I am a parent of a Timpview High School debate student. I did not participate in debate as a student, and have not judged very many debate tournaments.

I appreciate when debaters can present their arguments clearly and succinctly rather than speed reading through a list of flow points as fast as they can.

For LD, I will evaluate the round using an interpretive framework. This establishes an approach to the resolution and presents evaluative positions to the judge. For each resolution, no matter what side you are advocating you
should ask yourself, not only what must I defend but to which degree must I defend it? Must my
position (and my opponents') be true always or true most of the time? What exceptions can be
made and which exceptions cannot be tolerated? Your interpretive framework should explicitly
answer these questions.

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 mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

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.

My name is Gideon Martin, and I'm a Speech and Debate Judge with extensive experience on both sides.

Speech: I'm looking for great presentation, excellent vocabulary, and a clear understanding of your topic. Having a speech that is well structured and easy to follow is a huge plus. (If your competing in an event that requires sourcing, make sure that you properly source your speech. I can't believe any sort of statistics or information you give me if you don't have a source to back it up.)

Debate: Clear, logical, and well sourced arguments are what I'm looking for. Make sure your arguments/evidence are quantifiable. Prove to me that I should prefer your sources and evidence to your opponents, or that they outweigh your opponents arguments. Make sure that there is clash between your case and your opponent. I also want to be given clear voters. You need to tell me exactly why I should vote for your side. (Especially in Final Focus for all you pfers)

Hi! I'm Ronan Spencer, a student at Utah State studying Political Science. I have debated for 7 years of my life and am currently debating collegiately. I believe in the power of public speaking and think that debate is one of the most powerful skills you will ever develop, here's my paradigm...

Congress:

Please have a roadmap and consider having an engaging intro, as well as speakers triangle if you find fit.

Public speaking in this event is important, use hand gestures and eye contact.

Referencing other opponents is important, if you attack somebody's speech and use evidence to back yourself up then you are very impressive.

Papers and computers are fine, I probably won't give your more preference if you have your speech on a legal pad, however it is impressive if you were able to create a speech extemporaneously (BUT HAVE EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!)

PO/chair should be able to keep time and be able to run the round smoothly without hiccups, if you make a mistake or mess something up dont worry because being a PO can be hard. Having a PO sheet on the board or online is always appreciated.

LD:

I appreciate clash and thought-through cases.

I enjoy when people attack others on their cards and pick apart their case based on the validity or relevance of their evidence, beware of cards because they might not always be completely accurate!

I think that even in a debate based event its important to consider speaking ability as well, I like people who use hand gestures or make an effort to not stare at their laptop during their whole case.

During rebuttals it is your time to shine, make sure you make it understandable and structured, nothing is more important than a roadmap.

If you throw multiple sub points and bombard the other speaker with lots of points that don't make a lot of since, I won't consider it completely bad if the opponent decides to drop them (within reason). I know that some people like to throw half baked points at the opponent, quality over quantity unless its interesting subpoints!

Crazy link chains can be fun if you explain them correctly and provide evidence.

Make your case understandable, when people read a card and then explain it briefly and why it is important I like that. Also voters are important!

Policy:

Clash with your opponents on their cards, ask them about them in questioning.

You don't need to spread for everything, personally, I like being able to understand your case more than having you try to get through it the whole time. If some cards are exceptionally long then I don't see it as trouble.

Counterplans are good if you can explain them correctly!

I don't see any problem in Kritik's if you make them understandable and don't fill them jargon that me or your opponent won't understand. If you run a K, do it because you care or because it fits with your goal. It can be interesting to see unique K's play out.

Impacts and solvency are important, if me or your opponent don't understand how your plan achieves something or why that is important then your case won't seem effective enough to win.

Crazy link chains and outcomes add something interesting to a debate but don't overdo and if you do, provide your evidence!

Impromptu:

Personally stories are super powerful so share them!

I like when people relate things to something more interesting, for example if you get the topic plant make it into a speech about how humans grow and blossom (like a plant).

If you can, memorized statistics are always interesting or if you bring in a phenomenon or historical event.

Engaging intros are important and will be given more preference, as well as speakers triangle!

I'm not as strict on time, just make sure you aren't using 2:30 and above of prep time if its not needed.

Qualifications:

2023 6A Congressional Debate State Champion

4x Region Champion

2x Semi-final Congressional House Debater at NSDA Nationals

5x NSDA National Qualifier

Speech and Debate Team Captain for Corner Canyon Highschool 22-23

Collegiate Debater at Utah State University

I promise I will give you a fair and reasonable ballot, I know what its like to be judged unfairly or be placed low in a round where you tried your best. Debate is hard but I think we should all be considerate of one another and be respectful, at the end of the day we are doing this for fun. Keep debating and never lose that passion!

I did Public Forum debate all 4 years of high school, but in that time I also did the majority of the speech events and Lincoln Douglas a couple times. I was also a team captain my senior year. I am now a Coach who is very passionate about speech and debate

LD/PF:

I primarily judge based on how well you can connect your Framework/Value and Criterion to your case as well your opponent’s case. Flow is also very important in my decisions as a judge. You must refute every contention and refutation that your opponent gives with adequate evidence and reasoning.

Congress:

I want to see connection to the other speeches for the bill. Make refutations, make new arguments. Don’t just stand in front of me and read me a speech that is the same as the one before.

Speech:

Please be passionate in what you are speaking about. I will give more points to you if your speech is memorized and flows smoothly. I will NOT give a top 3 place to any Oratories that sob stories. I want to be inspired. Not depressed.

MOST IMPORTANLY
Always be kind and respectful to your opponent. You are opponents, not enemies. If you are rude or filibuster I will give you low speaker points.

I look for professionalism/poise, conscious involvement, and organization. Knowledge of the topic is a perk.

I dock for eye rolls and drama.