For debate: Quality of the argument and evidence is paramount, but presentation and confidence can add to the quality of the argument. Make sure to support your arguments with evidence, and respectful debate is always a must.

For speech: Presentation and flow is important. Make me feel something by using good examples in an impactful way. It should feel organic and natural, not rehearsed.

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

Experience: I have competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years in highschool. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

I participated in debates for three years and competed in Policy, PF, and LD. As a non-biased judge, I will evaluate your ability to argue and defend your position. I don't care if your case is more left-wing or right-wing. To me, that isn't what makes a good debater. I know how to flow, and I can follow a case that is either progressive or traditional.

If your contentions directly attack the opponent's then I will see it as an equal clash which means I'll begin weighing the Framework, Theory, and Impacts of your case. I always see a lack of Framework & Impact Calc, if you don't have one, please create one. If you present on that is outlined, structured, & isn't dropped, it'll become a major voter for your case.

Gabe McDaniel

Good day! I am new to the world of debate; never have done it myself but was introduced to it by my daughter. I like to see concise arguments, clear speaking, and respectful discourse. I am extremely impressed and proud of the students who participate in speech and debate and I really appreciate the dedication, hard work, and willingness to put themselves out there. These are skills that will serve you well for years to come.

My email is aobrienslc@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a first-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

Unlike what some would have you believe (Cody Rutkowski), debate is a game, so have some fun with it.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

I am a lay judge but I have experience judging LD. I became involved with debate because I wanted to support my daughter and my teaching colleagues. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please be polite to each other and have fun!

All Debates: Please be respectful to your opponents! :) I will NOT drop your speaks based on speaking differences (e.g., stuttering, sound errors).

Policy: I have experience, but am a little out of practice. I was usually more of a politics DA/ CP or T debater, but that does not bar me from voting for a well-done K. I am willing to hear just about any argument, but I need impact analysis! Tell me how/ why to vote. I am not willing to kick a position for you when I write my ballot. Speed is generally fine, but I need clarity. Please don't give opponents a ton of cards that you didn't even read. I expect competitors to be respectful of their opponents, partners, judges, etc.

LD: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged and coached LD for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won. I do think values and criterion should be part of those voting issues. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Please be respectful to your opponents! :)

PF: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged PF for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won.

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.

I see a speaking score at 4 as doing exactly what is expected of you, so a score of 25 is good. I will only give higher scores if I see exceptional talents and abilities.

Evidence is key!!!

IE/Speech: Please make sure you are a clear speaker and keep a good pace (ex. not rushing or going too slow just to fill time) and that your speech is structured appropriately for your event. Be engaging and interesting! I love to see confidence and passion in a round. If your event allows you to add in personal elements please do so, and don't be afraid to properly emote while presenting. (Impromptu speeches that are well structured will rank higher in round)

Debates: Be polite in round, I understand that debate sometimes gets heated but you still must be cordial to your opponents. You are attacking their case, not them. Try your best to use neutral pronouns (they/them) and do not look at your opponents during cross.

I value structure and the flow of the argument, rounds will be decided on whichever argument makes the most logical sense depending on the debate format and which side counters their opponents better and more clearly. Make sure that you attack down the flow and in order, as it keeps your rebuttal speeches organized and it helps me give you better feedback.

Experience: I was primarily a Congressional debater, I also participated in Public Forum, Impromptu, and Extemp (Foreign and National). I have learned the formatting for the other IE’s and debates throughout my time in debate which is why correct structure is valued highly in round.

Email: Tatekalani@gmail.com (I would like to be on the chain)

Policy:

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I'm pretty accustomed to all types of arguments. I'll flow anything just make sure it's a good argument. I'd love to be truth over tech but out of respect, i'll try not to be, though I'm not opposed to you taking that standpoint. K's are fine explain them thoroughly and explain the internal link.

LD:

I mostly debated in policy but did dabble in LD. I tend to like a more progressive LD style but I'll flow anything and let you guys dictate the round. I love creative values and VC.

PF:

Just go for anything I'll flow anything. I like truth over tech.

codyski78@gmail.com

Fundamentally, say cool things. Make interesting arguments and I’ll subconsciously like you more.

Keep the debate space healthy. It's unfortunate that debaters have “stereotypes”, but the space has been home to a lot of toxic interaction. Homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, or general discrimination, will not be tolerated. Any or all of which will result in an immediate termination to the current speech and round (This includes arguments as-well, don’t have a contention that reasons the wage gap is a good thing).

I’d say I'm more tech than truth, But I’m only as tech as you’ll let me be. Don’t outspread your opponents, especially online, and don’t run theory if your opponents don’t know what theory is. I can’t say that I’ll drop you if you do those things, but I’d like you a-lot more if you kept the space competitive and educational, while at the same time working to beat your opponents. I'm comfortable with speed and have no qualms voting on theory. I’d love to judge a technical debate, just keep it professional.

A-lot of people say debate is a game (Alex O’Brien) but some of the more refined amongst us would recognize that debate is a sales pitch. Show me your Ideas, be creative, play to your strengths and sell me something. If you do that, I'll give you good speaks and you'll probably win the round. It’s simply not enough to have incredible arguments.

How do I know if you have great arguments if you deliver them poorly? Your thoughts are only as good as your words… and all that stuff.

So framework in PF is strange… but just as valid as theory in my opinion. If you don’t give a framework that's fine (I'll assume Cost Benefit), and If you do give a framework it’s not an auto win, you have to prove why your framework is better than your opponents, and then I can evaluate it. (Keep in mind, I want to keep the round competitive, and frameworks are not widespread in PF yet)

I'm a flow judge for PF, LD, and Policy. I competed in PF throughout high school and I now compete in Parli for the U of U. I'll list more specific information for each event below, but most of all, be respectful and have a good time! Debate is meant to be educational and fun!

PF:

TLDR: Be nice, tech is fine as long as your opponents are okay with it, weighing/extensions/analytics are important.

Voting: Extensions, impact calc, and terminalized impacts are all very important. I would suggest starting to weigh in summary, and by FF, completely focusing on weighing instead of line by line. Tell me why you’ve won the round, where you’re winning, the mechanism by which you outweigh. Framework is also key and I’d suggest extending it throughout the round.

Extensions: if you make a new argument or bring up a dropped argument in second sum or FF, I will notice. If your opponent brought up a new arg, point that out if you still have a speech left. If it’s second FF and you don’t have a speech left, trust me, I will notice without you pointing it out.

RFDs: I'll always give everyone a good, long RFD on Tab. If there's time, I'll give some feedback in person. If for some reason you don't get a long RFD, its probably because Tabroom locked me out of the ballot.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

Tech arguments: Feel free to go tech as long as it's against a qualified opponent. K and other tech arguments in PF are fine by me, but you can absolutely use theory against such an argument. If you make a good case for why I shouldn't allow it, I'll vote it down.

Framework/Niche frameworks: I don’t see a ton of value in running policy framework arguments in PF, like Baudrillard, extinction good, etc. You’re welcome to do so against a qualified opponent, but I don’t think these args are very valuable.

Theory: Know that I rarely buy paraphrasing theory, but if you make a good case I’ll consider it. Disclosure theory doesn’t matter to me in PF, especially on lower circuit tournaments.

Spreading: Please don't. It is important to keep PF accessible to the general public and those with speech/hearing disabilities. If your opponent is going too fast, feel free to say "slow." If you get slowed, don't worry about it, just drop your speed and continue with your speech.

Non-discrimination and abusive behavior: Offensive or discriminatory language, as well as personal attacks on opponents, constitute and immediate loss and zero speaks. Things like yelling, constant interrupting, dominating cross, and post-rounding will result in low speaks but will not result in am automatic loss unless the behavior is particularly egregious. If you're pushing it, I will warn you and give you a chance to fix the issue.

Evidence Violations: Per NSDA rules, verified instances of falsifying evidence are an immediate loss. In my book, an opponent’s accusation of falsifying evidence is not enough to prove it happened. If you believe someone has falsified evidence, you should stop the round and show me the issue.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

I was in debate for all of high school. I did policy for 1 year and LD for the rest. I loved them both but LD is my favorite. Unfortunately this combo has left me with an odd judging paradigm.

LD SPECIFIC:

Progressive cases- Because of my background in policy I can enjoy a progressive case WHEN IT IS DONE WELL! In LD you do not have as much time to establish the needed ground for a lot of K’s and other obscure arguments. Obviously you have to take the risk and be sure you can have the needed ground.

Solvency- No matter how traditional you are you still have to have solvency within your case. If the AFF provides a plantext and the argument against that is “this is LD and we don’t have to provide a plan”, the neg will likely lose. The NEG job is to say no to the AFF(as long as the plan is within reason).

Voters- Voters are one of the most important parts of your rebuttal. If you do not have voters I will assume that you do not care how the round ends and that everything should be weighed the exact same. This will not work out in your favor. Take at least a minute to explain why you should win. It shows an investment in the round and an actual desire to win.

Framework- Value and Value Criterion are what set LD debate apart. In a sense it is your opportunity to showcase knowledge and creativity. It is pretty easy to tell when someone put a lot of thought into their value and value criterion. If you value morality I will assume you are a boring debater and you will most likely not win the framework argument. LD is about morality, the whole goal is to prove morality. It is too vague and is already implied in the form of debate. I weigh heavily on this portion of the debate. Direct clash is good but if you and your opponent have the same framework you can still argue who better fits the framework. Do not just assume this doesn't matter because you have the same framing. Tell me how the debate should be interpreted, don't let me do that on my own.

Flowing- If you don’t flow I’m going to have a very hard time taking you seriously. Less than 10% of the population has a photographic memory so it’s not likely that that is you. Even if it is, you should still flow.

Speed- If you are spreading, you must also be clear! If you are unclear I will not be able to flow what you are saying and it will not help you in round. Slow down for taglines and anything of extreme importance.

GENERAL:

I think debate should be fun. I’m a fairly laid back judge who will vote on most anything as long as it is logical.

You should always be civil to your opponent- rip their case apart not them. Personal attacks are an absolute no. If a personal attack is made speaks will be dropped. I’m all for a super competitive clash filled debate as long as you also have good sportsmanship.

Cross counts for your speaks, not towards the win or loss.

1. Clarity and Organization:

• I expect speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, ensuring that their points are easy to understand to a generally educated and informed person.
• Organization is crucial; I look for a clear structure in speeches, with a logical progression of ideas and smooth transitions between points.

2. Content and Argumentation:

• Substance is paramount. I evaluate the strength of arguments based on evidence, logic, and reasoning.
• I appreciate originality and depth in analysis, as well as the ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments effectively.
• Arguments should be relevant to the topic at hand and supported by credible sources where appropriate.

3. Delivery and Style:

• Delivery encompasses both verbal and nonverbal communication. I pay attention to vocal variety, tone, pace, and gestures.
• Engaging the audience is essential. I appreciate speakers who exhibit confidence, passion, and charisma while maintaining professionalism.
• Style should complement substance; eloquence and creativity can enhance the impact of an argument, but should not overshadow its substance.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation:

• Debaters should demonstrate active listening and critical thinking skills during rebuttals.
• I value the ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' arguments and provide cogent responses supported by evidence or reasoning.
• Rebuttal should be respectful and focused on the substance of the argument, avoiding personal attacks or irrelevant tangents.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

• Competitors who can adapt their arguments and strategies based on changing circumstances or opponent tactics demonstrate versatility and agility.
• Flexibility in adjusting to time constraints, format variations, or unexpected challenges reflects maturity and preparedness.

6. Ethical Conduct:

• Integrity is non-negotiable. I expect competitors to uphold ethical standards, including honesty, respect for opponents, and adherence to the rules of fair play.
• Plagiarism or any form of cheating will result in severe penalties.

7. Overall Impact:

• Ultimately, I evaluate each performance based on its overall impact – the effectiveness of the argument, the persuasiveness of the delivery, and the engagement of the audience.
• While technical proficiency is important, the ability to inspire, provoke thought, or evoke emotion can elevate a speech or debate from good to exceptional.