com

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

IMPORTANT CHANGES: After 5 years of judging a wide range of debate styles, I think I've come to the conclusion that I just can't connect with or enjoy the current iteration of HS high theory debate. Being able to act as an educator is an important reason for why I judge, and I don't think I can offer that in your Baudrilliard debates anymore.

This will be my sixth year with the program at Rowland Hall, and 10th year of debate overall.

I love debate and want students to love it as well.

Do what you want, and do it well. ---

Kritiks: Despite the revision above, you absolutely should still be reading the K in front of me. I am fine with the K. I like the K as it functions in a greater neg strategy (ie, I'd rather judge a 5 off round that includes a K than a 1 off K round). However, I went 1-off fem K in highschool for many rounds, so I am genuinely pretty accepting on this issue. Given that I don't spend a great deal of my time working through K literature, I think it's important that you explain these to me, but that's basically what a good K debater should expect to do anyway.

Disads: I cut politics every week. I love both sides of the politics debate and can benefit you as a judge on how to execute these debates well.

Counterplans: Counterplans of all shapes and sizes are a critical place to form a strategy and I enjoy these debates. Theory is to be argued and I can't think of any predisposition.

Topicality: I think that debaters who can execute "technical" args well are enjoyable enough to watch and judge, and I think I can probably benefit as a judge to any technical debater. I think that any violation, on face, has validity and there are no affs that are so "obviously" topical that they cannot be beaten on T.

Kritikal affs: I am not ideologically opposed to K affs at all and even enjoy these debates, although I primarily work on and with policy affs so I would say explanation is still key.

Framework: I find that good framework debaters know how to make the flow accessible to the judge. I think that there are a number of compelling claims and debates to be had on framework, and they can be just as strongly argued as anything else (including your kritik or kritikal aff).