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.

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!

Briefest possible summary

Former policy debater, one hard and fast rule:

1. Read an aff with a plan text. If you don't, I'll vote neg.

Other, but Important

Tech>>Truth

If an argument is new in the 2NR/2AR, it doesn't exist. If the 1AR reads a new advantage, or the neg block a new off-case position, no they didn't. I take a pretty firm stance here, debate is about clash so you need to say your arguments early enough for others to clash with them.

Be nice to each PLEASE. This is a fun activity, I get that from your side of the room it is very stressful and competitive, but from my side of the room it is not nearly that serious. Just try to get closer to my side of the room sometimes, I guess is what I'm saying.

I'd prefer to disclose, unless we're in a time crunch. Please ask me questions or argue with me in the RFD, that's the best part (I'm being very close to fully serious).

T

I loved, loved T as a debater and would like to see more 2NRs on T! I think that having a clear internal link chain from violation to fairness/education is important and a neglected area that negatives often skip over.

I have never, and may never, understand what "reasonability" is or how to evaluate it. I'm willing to vote for neg on T if they do it well, even if the aff is really common or clearly intended as part of the topic - so affs, don't scandalously undercover T in the 2AC.

Theory

I like a lot of theory arguments. Again, my philosophy is that you need to win the argument here - not just point out how common or obviously okay your practice is. My bias is against both conditionality and speed, so a slow aff team going for condo bad would be a dream for me. I think that good theory debates should look a lot like good T debates: interpretation, violation, internal links, impacts.

I think single-line theory arguments that are expanded into whole speeches if dropped are a cheap trick, but if the theory argument starts off decently fleshed out and has a completed structure (interp, violation, impacts), and then is dropped, I'm likely to vote on it (AKA don't drop theory).

CP

I'm generally skeptical of process-type counterplans, except for states + federalism. In fact, I probably lean aff on CP theory mostly.

I tend towards the position that the aff plan is as vague or specific as necessary to allow for permutations to process CPs (e.g. supreme court CP) and that fiat usually prevents a link to any attached politics DAs. That said, this is just my personal bias and I have been convinced by politics DA + process CP before.

DA

I love me a good nuclear war impact as much as any policy nerd. Straight turns are cool, but I also like affirmative defense on DAs. A lot of internal link chains are really shaky, if the aff hits this hard, I'm willing to assign 0% risk of extinction and ignore the flow.


Ks

I was a K debater for much of my time in debate, on both the aff and neg. That said, I'm pretty convinced that affs should have plan texts and try to be topical.

I like Ks with links, and am skeptical of the link in many instances. This should inform your affirmative strategy against a K!

History

Former policy debater from Juan Diego, with some, limited, national success (won a bid to the TOC my Junior year). I was a 2N my whole career. I did the education, immigration, arms sales, and criminal justice topics.

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).

Experience: I competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years. 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! Im so excited to be your judge today. First and foremost, please be respectful not only to me, but especially your opponents and other judges and coaches at this tournament. Debate should be fun, but not at the expense of others.

I debated policy in high school and went to nationals 3 years in a row. I have some brief experience in LD, i get the jist of most debate events. Speech i'm not as well versed in but i do believe i have the ability to judge you fairly as i am a big believer that speech is just as important in the form of an oratory as it is in any debate round.

ifI'm judging you inparliamentary, please remember that it is a "mock parliament", and not a mini policy round, or an LD round, or a PF round.

LD--

as a judge, I'm obligated and willing to go wherever you take the round and follow/judge accordingly. however, I would love to see you debate your values and value criterion. I think this is an important aspect of LD that sometimes gets rolled over, and can make a round more enriched and exciting.

POLICY—

I am a huge advocate for more “speech etiquette” in policy. I want to see how you can argue for your case without spewing evidence at my face. Policy is an art. SHOW me you have the skills to communicate your points!! I love to see a debater that knows what they are talking about, and knows exactly how to present it. Frame my mind. Bribe me with your words. That being said, I don't have any issue with spreading and in fact would encourage it in the 1AC and 1NC. However enunciation is important. don’t be afraid to slow it down a bit after that point to really show me what you can do. I won’t give you high speaks for yelling and spewing your cards at me, that’s not debate, that's just a headache.

T-

If you can play your topicality game right i’m more than certain to vote on it.

K’s-

Like i previously stated i do have plenty of policy debate experience so as long as you run a K correctly i’m completely capable of following it. Aff K’s should be careful, and i’m not a huge fan on “policy should die” regimes in Kritiks. Make sure you choose the right one for the right round, don’t copy and paste a generic link and expect me to place it at the top of my voter list.

p.s i haven’t had time to fully edit and write this so if you have any questions, please ask :)

For debates/Congress/Extemp/etc.:

Structure/organization is critical. Therefore, provide a roadmap: state your thesis, state your contention(s), and provide a brief summary up front. Before transitioning from one contention to the next, summarize what you have just demonstrated (e.g., a statement that starts with "Therefore..." and then basically restates the take-home-message of that contention.

Arguments must be sound and should be easy to follow. Don't make assumptions.

Delivery: I care far more about quality than quantity. One of the strongest PF arguments I judged had only one contention. Speaking loud and fast is not persuasive; making a good argument is.

Rebuttals, etc.: Use cross examination time to undermine and/or demonstrate the flaws in your opponent's position. Be specific and direct.

For POI:

Great character development with clear distinctions (blocking, posture, voice, etc.) is vital.

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!

Did policy debate throughout high school, and am pretty well versed in most literature out there. I'll just go over some general preferences I have, with the caveat that no matter what I like/dislike I will vote on anything if it's argued well enough.

Administrative stuff: Tag-teaming in cross is fine, yes I want to be on the email chain (camdenmead5562@gmail.com) I'm generally a believer that disclosure is good for debate, please time yourselves, and yes spreading is fine.

My judging style is truth>tech, but "truth" is rather ambiguous. Just don't try to convince me the sky is green or that Mexico is a part of the United States (yes, this did happen) and I shouldn't have a problem voting for the args you put in front of me

T/Theory: I do believe that there is a place for topicality and theory in debate and can make a round interesting, but make sure you do more analysis outside of repeating the 1NC shell over and over again.

K/K affs: I really enjoy a good K, but framing and link work here is crucial to me. Don't be lazy and run a one-off K with a super general link, because I'll be really bored. If you're running a K aff, just make sure you explain really well why the resolution is bad for debate, and I shouldn't have a problem following you.

Framework: I love framework debates, and am all for whatever you have here.

Impacts: make sure you do a good analysis throughout each speech you give. Don't wait until the rebuttals to remind me of why I'm voting for you.

feel free to ask me questions before/after the round! I have a significant research background on NATO and would love to help you in any way I can.

Poise, prosody, tone, volume, clarity

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

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.

Experience

I am a new Speech and Debate coach, so I am still learning the ins and outs of each event. Feel free to clarify times, norms, or format for your event if you would like to. I have been teaching English for 10 years, so I know a great argument when I hear it.

What I like to see

I look for organization, logical arguments, and compelling examples. Dynamics in your pace, tone, and expressions are crucial. Being pointed but respectful during cross x is important! I prefer a roadmap and, ultimately, I am looking for the most logical well well-developed framework in debates.

What I don't like to see

I do not like to see overly aggressive behavior in cross x, logical fallacies, or extremism on either side. I do not enjoy speakers who fall into a monotone and expressionless script. Help me feel connected and passionate about your case!

I have no history with debate, but I do have a history with law and business.

I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way. Showing respect and professionalism is very important. Creating a strong case is just as important as breaking down the other team's case.

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

Speak clearly, avoid excessive speed.

My paradigm is good sportsmanship is key to winning. Please be respectful of your competition. Don't talk over your fellow competitors, don't roll your eyes or other rude gestures. Poor sportsmanship will cost speaker points and may be the tipping point for choosing the winner in a close contest.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

ADDED JUNE 2023

I've had about one year of experience judging debates at the High School level. My experience has largely been with congress and public forum events. As a judge, my primary focus is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the participants' performances. I firmly believe that decisions should be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and should not be influenced by personal or political biases. I will approach each round with an open mind, giving equal consideration to all viewpoints and avoiding any preconceived notions.

In evaluating the strength of an argument, I value the use of evidence from reputable sources. The inclusion of well-supported facts, statistics, and expert opinions can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. Participants who effectively incorporate such evidence into their speeches will receive due recognition for their analytical and research skills.

Furthermore, I will take into account the presentation style of each participant. While this includes aspects such as speech clarity, annunciation, and projection, it extends beyond these technical elements. I appreciate engaging speakers who effectively connect with their audience, employing appropriate gestures, vocal variation, and overall stage presence. These qualities contribute to the overall impact and effectiveness of the speaker's message.