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!

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for their own agreeegisnes.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.

I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.

Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.

AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.

T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.

K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.

CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.

DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.

REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!

I am a lay judge lacking extensive experience judging. I am currently a legal professional with limited knowledge of this year's topics, so please explain your arguments well. I am okay with you running any argument that is not offensive, as long as you explain it well enough. I have little familiarity with kritiks and theory, if you choose to run these arguments make sure you are very thorough (paint a picture) and leave me without any major questions regarding the argument itself or how I should analyze it in the context of the round. I will be flowing to the best of my ability.

Clarity > Speed

Throughout the round, be respectful and passionate! When you want me to remember something specific, make sure to emphasize it.

At the end of the round you should write my ballot for me. Use your final speeches to make clear why you should win, this improves my ability to provide you with a fair decision. I will be as objective as possible in how I analyze each round, that means if your opponent makes a bad argument you should point it out and tell me why it is weak.

About Me- I did Policy all four years I was in high school, I graduated class of 2021.

I do tend to fidget; I promise I am still listening.

I am currently coaching the policy teams from the school I graduated from.

Overview-

My biggest philosophy is you can be aggressive without being rude, I think aggression is good, especially in debate, however if you are rude I will doc you speaks.

Please don't do the thing where you individually ask if people are ready, just say "is anyone not ready?" give it a few seconds and then start your speech, if someone is not ready, they will say something, asking everyone individually takes so much unnecessary time. I'll just cringe, this won't affect my judging though.

Please include me in email chains, if I can see the evidence and arguments I will have a more unbiased opinion, this goes with pretty much all judges.

I won't judge you differently if your camera is on or off, however psychologically you are more likely to win if the judge can see your face (I try my hardest not to let this sway me though)

Don't look at each other during cross. Just don't do it, ever. I'll just cringe this won't negatively affect you

If a question is asked before cross is over, still answer it.

If the timer goes off while you're answering a question still answer it.

If the timer goes off in your speech, finish your sentence.

Don't forget to tell me your name before we start.

I flow like a policy debater so please sign post and emphasize your authors and taglines

I will vote on what you tell me to vote on.

When referring to your opponent please just say "my opponent" or "them" if pronouns are necessary

If you're in policy I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or flow if you don't tell me.

If you're in LD I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or morality if you don't tell me.

If you're in PF I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or Cost Benefit Analysis if you don't tell me.

Please tell me what you want me to vote on, as a judge I should not have to draw any conclusions myself.

Speaker Points-

<27- You did something wrong, you were rude, discriminatory, disrespectful, etc.

27- You were an okay speaker but have room to improve

28- You were an average speaker, good but still could improve (average in debate)

29- You were very good, very little room for improvement

30- You were exemplary, I was very impressed with your speaking (I don't give out 30's very often but it does happen)

My average speaker point given out is a 28.5, lowest I have given is a 23, I give out an average of one 30 a tournament.

Those Policy Questions-

Tag team cross- Yes you can do this, if one partner is dominating the other partner will get lower speaks, you should talk about the same amount of time.

Prep Time- I have been told 8 minutes, that's what I will go with unless the tournament states otherwise

Is cross binding- Yes, if you say it in cross, it is the same as saying it in a speech

Is the neg block one speech- Yes this is the reason it is back-to-back

Tabula Rasa- I try my best to be a blank slate and let you convince me of your arguments without outside bias, however I cannot guarantee no bias, but I will try my hardest. I believe I should have to do little to no thinking myself and I should just be able to look at my flow and see who won.

I believe in no new arguments in the rebuttals, but you can bring up new arguments if it is your first chance to answer your opponent's arguments

If you are going to be talking about sensitive topics (especially ones that can be trauma related) please give a trigger warning (this should go for every round, we want everyone to be comfortable)

I love theory and kritiks (you don't have to run them, but I do appreciate them)

I am okay with swearing but ask your opponents

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

Hey everyone!

My name is Sugar, I am currently an assistant coach at Davis High Debate. I graduated last year, after competing at Davis Debate for 3 years. I’m currently a freshman at the U of U. I love debate and judging it, so please reciprocate that energy.

I mainly competed in LD for all of my debate years. I qualified to nats in LD, all three years of my debate career and broke my junior and senior year. So trust me, I know what I am doing. You don’t have to treat me as a mommy judge. I also have a pinch of policy experience, so I am familiar with certain prog possessions.

LD

- Love LD with all my heart. Arguably the best debate event.

- Signpost. (can’t believe I have to say this but many people don’t know what signposting is so...here I go...tell me where you're at on the flow).

- I prefer trad arguments, but I’m ok with you running prog arguments. Just make sure that you know what you’re doing and it is accessible. If you run a far too prog arg against a novice that doesn’t quite understand what you are running, I'm sorry, but I won’t evaluate the arg. Please be as inclusive as possible.

- K’s. Not a fan unless it is specific to the round such as a speed k, extinction k, and so forth.

- CPs are ok. If they’re Mutually exclusive and outweigh. I am also swayed by CP Bad theory and will prob end up voting on it.

- Line by Line Judge. You win the flow. You win the ballot.

- Yes, you can time yourself.

- Ok with speed. Not ok with spreading. You should know the difference. If you spread and someone runs a speed k against you, you better start packin up cause you most likely just lost.

- Framework debates have become repetitive. If your value is societal welfare and your opps value is societal progress, feel free to just concede the fw debate and move on. It’s not as important as winning on substance. However, fw can be used to your advantage. I’m not saying its never important, it is the lens through which I view the round. If you are running something obscure that gets backed up by your fw then you should absolutely extend and argue your fw.

- Also I hate the way debaters are extending cards. I could care less if you have five authors that all make the same argument. If your opp attacks the main argument, then don’t get up in your speech and say “my opp dropped four cards extend the Johnson evidence which states…”

- You don’t have to give me voters. Voters should be incorporated into your rebuttals as you go down the flow.

- Feel free to collapse if you think it’ll win you the round. But just know that I do like to judge the round based on how many arguments were won.

- Please don’t run phil cases. I don’t wanna hear 6 min of Kantian ethics.

- Tech>Truth but why not be both

- I really like T, especially in LD. I don’t know why judges hate Nebel T, cause I abs like it. If you run it well, you could win my ballot.

- Please cut your cards correctly. If I catch you falsifying evidence you will receive an L with 20 speaks. To add onto that, make sure your claims are actually backed up by your evidence. I hate seeing cards that are like:

o Trump…wag the dog…tensions increase…lying to news reporter…only a matter of time…could lash out against the public…war is inevitable...numbers game… (if your card looks like this you’ll lose the round, I don’t care how you creative you are when it comes to cutting cards)

- If you run a nuke war extinction scenario. It better be really really really good. Cause I hate having to judge such a low-prob impact scenario. If you don’t take into account deterrence, motives, alt causes, international geopolitical stance, and so forth I won’t buy your impact.

- I usually like to fill out my ballot during CX but that shouldn't undermine its importance. I am still paying attention and yes CX is binding (why wouldn't it be binding). However, I don't flow CX if you want an argument to be on my flow you have to bring it up during CX.

-You don't have to use up all your time. Novices- it's ok to end a speech early.

Policy

- disclose prior to the round. AFF will lose every time if NEG runs disclosure theory and proves AFF refused to disclose. For those who don't know what disclosure is... disclosing is where you send out a copy of the highlighted and cut version of the 1AC at least 30 min prior to the round (or as soon as pairings come out). I'm a lot less stringent on NEG disclosure but I like the practice of sending out previous 2NRs. Now you may be asking yourself how do I send out my 1AC to debaters that I have no way of reaching out to. Allow me to introduce to you the policy wiki, it's a place where you can disclose your case and contact your opponents. Look into the policy wiki it's not that hard to learn how to use and its been used for a very long time now. You have been warned.

- 21ssantillan@gmail.com yes put me on the email chain. but I flow off of my ears and not my eyes. So if you don't speak clearly I won't take a second to go through the doc. If you could have the email chain set before the round I'll grant you an extra 0.5 speaker points.

- Spreading is ok. But be inclusive and be clear. Slow down on taglines and analytics. You should never sacrifice clarity over speed. Sadly most policy debaters can't do both.

- K's. um just be careful and run them correctly. Be inclusive.

- not a perf judge.

- High prob low magnitude scenario > low prob high magnitude scenario

-cut your cards well, please

-tag team cx is ok

- Analytics > Cards. By far. I could care less if you have multiple cards making one argument, if logic and analytics are sufficient to take down the premise you'll lose on the arg.

-signpost and give an off time roadmap. I can’t believe I have to put this in here but so far out of all the policy rounds I’ve judged in our circuit No one has signposted correctly. Please please please signpost.

For other events just ask me during the round.

(Here are some copied parts of other people's paradigm that I completely endorse).

Dawson Braxter (I've never met Dawson btw, I just really like his paradigm)

"Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing."

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

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.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.