2 years in Public Forum

2.5 years as an assistant debate coach for 2 different schools

Traditional mentality but understands progressive

I know policy very well and is my favorite event to judge, Speed is fine up to a point. I believe you can win without speed but the choice is yours. Do not feel limited in your range of strategies, I will understand what your talking about.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

Larsen, Hunter

Judge for: Hurricane High School, UT-US

Background: 4 Year HS Debater, 9 Year Judge (Debate: CX, PF, LD) ( IE: O.O, FX, DX, Impromptu)

Events: Policy(CX), LD, PF, O.O, IMP, FX/DX

LD Paradigm: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a value and a value-criterion. The value is the abstract good to be achieved. The value-criterion is the standard used to measure success in achieving the value. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your value? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s value? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s value-criterion succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me!

PF Paradigm: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of CNN's television show, "Crossfire" (1982 -- 2005). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are never off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV persona. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience.

CX Paradigm: Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I dislike newer arguments such as kritiks and some theoretical points.

NO SPEWING!!!!

SPEECH:

When It comes to speech I am looking for articulate and prepared speakers.

O.O: I am looking for clear well written original speeches, the speech should be persuasive and articulate. The speech should be something you are passionate about.

DX/FX: Your speech should be informative and have at least 3 clear sources. The presenter should be prepared and knowledgeable on the topic chosen, they should also provide clear points and strong arguments on their point.

IMP: I am looking for clarity, clear points and a compelling speech on the topic chosen. (If it's funny, sad, serious, ect. make me feel it.)

Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pack%2C+Erin ). Please default to the paradigm below.

Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.

Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.

Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.

Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.

LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.

Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

CX-

I am pretty tabula rasa, I dig everything from Cap-K's to stock issues. I can handle spreading if you are decent at it and I can also support a K or any other counter plan you can run. An automatic down vote will be coming your way if I don't have a road map or taglines to follow THROUGHOUT the round, whether you spread or not. I will dock you more if you are under time rather than over, and I LOVE lots of aggression.

PF-

Basically the same as policy but I will give you an automatic L if you spread or use a plan.

***For both events, I like to see that the work between partnerships is equally distributed. For example- when I used to do debate my judges would always write on my ballot that I was too aggressive compared to my male partner, and that I should let him do all the work. With that being said, if you identify as female, PLEASE show me how much butt you can kick with your words. Overall just make sure one of you isn't carrying the burden.

IE's-

These events ARE NOT meant to be serious. With that, please be entertainin. Be dramatic, humorous, loud, even throw yourself on the ground if you have to. If you do not use all your time, give roadmaps and taglines, or follow my paradigm I will rank you last.

Past Experience: I was a four year policy debater in high school and was an assistant coach for several years after high school but have not seen a debate round for several years. My speed and flowing capacity are not as fast as they used to be so taglines need to be clear and analysis can be fast but needs to be well understood.

Overall I like impact calculus. The Aff needs to prove that if I vote aff their plan will affect the world in a positive way and the neg needs to prove the opposite.

Feel free to ask specific questions before round.

Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo

General Notes:

-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com

-Clarity over speed

-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else

Argument-Specific Notes:

-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.

-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.

-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.

-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.

-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.