2023-2024 Season:

general information

Hi! My name is Jordin, and I'll be your judge today. I'm really excited to be here, here's a little history on me and FAQ about my judging style.

~ I mainly did speech events In High school, Informative was my main event. I also participated in Public Forum, Congress & Parliamentary Debate, but I only went to region & state in PF and Info. I by all means was not a superstar, but I adore the world of speech & debate and would love to be a coach one day! ❤️

~I currently attend Weber State University studying Secondary History Teaching & Legal Studies.

Speech

~honestly, a huge shout-out if you're a speech kiddo and read paradigms. Even though they really don't apply to us. I love a fun topic, but don't let silliness compromise your speech. good luck!

Congress

I want to see you go all out if I am judging Congress. Convince me you're actually a Pep. or a Senator. follow Roberts Rules of Order. Use proper Decorum always. good luck!

Debate

~Treat everyone with respect! this includes your teammate & your opponents. new ideas and opinions are always welcome in debate! However, no matter what argument you are trying to make, if it is in violation of the NSDA rules on equity and respect- you will receive a loss. This includes but is not limited to; Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, xenophobia, & sexism.

~Tabula Rasa for all debate events. ~ I believe it if you tell me it, if your opponent is wrong; say something. Evidence is king

~I do not flow cross but I will listen intently!

~if your coach wrote your case please at least understand the contents of it.

Event Specifics

~PF: explain it to me like I am twelve years old, I can handle speed, but keep in mind I mainly Judge on the flow and cohesiveness of argument, (Understandable, arguable, having EVIDENCE, etc.) If I don't have time to write it down, I won't remember it. I really like catchy tag lines, the use of quotes, and analogies. Make me remember your round! But don't forget the fundamentals like having an Identifiable claim, warrant, & impact.

~LD/BQ: I love a good philosophical quote, but overall I don't have much experience with LD, so- debate well. I always flow in detail, Like PF It's flow & argumentation. give me voters, and have some swagger with it. Please don't just stare at your laptop! I'll get bored. Overall much luck! LD is probably my favorite style of debate to watch/flow/judge.

~Policy: I would never and could never judge policy. - if I am judging your policy round. Pray.

I was an LD and PF debater all 3 years of high school, dabbling in events such as Oratory, Informative, Duo Interp, and World Schools. Overall, be respectful, take care of your opponents, and take care of yourself. I do struggle sometimes with audio processing, so please speak clearly and for the love of everything on earth, do not spread/spew. You can run whatever you'd like, I love seeing unique arguments. The most important thing is to do your best and enjoy what you do. :)

Overall, have clear links, and make sure you can access your impact. If your link doesn't lead to your impact, I can't weigh it. Your scope and impacts should be clearly shown in round. Signposting is important, so please do so. I won't flow cross, I don't think it's important for me to do so, but if there's something important that's said then feel free to bring it up in a speech. Do your weighing throughout the round, not just in the last speech.

I can give oral critiques, but I will also be giving comments in your ballot. If you want a more in-depth paradigm for your event, look below or ask before the round starts.

Lincoln Douglas:
I like a more morals/value debate. If I can see that one side has won based on the value and criterion debate, as well as the morals debate, then they will win the round. Don't try to sell me on "this won't pass through [insert legislative branch]" because I won't buy it. LD is morals and values-based, stick to that. If you're running a Kritik, ask your opponent if you can run it first before asking me. If they decline, honor that.

Public Forum:
Uphold your framework throughout the round, or else there's no reason to weigh it. I don't appreciate seeing competitors interrupt each other rudely during grand cross, so please be courteous and respectful to both your teammate and your opponent.

Policy:

I have no experience in Policy, so if there is a chance I'm judging your Policy round, please just walk me through it. Give me a copy of your case, you can use jargon I don't mind. But I trust that you know what you're doing.

Speech events:
Do well! I think it's silly to have a paradigm for speech events, but if you are a speech kid and are happening to look at my paradigm, then do well! Do what you know. Have confidence, and most importantly 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

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.

.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

I’m a new judge, please speak slowly and confidently. Debate good. Lay judge, truth over tech.