Hi my name is Joe Atkin he/him. I have never judged before but I'm looking forward to it! I will be paying attention to a general attempt at memorization, delivery, weight, the content of the speech itself, grammar, and pacing

I did Public Forum for 4 years, and have been judging for 2.

I can handle speed but depending on the event I might rule that speed is less critical than hearing contentions

I trust you guys to time yourselves

I lean toward tech>truth

I do not flow cross, It is a clarifying period for both debaters, however, if you deem something important was brought up in cross, please mention it in a speech in order for it to continue on the flow. Make sure not to end up having cross becoming a yelling match, it is not going to make me want to vote for you more.

I love Impact Calculus in rounds, ex.(magnitude, timeframe)

Quantifiable impacts are not necessary but if argued correctly, I will weigh them over likelihoods.

if you need my email for email chains: scottccoller@gmail.com

My name is Cheryl Davies, I may be a parent judge, but I work in financial forensics, so don't think you can lie to me.

truth > tech

• Please do not spread. I need to hear your arguments in order to judge you properly.
• I expect clear argumentation for your warrants (not just evidence, show me that you understand the evidence)
• Aggressive cross is appreciated but please be respectful of each other
• I won't flow cross so if you want to have me judge based off an argument made there, bring it up in rebuttals
• Don't steal prep time - quickly start and stop your timer
• Please time yourselves
• Stay away from personal anecdotes, I won't be giving pity points
• Don't make race or gender arguments unless you can directly correlate them to the resolution
• I won't vote for you just because you feel "personally victimized" (unless there's a legitimate ad hominem fallacy) - arguments like that take away from the debate and I consider them abusive

Ks:

If you're going to run a K, make sure it's flushed-out and has a strong link that you clearly articulate.

Theory:

I'd prefer if debaters stay away from theory arguments and stick to the content under the resolution (no disclosure or frivolous theory please)

Tricks:

No.

If you make me laugh, I'll give you an extra speaker point.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I prefer understanding what is said - fewer, more convincing points - over spewing large amounts of information so fast it can’t be processed, unless showing the amount of information is important to make a point!

I have only judged twice mostly speech, but I have judged a few PF's. I am new to debate and I hope to learn from my experiences judging.

I've been involved in speech and debate since middle school (nerdy right?) and briefly competed for the University of Utah. Most of my experience is in IEs, but I have debated in World Schools (HS), BQ (HS), British Parliamentary, NFA-LD, IPDA and NPDA.

DEBATE:

For all debate events, I do not mind spreading as long as your opponent is able to understand you. If your opponent can't understand you and they made that clear to you (i.e., you were "cleared" or "slowed") but you ignored them... that will definitely be reflected on your ballot in one way or another.

Add me to the email chain: merrinmaughan@gmail.com

• PF: To be honest, PF is the event I have the least knowledge about. Impact calc/weighing is something to keep in mind for your final focus speeches- in fact, it's probably what I will consider first when casting my ballot. Show me why your team should win the debate or the consequences if you don't. You can extend the constructive into the first rebuttal, but you do not have to. All other feedback will be specific to the round.
• LD: If you run a K or any form of theory argument, it's totally fine with me. However, if you’re running a K and you cannot explain in lay vocab or it’s obvious to me you’re trying to exclude your opponent from the round with some esoteric argument… it’s unlikely you’ll win. Next, I know there's a lot of discourse on progressive vs. traditional LD, and with regard to my judging, I will vote for the debater who convinces me why they win. Voters are key, and along with impacts, they are what I will consider first when making a decision. Offense and rebuttals (telling me why you win the debate) are preferable to defense (why you're not losing).
• CX: I will totally vote on T if you run it properly and collapse to it. I don't mind Ks, but if you are running a K, please make sure you understand it and link it well to the resolution. A good rule to follow: if you can't explain it in lay terms, don't run it. I don't have any preferences for CPs or anything. I don't mind if you run something unique, ironic, gamey, etc. as long as you can link it well to the rez! :P I'm also always up for just straight up debate. Most importantly, be courteous and kind to your opponents.
• BQ: BQ is so fun, and it's also unique to the other debate events. It definitely calls for a higher level of respect- so when touchy topics come up (as they will), please treat your opponent(s) with kindness.

TDLR:Run anything you want (within reason lol), as long as you're being kind and respectful to your opponent. Speed is fine with me. Impacts are super important.

IE/SPEECH:

Some general things to consider... First, do not rely on the grace period. I was a high school speech kid, and I would do the sneaky thing and write my speeches right up to 10 minutes knowing I could usually get away with 10:05 or something... But, that 30 seconds is there to save you in the event you have a memory lapse, get interrupted by kids in the hall, etc. Don't rely on it to hit 10 minutes: practice makes perfect. Second... being memorized (in OO, info, interps) is always preferable to being unmemorized or partially memorized. Finally, as a general note, I will gladly give time signals and I will definitely offer them before each round, but I am not the best at them... I'm usually too engrossed in your speech!

Event-specifics:

• OO: As well as a strong presentation, I look for logically sound arguments (i.e., does your solution make sense for the problem you are trying to solve, are the causes/effects you present supported by real-world examples and evidence, etc.). In terms of presentation, I'll be looking for the use of a good speaker's triangle, hand gestures, and good eye contact. Importantly, present to the group, not just to me. This shows that you're gaining the skill, not just trying to win the round. Make sure you are verbally citing your sources- this becomes very important at the national and university levels!
• Info: Your VAs, if you are using them, should complement your speech, not inhibit it. Your implications should be realistic and make logical sense with the other two main points of your speech.
• Extemp: Stick to the 3-point structure, and if you deviate, justify it. Please be verbally citing your sources and not just providing examples/information from prep time. Fill your time as best you can without going under/over and relying on the grace period, as discussed above.
• Interps: I have the least experience with interps, but am aware of the regular rules for blocking and cutting, especially for duo. Just be mindful of those, and I'll base any other feedback off of your actual performance.
• POI/Poetry/Prose: Your gestures are just as important as your content, so move purposefully according to your topic/text. Incorporate the book where possible, and have fun being creative with it! Use drama/emotion purposefully and sparingly.

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.

Policy

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN PLEASE! gabrielparkin@mail.weber.edu *I won't normally refer to docs during the round, but having access to explicit warrants and unhighlighted portions of the cards are tools that I can use in order to make RFD as educational as possible.

I currently debate for Weber State University, alternating between Policy and CARD debate. I've been debating Policy and CARD since 2021. I'm currently studying Elementary Education and Special Education, so I view my role in debate first and foremost as an educator.

General thoughts;

“Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.” -Lauren Johnson's paradigm.

Judge instruction determines how I will write my ballot. Tell me what I should be evaluating at the end of the round.

Spreading is ok, but carries a strategic risk. Spreading is a strategic choice: you get to run extra arguments, but you are risking that I will miss something that you said; if something is not on my flow it means that you did not emphasize it enough.

"My opponent dropped X, so I should win", is not sufficient to get my vote- you need to explain why that statement is true. In other words: "I do not see judging a debate like studying a wiring diagram. I don't think debate is about making lists, checking them off, making new lists, checking them off, etc. Every debate is different; that is why we keep having them. Tell me what I need to know. Tell me why I should believe it. Tell me why it matters and what I should do with it. Tell me why and how your opponent is failing to do those things." - Travis Cram paradigm

"The judge's role is to critique the debaters' skills and provide feedback regarding how well they used arguments, strategies and communicative behaviors in light of how those things were communicated to the judge." (PNW philosophy of judging norms, 2020)

PF/LD

My attitude is largely the same here as it is for policy. I probably spend too much time writing my RFD's and input (after my ballot is in), but it's because I really want you to have get the most value out of that RFD. Please feel free to email me any questions before or after the round and I'll respond ASAP.

I am first and foremost an LD judge, and haven't had much experience in other debate formats like Policy or PF. As a result, I will be disclosing my paradigm for LD exclusively here.

LD: I prefer you to err on the side of traditional debate, as I don't have much experience with Policy or concepts that originate from there, nor do I have much experience with things such as Ks. However, I do quite like counterplans and would encourage running them if you have them available.

I value well-research contentions and framework above all else -- providing evidence is great. I would suggest you avoid trying to appeal to my emotions; LD is a morality-based debate, but I will vote based primarily on if your evidence is strongest regardless of my moral leanings.

Signposting is highly encouraged! I do like a very clear-structured debate and am not very partial to chaos. Please try to avoid spreading - speak clearly so I can understand you. I will let you know one time throughout the debate if I cannot understand you, but will not flow if you continue to speak at a level I can't understand.

I am relatively generous in terms of speaker points, but I will not hesitate to dock you if I find you to be disrespectful towards your opponent.

Nine-time judge.

Students: slow down when speaking. Getting more words out isn't beneficial if no one can comprehend what you are saying.

Do NOT put me in Congress.

Hello. My name is Tanner Unsworth. I competed in public forum along with foreign and national extemp for four years in high school (don't worry about using lingo with me) I graduated with the class of 2023, so I am still somewhat in the loop about what is happening in this community. I truly believe that participating in Speech & Debate is one of the best things you can be doing in high school. It is an enjoyable yet challenging experience, and for taking on that challenge I applaud you. With that out of the way, let's dive into my paradigm

Public Forum/LD

1. PLEASE TAGLINE YOUR CONTENTIONS! (along with your opponents when rebutting). Example: "Our first contention was....." "Our opponents second contention was... in response we argue that...". I normally do a pretty good job at following and flowing the round but if you tagline your contentions and sub-contentions it will make it a lot easier for me (along with your partner) to follow along and build off of what you say, creating a better opportunity for learning to take place
2. SPREADING. I dislike it. If you want to spread, I believe you should go join policy. While I am an experienced judge Public forum and LD should be accessible to someone who has never watched a debate round before. There's a difference between reading fast and clear and talking so fast that no one can understand what you are saying. If you are not sure if you are reading too fast, simply ask me and I can let you know if you are reading too fast. Again, I prioritize learning over winning in this activity, if no one can understand what you are saying then it becomes really difficult for this critical learning to take place.
3. EVIDENCE. Please, please, please have evidence for your own case and if you are going to attack one of your opponents arguments/contentions. I would recommend having the urls for the websites you used in your rebuttal doc or card doc. Please also make sure to say the author's name and date at least for example: "Smith 20 argues..." If you get rightfully called out for not having evidence in your case, rebuttals, etc. it can really damage the reliability of your argument. Please have access to your cards/evidence as well so that you can show them to your opponents, should the need arise. Also, please tell me how and why the evidence disproves your opponents' claim(s) instead of simply reading it and then moving on. We are competing with the new pilot rules which means you can use the internet to find evidence in round, however UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES USE WIKIPEDIA!
4. REBUTTAL/FRONTLINE. Please refute your opponents claims (using evidence and analysis) to tear their arguments apart. You should also frontline their attacks on your case/claims to build up your own arguments. Please DON'T FORGET TO FRONTLINE OR REFUTE, if you do you are simply conceding to the opponent.
5. TIME. I will be keeping time, I will give you around a 30 second grace period. If you do go over this period I will stop you so that we can move on with the rest of the round
6. SPORTSMANSHIP. This activity should be enjoyable and again a LEARNING experience for all who participate. I don't mind banter between partners and opponents however if you say anything that is simply insulting to your opponents, or racist, homophobic, etc. I will knock you down major points, and potentially automatically give you the loss. Please be respectful towards others while maintaining the competitive aspect of this activity.

Remember to have fun, work hard, and overall be a decent human being (at least while in round) (: .