Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic, but I'm fairly new to judging. I prioritize presentation skills and clarity of argument.

Debate- I always choose a winner based on rebuttals and final speeches. I favor the team that shows the most clash while also defending their own contentions. I can handle fast talking as long as the debater can speak quickly while still being intelligible.

Congress- I appreciate a good road map in the speech intro and solid examples that support your contentions. I also highly rate representatives that are active questioners.

Speech- Clear organization is very important, I need to be able to follow your speech. As far as delivery, I really notice and appreciate speakers who incorporate vocal variety and make consistent eye contact.

I debated policy all through high school. I'm currently one of the coaches for Cedar Valley HS. I don't have a problem with speed.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

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!

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!!!!

- Did Lincoln-Douglas debate (2nd in State) and extemporaneous speaking(Nationals qualifier) all of high school

- Former national competitor in University of Utah's John R. Park Debate Society

- qualified for National Forensics Association nationals

Debates:

- Good with any speed; don't slur or I'll stop flowing.

- I won't flow cross-examination, but I do encourage that you refer back to cross-ex specifically if needed

- Signpost!!!

- Traditional and progressive are good with me

- Impact scenarios are good

IEs:

- Varsity Extemp: have at least 7-8 sources

- Novice Extemp: have at least 5-6 sources

Hello,

I'm an attorney and I was admitted to the Utah Bar in 1997. I work in the medical device and pharmaceutical industries.

Please present your issues clearly, concisely, respectfully and debate zealously. However, I am not a fan of Ks, spreading and/or spewing (unless spreading is expected or allowed) or asking for disqualifications for minor infractions and doing so will lead me to believe you are not well prepared and reaching for any object or argument just to keep your head above water.

Good luck and have fun!

Chris

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

Hello, my name is Tamara Townsend Faucette. I am an energy and environmental attorney. I really enjoy judging and am so impressed with the intelligence and professionalism of the competitors. Things I look for:

1) Energy- whatever side you are arguing, step fully into that role and persuade me that it is your preferred position. Often the passion and energy of a competitor shows their preparation and enthusiasm for the topic. Persuade me that you should win.
2) Responsive- Show your flexibility and depth of knowledge by specifically attacking your opponents case with logic and evidence.
3) Respect- A vigorous debate is encouraged but please maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect.

I have judged a lot of debate events. I do not mind spreading as long as I have a copy of the brief. If you plan to spread put me on the email chain.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Please do not spread during off-time roadmaps--that is a chance for me to understand your organization. Use words not lingo in your roadmap--it does not count against your time.

I do not like a ton of lingo or abbreviations, especially in policy debate. I understand the lingo but I would rather hear your analysis in full words not abbreviations.

Your debate experience will serve you well and build resilience. I hope you enjoy the process! Thank you, Tamara Townsend Faucette

Background: I'm a parent judge but an educator as well.  

Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress.  I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous.

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue.

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness.

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding presentation and rebuttals.

Hello all!

Email for email chain: michaelhunter750@gmail.com

My legal name is Michael Hunter but I go by Geo Hunter.
Yes, this is the correct spelling of my name, pronounced "Joe"

A little about me:
Debated for George Washington High School ('15) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Participated only in CX for three years.

Judged at a handful of tournaments during college years, primarily in the Intermountain West.

I graduated from Utah State University with a Bachelor's in Social Studies Teaching

I currently teach AP and core Geography at Cyprus High School in Magna, UT.

I'm an assistant speech and debate coach at CHS, primarily maintaining the Policy Debate/CX event at CHS.

Paradigm:

T- I feel T can be an interesting debate, if debated accurately. If the T is in the 2NR, you better be going for it. I won't vote on "What sticks" The Aff though has a responsibility to acknowledge it.

The K- I'm a traditional Policy person. I don't read up on philosophies/arguments beyond the general K's. I will vote on the K if the Neg does an exceptional job of explaining it and the Aff does poorly in arguing against it. I'm not too versed on abstract philosophies. I enjoy more Cap/FEM-IR/Sec K's if the link is explained. I will listen to framework and weigh impacts more than the typical judge. Aff cannot throw a hundred framework cards at the K and expect me to vote. Explain thoroughly.
Same goes for Critical Affs, explain as much as possible.

CP/DA- I enjoy clash! These are the best arguments to listen to. Politics is a +. Do a good link story please, and Aff should capitalize on a bad one.

Theory/Condo- I will have an Aff bias if the Neg runs 10 CP's, I think a K, CP, DA and ample Offense/Defense on-case is an ideal debate round. I will value framework/theory on the Neg side too in the event of a critical aff.

Speaker Points- I always give high speaks in Novice rounds. Varsity is based on your individual performance. If you act like you were engaged in the round, were courteous and threw in a joke or two, you'll get high 28's and low 29's. If you are a complete jerk, condescending to opponents and act like you are not engaged, your points will reflect that. I do not hesitate to give LPW's to jerk teams. I will make a note on the ballot and notify your coach if it was severe.

Prep- I expect Varsity teams to monitor their times. I will keep track, but will not notify you of speech time. If you say you are done prepping and are flashing, there should be no movement from anyone except the speaker. If people are prepping during flashing, I will doc those points. I will resort to flashing ends at the removal of flash-drive from computer if need be.

With that being said, ask me questions before the round!

Happy Debating!!

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

Sup, I'm a big-time impact judge. No matter what event you are participating in, I look for your answer to my question: "Why should I care?" Weigh your impacts effectively and convincingly, and I'll be happy. Give me a reason why I should care. Why you should win. Who dies if you don't win? What kind of nuclear war will break out if your counterplan isn't implemented? Does this have real-world consequences? If I don't vote you up, will I be limiting you in spreading your ideals and values? These are all arguments that I've heard in the past (and debated, too), and depending on how you argue them, and how effectively you tell me what to do, I'll do it.

For those in the speech event world of debate specifically, I looove enthusiasm. But again, show me why I should listen to what you are saying, and why I should care.

Debate has shown me that these events you participate in during high school carry over and out into the real world. You'll one day understand that the only reason people listen to you is because you give them a reason to. You need to find out their values, their reasons, their ideals, and communicate those in a way where you and your audience connect. And that connection? It results in a win. :)

I consider a myriad of factors in my judging, but, to a certain degree, place various degrees of importance on these factors.

First, and most importantly, your case needs to be based in evidence from reputable sources, citing the date along with these sources and making your evidence as quantifiable as possible. This is not to say that I discourage expert opinion, I simply deem empirical data and past precedence to be the best evidence.

Make sure to warrant all of your evidence and refutation before or after you give it, explaining why your point makes sense logically. Simply saying "the opposite is true!" without providing further explanation isn't going to win my ballot.

Second, you need to have good delivery. The most important factors that constitute good delivery include variety in tone, speed, and intonation, eye contact, and good hand gestures. Use your delivery to keep me entertained!

Third, please refute other debaters in the round. I would especially encourage this in Congress, as refutation is scarce in this event on many circuits. To the extent that you do not attack people personally, and that you are simply attacking their argument, I believe strong refutation, alongside good evidence, to be central to a good debate round.

Fourth, make good use of rhetoric throughout your speech. Simply put, you cannot win a round simply by refuting other speakers, though it certainly helps. If you want to remove any doubt in your judge's mind, and my mind, about the validity of your case, weigh the debate, showing why your impacts, and their underlying morals (no, I am not just talking about LD) explicitly beat the other side. On the other side, make your rhetoric memorable and creative. Arguments and delivery are good, but if you entertain me with good rhetoric, you will almost certainly stand out in my mind as a judge, provided you have the essentials which I mentioned previously in this paradigm.

Above all, just have fun!

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

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.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I am a high school English teacher and know how to write effective essays and speeches. I do not, however, have formal debate training. As a high school English teacher, I value the writing of the speech itself. As a debater, you should go into each round assuming that I know nothing about the topic at hand. Give definitions, explain concepts, speak clearly and explicitly. You can’t convince me to choose your side if I don’t understand your side. Please teach me before you convince me. If you choose to speak quickly, be warned that you need to still speak clearly. If I cannot hear you I cannot judge you.

I typically choose debate winners based on the success of their claims, including those made in crossfire, as they are presented with rhetorical strength, including effectiveness of logos, ethos, and pathos.

I appreciate arguments that are clearly outlined with strong transitions/sign posts. I am looking for a lot of reliable evidence with fresh logical reasoning. I am also looking for debaters to directly refute the contentions in their opponents' case. I hate spewing and, instead, value confident, respectful disagreement. I find overly-aggressive, belligerent debating off-putting. I am also looking for confident, engaging public speaking skills.

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigm for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

Speech (MS NSDA 2024)

To put my experience briefly I did two years of debate and one year of FX, placing at HS Utah state finals in 2019. I've been coaching and judging on and off ever since.

I have one simple rule: entertain me. If the speech is entertaining and memorable and well executed you will get my vote. Extempers, bring good sources, I will be counting. I expect a good structure and an introduction as well. Impromptu, if your speech feels canned at all it'll not get a good reaction from me, you're better than that. Oratory, the floor is yours for 10 minutes, go wild, but please don't abuse the grace period. Interps, I expect an overall compelling narrative not just overstimulation for 10 minutes.

CX (ASU 2024)

nathanut919@gmail.com

Let me open with this: I did policy debate for a year, but I am not a “policy judge.” I am typically a speech or public forum judge.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

I am not well versed on this topic and have only judged a couple novice rounds at the beginning of the season. I am, however, well versed on the different types of arguments you can run in policy, so go for whatever you are comfortable with as long as you give me ample context.

Given my lack of dedicated policy experience I will not be able to keep up with speed compared to other policy judges. Please slow down a bit, I would much rather hear you speak instead of reading a document for eight minutes. Please be very clear when you sign post. If I do not know where to write your argument, chances are I will be too concerned trying to figured that out and I will miss what you are saying.

I'd also like to stress the fact that the majority of my experience competing, coaching, and judging is with speech. If you want to cater to my paradigm heed the following advice. When it comes to the words that you say and the arguments you put forth, quality over quantity will unequivocally be in your favor.

I keep most biases out of the door in the debate space, but there is one I must address for fair competition. I am a scientist by trade, which means I have a heavy bias to truth and fact. I am not crazy enough to say truth > tech, but the only arguments I want to hear are arguments you truly believe in.

Last thing because this has become a pet peeve of mine. If an argument is dropped by one team, and then it is not addressed by the opposing team in the next speech, I will be kicking it entirely for the rest of the round.

PF (Jack Howe 2023)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

I flow and consider values and criterium. I also flow cross and will consider the overall value of the evidence, and voters would be appreciated on final speaks. I have done Public Forum debates for three years at Bingham High and know my way around an argument. I will not be biased toward a topic; instead, I will consider all arguments regardless of my beliefs.

Aaron Tanuvasa

:)

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.

I did debate all four years in high school so I know how tournaments go.

What I would like to see in round is just a well done, civil debate. I appreciate a good amount of clash, just don't become too disrespectful. Please make sources used very clear so I know where your information comes from.

Other than that I trust you to make the round go smoothly by timing yourselves (I will also be timing) and to be prepared to speak loud and clear, and sell your case to me.

I love debate and being able to judge after graduation. Just remember speech and debate is hard work but it is also so important and valuable in your lives; don't forget to have fun with it!

For my speech friends, all I ask of you is for your name, your prep time (if applicable), and your speech time. I ask that you do your best to not go over time, but I will respect the grace period given. That being said your final time will play into my final ranking and decision.

4 year policy debater for Liberty University, NDT Qualifier

Current HS Debate coach at Intermountain Christian School

Email chain: ryanwittstock@gmail.com

Things in order of what you're looking for:

Spreading - do it. Go quick, make good arguments and be efficient. If you can't spread without being incomprehensible I will say "clear" during your speech. Slow down if that happens.

My goal is to judge from the flow - everything here is pretty basic but make smart arguments and debate from the flow and you can win in most circumstances

Tech over truth - don't drop arguments even if they are bad. If they are bad, they should be easy to beat.

Condo: I lean to it being good but can be convinced

Theory (besides condo): I lean towards it being a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but can be convinced

Ks: I'm fine with them, but I was not a K debater. Of course I debated against them all the time so I am familiar, but if your theory of power is non-traditional and your impacts are something that I've maybe never heard before slow down.

Try to avoid a K without an alt, or do something like kick the alt. Most Ks are super non-unique without an alt (obviously if your K is more performative this may not apply).

Non-topical affs/framework: This can be a really good debate but normally ends up being bad. Interact with arguments on the flow to win. Fairness might be an impact but normally education is a better impact. I'm not very sympathetic to the "get your education in other rounds" argument.

Cards are important to me. If the debate is good and close it can come down to the cards. I don't like when taglines are longer than cards, that probably means you're lying.

Neg split: New flows in the 2NC are ok (CPs are a little iffy), but don't do new flows in the 1NR. CX over new flows is important.

I think impact turns are great - go for your goofy scenarios if you want