I judge based off flow, and I'm fairly traditional. That's about it.

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.

I'm not super experienced in this arena, I didn't participate in speech and debate in high school (we called it "forensics" back then--don't ask me why) and I just started judging in the fall of 2023 when my kid joined the speech and debate team. I think because of that, my paradigm is going to be more aligned with a "person you meet on the street" than a person who is well-versed in the intricacies of speech and debate. (Although--I am actively striving to learn more and be a better judge with each event.)

Because of this, there are a few points I'd like to share.

Don't speak too fast. If you are talking too quickly, I get overwhelmed and it can be hard for me to take in all that you are saying, much less evaluate and fully understand it. So, in the choice between quantity of information and quality of information, always go with quality. When possible, try to provide context for the information, such as how it relates to the question at hand, how it will likely impact people in real life, etc.

I love a good road map (whether off time or on time). When you let me know where we're going, and then at the end remind me where we've been, it takes the load off of me needing to glean that information from what you say. That frees me up to truly focus on you, your performance, and the points that you are making, which will result in you getting better feedback from me, and a score that is the result of more thought on my part.

In Impromptu speeches, be clear and deliberate about how your speech relates to the prompt. Often a student will read the prompt at the beginning of the speech, and then immediately pivot to a subject that is only tangentially related to the prompt (presumably because they are more comfortable speaking about or more prepared to address that subject), and then give a speech about that subject, rather than the prompt.

I don't know that I blame you for doing that (you are definitely pressed for time, no question), but the name of the event is Impromptu, not "retrofitting previously prepared speeches to fit a prescribed prompt." Because of that, I definitely pay attention to how well the speech fits within the prompt. Of course, with a total of 7 minutes to prepare and speak, I don't expect you to be able to present a perfectly prepared offering on a subject that was just given to you. I guess what I'm saying is that if you do decide to speak about something that isn't clearly and directly related to the prompt, strive to build a nice sturdy bridge to get us from the prompt to your subject and then back again.

Finally, this isn't a paradigm thing, but I want to thank you for participating in speech and debate. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to be able to hear you and learn from you. You make me think, you entertain me, you educate me, and most importantly, you give me hope for the future of our nation and our world, and it is always a pleasure for me to be with you. Thank you!

I do:

*shake hands.

*let you keep your own time, although I will keep time as well.

*like eye contact and demonstrative body language. (Hint: You can't do this as well when holding a Chromebook.)

*like it when you stand. It shows respect.

*like sources. There is such a thing as too many sources, but usually I don't see enough.

*like good evidence and easy-to-follow logic.

*like you to stay on topic.

*like easy, everyday sort of examples that help make a big topic more understandable. I particularly like personal examples.

*like open minds.

*like respect of all in the room. This includes respect for your opponents(s), topic, classroom objects, and judge.

*like ethical, professional behavior.

*like old fashioned good manners.

*like to call "time" on cross. That is the judge's job.

*like it when your contentions/topics are relatively few (with few or no subpoints) and VERY easy to identify. Repeat them many times to ensure I know what they are. I can't flow contentions that I can't easily identify.

*like when you allow your opponent a chance to ask a question during cross. (Please don't hog all the time for yourself.)

I do NOT:

*like spreading. Please slow down. I have never heard anyone go too slow.

*like when you read your content word for word from your notes. Wean yourself from your notes! Usually presentation is better when you speak from your mind and on your feet.

*like animosity, disrespect, or obscenities.

*like when you abruptly cut off your train of thought simply because your time is up. I am fine giving a grace period of 10 to 30 seconds so you can wrap it up nicely.

*like when you talk over another individual (although it can be minimally expected during cross).

I'm a sophomore at the University of Utah, and I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and was my team's Debate Captain my senior year. I also competed in Big Questions occasionally and have judged plenty of LD, so your round is in good hands.

Impacts > warrants (IMPACT CALC!!!! Weigh! Your! Impacts!)

Tech > truth (I don't care what you argue as long as you can argue it well; make sure your links are solid.)

I value topicality. If your argument is not topical you probably will not win the round. Please read the resolution carefully before you write a case on it. Literally my biggest pet peeve is non-topical arguments.

Analyze your evidence. Don't just read it, tell me what it means and why it matters.

SIGNPOST! Tell me what arguments you are addressing in your speeches. Makes my job so much easier and your round will go much smoother.

Utilize your framework throughout the round. Don't spend time telling me that your framework is better than your opponents, because I do not care - tell me how both your and your opponents' framework flows to your side. Framework should frame the round. Please actually tie your claims back to your framework.

VOTERS! Tell me why you won. I will take any voter you bring up into account. Utilize your final speech!!!

Be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to verbally abuse each other. Good sportsmanship still applies here.

I judge primarily based on flow, speaker points will be given for presentation and sportsmanship. I do not flow cross-ex, any points made in cross will not be flowed unless they're brought up in a later speech.

As your judge I'm simply just here to observe, your round is between you and your opponent. You direct and control the round, I'm just here to watch.

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.

I am new to judging debate and speech.

In debate I like sources to back the debate, I flow based off contentions taking into account which contentions hold.

For speech I like when the speaker engages the audience.

Public Forum:

I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.

Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.

There are two main components of a successful debate: evidence and presentation.

I believe that having evidence is a necessity. No bonus points for good evidence or commentary. You'll lose your argument if it doesn't make sense or if your evidence back up your claims, but if your arguments are constructed well, then I decide the debate based off of presentation skills.

I have enough experience under my belt to keep up with you, don't worry about going too fast. I'll understand what you say, but speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Emphasize the main points, signpost, make it flow.

I don't like giving away speaker points, I see too many people getting perfect points when they aren't even the best speaker in their debate. 28 points is a good score. 29 is excellent. I only give 30's if you blow me away.

If I give any tips that sound rude, that is not my intention. I believe that feedback is supposed to help. No one benefits from a paragraph of praise. I give feedback for you to improve.

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

Evidence and logic are most persuasive for PF and LD debates, especially as they relate to overall efficiency and the greater good.

As for speech events, I look for confidence, speaking presence, and passion for your topic.

Good luck! :)

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

A pair of dimes walk into a bar. The bar tender says this looks like a joke.

I did Public Forum for 3 years in high school and am so excited to be back to judge!!

DO

• Speak clearly and loudly, my auditory processing isn't the greatest
• Use roadmaps and let me know where I should be flowing what you're saying
• Have sources to back up your points (If they have me judging an event that's not PF this one doesn't apply as much)
• Relax! You're going to do a better job, and it's going to make the vibes so much better for everyone.
• Ask good questions during cross. It will benefit you and make it more fun to watch for me.

DON'T

• Spread or spew
• Gender your opponent in round. This is one of my biggest icks and you will immediately lose speaker points (especially if you get it wrong).
• Interrupt too much during cross. If they're going on a tangent I don't care, but let them finish answering your questions please.
• Get too heated or upset. It's just a debate round, you'll live.
• Make too many jokes. I enjoy a little bit of humor, but I'm weighing the round on flow and the quality of your points, not how funny you are.

I will be flowing the round and judging who wins mostly on that. I'm not going to flow cross, but I will keep it in mind, especially if I need a tiebreaker. Overall just take a deep breath, be professional, and have fun!

Hello!

If you're a novice please read this first: Welcome to the amazing world of debate! Seriously debate is freaking amazing, and was definitely the highlight of my time in high school. I learned how to do research, how to express opinions, and most importantly, how to see both sides of an issue (and yes nearly every issue has two legitimate sides). Honestly my biggest piece of advice coming into round is just to stay calm. Debate can be a very scary world to jump into. You'll hear weird debate jargon that no one in their right mind normally uses (Kritik, T-shell, DA- I'm going to be using some of those words below). You'll hear kids speak at ∞+1 words per minute and it will sound like a literal machine gun. And you'll see megafiles with 200 pages of arguments and wonder how anyone can have the time to make those when it took you 2 weeks just to come up with 10 pages of arguments. It can be very very easy to get overwhelmed. So my best piece of advice is just to stay calm. Have fun, enjoy the moment, enjoy the work you've put in to building a case. Understand that no one expects you to be a flawless debater, especially in your first year. I don't expect it, your coaches don't expect it, and you shouldn't expect it either. Just have fun and be willing to learn, and you'll see just how amazing debate can be.

Personal Bio:

Some quick things about me. I graduated from Woods Cross in 2020. I did debate for three years, and spent 99% of that time doing LD. I'm in college now, studying Economics. I was a fairly serious debater while in high school, and I think my judging style reflects that. Speaking of...

Judging Style (LD):

Okay now for the good stuff. One quick note: I firmly believe that you can never "win" a debate, rather all you can do is "win" over a judge. I think this applies to real life too. With that note out of the way, let's get down to business.

*For PF Debate*

I judge PF in much the same way I judge LD, with one main exception. I care far less about the value/criterion debate in PF than I do in LD, and will weight more heavily evidence and statistics rather than just moral arguments. Feel free though to ask me any questions before the round starts (this applies regardless of what event you're doing).

*For traditional debate*

Value/Criterion: This is the first thing I look at at the end of a debate. Essentially, your value/criterion is going to tell me how I should view the round. You do not need a value/criterion to win me over as a judge, just make sure to explain to me why your way of thinking should be preferred to your opponent's way of thinking. The winner of the round will be the debater that most fulfills the winning value. For example, if the winning value is "Nationalism", then the winning side is going to be the one that leads to the most nationalism. Likewise, if the winning value is "Quality of Life", then the winning debater is going to be the one that proves that their side leads to a higher quality of life for all. As such, you do not need to win the value debate to win the round. You just need to show that your side fulfills your opponent's value more than their side does. If neither side defends their value/criterion, or presents one to be defended, then my default value is Quality of Life with a Criterion of Utilitarianism (i.e. whichever side improves the quality of life for the most amount of people wins the debate).

Arguments: Organization is critical. Make sure to show me how your contentions support your framework (or your opponent's framework if that's your style), how your subpoints support your contentions, and how your cards support your subpoints. Well organized arguments are much more effective, easier to flow, and are going to be much more compelling to me as a judge. Well organized counterarguments are simply beautiful to watch. With that said, feel free to brake away from the "traditional" framework if it suits your purposes.

Impacts: This kind of goes along with arguments, but I decided to make a special section just for it because I believe it's SUPER important. Make sure to compare your impacts with your opponents, and tell me why they outweigh.

*For progressive debate*

I'll be honest, I'm much more well-versed in traditional debate than with Kritiks (K's). However, I still love hearing K's, and think the underlying theory behind them is fascinating. If you're going to run a K, or any other form of progressive debate, just make sure that you're organized (yes as you can probably tell by now I'm big into organization). I'll update this more if I start seeing more progressive debate.

Final thoughts:

1. I believe that cross-ex is entirely for the person asking questions. That means that if you ask a question, feel free to politely cut off your opponent after about a sentence or two (please don't cut them off after only two words).

2. There is a difference between attacking your opponent's arguments and attacking your opponent. Attack your opponent's arguments mercilessly. Don't attack your opponent.

3. If you have any other questions, or need me to clarify something, please don't hesitate to ask. This is your round, and I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Ultimately I expect you to communicate persuasively and move the arguments forward. In policy I expect you to move the argument, explain the flow, and advocate for voters. I will vote on stock issues, topicality, solvency, counterplans, etc. based on where you push the argument and where your opponents push back. You can spread but realize I will likely ask for you to provide me the key cards so that I can read them in context--ensure you are properly using the text.

In LD realize that value and criterion will be key from which I will evaluate your persuasiveness of how you lay out the case. Do not ignore what your opponent says, rather address their arguments to refute them.

Hello,

I look forward to the opportunity to judge you all.

The quality of the information you are presenting is more beneficial to your case than the quantity. I am ok with a fast pace however, clarity is more important than speed.

I feel it is necessary to demonstrate respect for your opponent's case as well as your own.

I would prefer if you kept your own time during the round.

Overall, please be respectful, understandable, and have fun!

Hey! I'm Patrick Neal, and I'm very excited for this round! I had a lot of experience in a variety of events in my 3 years of High School Debate at Viewmont High, and I'm excited to give you guys some great feedback!

Experience:

Like I said, I did 3 years of Speech and Debate experience. I mainly did LD, but I have debated Big Questions as well as Congress, as well as World Schools Debate at the National Tournament. As for Speech, I have done National Extemp, Pro-Con, Humorous Interpretation, Impromptu, and Informative. I like to think I'm well rounded, but I have much more experience in Debate. I'll divide up the Paradigm to debate and speech events.

GENERAL:

EVIDENCE. Please. Back up your claims with warrant. If your giving a speech, I would love to have the source in your speech.

TIMING: If you absolutely need me to give you time signals, I can. I would love it if you don't and time yourself, just so I can focus on notes and feedback. It helps both of us out.

CLARITY: A little more background, I'm also a theater kid, so I stress diction to my team. Be clear. Speed isn't everything, being articulate and able to be understood is king.

DEBATE:

CROSS EXAMINATION: I don't flow cross. If there's a good point you bring up, reiterate it in your case. Be civil and polite, but also answer the question fully. Don't dodge it.

Rebuttals: This is the key to me voting for you, proving how your case is better. During rebuttals, please respect the other person, but also...Pronouns. They can be tricky and confusing. If you really want to use them, ask the opponent before the round. Or just avoid it by saying, "They said, My Opponent said, the Affirmative (AFF) or the Negation (Neg) said, etc."

TELL ME WHY YOU ARE WINNING. Please. I will be flowing the round, but I am human and often miss things. In your last speech, save a little time for some voters! Tell the judge why you are winning.

As for me, I vote on a few things. Number one is Framework. I'll judge framework by a few things. Number one is how your Value fits the round. If you can prove to me that your Value, or Criterion fit your opponents case better, I'm likely to vote for you. If you can't do that, simply prove to me why your Value is inherently better. Either Morally or otherwise.
If you are in the round, y'all should know how to flow, so when you are giving a rebuttal speech, make sure to hit everything! Don't drop anything, especially the framework! Even a sentence, or simply saying that you'll respond to it on the other side of the flow, that works, but make sure you do it. I will vote against you if you drop a speech. And remember that as the AFF you can't wait to respond to your opponents case till your final speeches. That goes for NEG too but in a different way....If you need more info ask in round. I will vote against you on the grounds of abuse if you do this. It's something I hate about debate, so just FYI. I trust y'all and know you can stay away from this.

SPEECH EVENTS:
Extemp: Please please please ANSWER THE QUESTION. Most topics ask a question, and I would love for you to answer it.

SPAR/Impromptu: Make your speech more than the prompt. Make a story out of it, and have a good hook. For SPAR, be clear and again make sure that I know your winning.

Interps: I don't think I need to say it, but just in case, your telling me some kind of story. Make sure it's clear, and make sure that I know the difference between Characters and things like that.

Oratory & Informative: Honestly I group these together, and will judge them pretty similarly. Make sure that you have a good structure to your speech, Make sure it's easy to follow.

SPEECH GENERAL STUFF: I *Might* tell you a few things that I would change in your speech in the ballot. Take all that with a grain of salt, since you and I likely think very different.

Again, very excited to listen to this round, and Good Luck!

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 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.

.

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.

Please use SammyLSimpkins@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.

Experience:

I've debated in many events, primarily CX and PF. I have debated on both a local and national level. I have also tried my luck at speech events.

DEBATE

• Clear flow- I should be able to tell where arguments flow to. Tell me where you will be flowing so I can stay on top of it. This is very important in any event.

• Clash- I’m fine with clashing, especially in cross examination time. Just don’t be a jerk.

• K’s- I love creative K’s as long as they are done well and thought out fully.

• T- If you can use T in an effective way that actually argues against Aff then go for it. But to use it just to use it is not a good use of time.

• Spreading- I love it IF you are a clear speaker. Totally fine to do.

THINGS I LOVE

• Philosophical arguments

• Line-by-line analysis

• Quantitative data

I’m pretty chill with anything you bring to the round as long as you do it good. If you want specific feedback feel free to email me after the round.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.

Please include me on the email chain. steltercarter@gmail.com

Paradigm- I am basically okay with anything. Just make sure to justify it against this default paradigm and I’ll adapt (debate is a game). For example:

I expect a plan-centered debate where I am the judge of a logical game. If you want to change that, (for example, you want to run a K affirmative), just make sure you give me a reason why and I will accept it blindly. I won’t evaluate the legitimacy of the reason unless you want me to. I just want it to be signposted essentially that my paradigm must shift. Same goes for if you want me to be a policy maker, if you convince me I have a moral obligation to vote for one side or the other, etc.

In my default paradigm, debate as a logic game means that you can go for really any argument and win. Aka, there’s not an argument that I specifically would never vote on, as long as it proves the logical trueness or falseness of the topic at hand. (This includes T)

You can ask me any questions about this paradigm before the round begins. Good luck everybody

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.

Background: I did debate in high school (mostly PF and Interps, but I tried almost all the events). I coached for a tiny bit, and now I'm here to judge!

**Feel free to ask for clarification about any of the following at the beginning of the round.**

DEBATES-

PF: Be civil to each other. You won't win me over by being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, especially during cross ex. Remember to hit voters hard in your final focus. Don't go too progressive. This is PF, not policy.

Policy: Go slow. I did policy for only a little while as a novice, so I can follow, but I'm not an expert. Overexplain and try not to be too progressive.

LD:LD is the only event I haven't done personally, so I don't really know my preferences yet.

Congress: I prefer concrete policy suggestions instead of abstract theories (how could we really do this?). I like if you can think through potential intended and unintended consequences of your policy decisions.

SPEAKING-

Interps: Don't touch or look at each other. Don't touch the floor. Try to bring a full range of emotions.

Impromptu: Avoid filler words. Feel free to be literal or creative with the use of your topic.

Oratory: Show confidence. Be polished, but try not to be robotic in your delivery. Have some ebb and flow to the energy of your delivery.

Extemp: Give some background in addition to answering your question. Answer it thoroughly and insightfully. Have confidence and avoid filler words.

Hi friends! I’be done policy debate for 4 years and I’ve done LD for 2. Now I’m helping out with coaching PF. Im currently going to USU and majoring at social work. Overall I would just say be kind in round. I know debate is stressful but kindness goes a long way.

Policy

I’m ok with spreading but not spewing. I’ll put my pen down if I can’t understand you. I’m ok with tag team cross. However, I don’t like flex prep but if everyone else is chill then so am I. Please put me on the email chain: calebjustinwilkerson@gmail.com

I lean to truth over tech. Don’t panic though because I still will vote off of technicality. What I mean by truth over tech is that I won’t do any work for you on the flow. For example, If you read a DA without a link but the aff doesn’t call you on it. I still won’t vote for you. However, if your argument is complete then I will vote off it if you win on the flow. Overall, I just expect you guys to make while and complete arguments. Policy is more than then flow. We need substance.

not a fan of conditional arguments, but I will vote for them. Be careful tho cause if you get called out on performative contradiction or condo theory I’m probably gonna give that flow to the aff unless you do a lot of work on standards.

Not a fan of pics, but I will vote for them if you do the work

I actually really love theory. Just make sure you give me standards and voters.

I think link is more important then uniqueness

i will vote off of topicality sometimes. Topicality is a theory tho so make sure you run it like it.

I will vote of Ks but I’m not deep into the literature so explain it really well. You better have pretty good framework and roll of the ballot theory because I default to stock framework.

I don’t like the idea of AFF Ks. I will vote off it if you can win framework AS WELL AS the K flow

I love to vote off presumption ballots. So I do believe inherency is a thing. If you can win the stock debate then you are cracked. However you gotta have a stock knockout. Weigh the defense against your offense

impact calc is really good.

Weigh the Offense V.S. Defense in the round. I first look at Apriori, then framework, then alternative advocacy, then impact weight.

I will give you an extra .1 speaker points if you tell me a really good dad joke

I very much am a quality of quantity debater. I argument needs a claim, warrant, and evidence. If you can win on the line by line through comparing warrants in the cards I will be so happy.

Overall just don't leave me to do any work on the flow

LD

I am a fiend for line by line. A argument is consistent of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. All I’m saying is that there is usually a pretty logical way to make arguments so don’t make stretches. Use imperial evidence to support claims in the context of your point.

framework is important but I am not going to do the work for you. Really describe what your framework is and why I should view the world that way. You gotta convince me that is what’s moral.

make sure that your criterion is a way for me to measure you’re value. You case should then continue to meet that metric you just set up. I have been seeing way too many value and criteria debates that just aren’t logical. My favorite frameworks talk about where in society do we develop a moral RESPONSIBILITY to take action. I wanna see the moral burden. I love the value care ethics.

if your value is morality imma be really really sad

PF

I love PF debate because of the focus of evidence. I want to see comparisons of evidence. Explanation is going to go a long way for you guys. Make sure to impact out your arguments. I love impact calc so very much. On top of that I really like framework on impacts. CBA is great and all, but take it deep. Tell me In framework what impacts should be prioritized.

Hello everyone! My name is Mykelle Williams and I am so excited to judge your round today, I did Debate for 3 years and I absolutely loved it. I'm all about feedback, but if you have anything specific you want me to look out for, let me know. I'm going to divide my main paradigm into three parts, speech, debate, and general preferences. You don't have to read it all, just what pertains to you, and of course, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask before the round!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Have a good structure and make sure I can easily follow what you're saying. Don't be afraid to be creative as long as you stay true to your prompt or central idea. I have a really loose paradigm for speech because everyone is so different, which I love to see! Ultimately just try to have fun, if you mess up just take a deep breath and keep going.

DEBATE:

I’m not favorable for one debate style over the next, but I do judge based off of framework and application, so make sure that’s included! Make sure you hit on every point your opponent gives you, it also looks really good if you include where they mentioned said point! (Ex. As my opponent said in their opening speech XYZ)

GENERAL:

EVIDENCE. Please. Back up your claims with warrant. If you're giving a speech, I would love to have the source in your speech.

TIMING: If you absolutely need me to give you time signals, I can. I would love it if you don't and time yourself, just so I can focus on notes and feedback. It helps both of us out. On that same note, I totally encourage timing your opponent, but use a stopwatch, not something that makes noise!

CLARITY: A little more background, I'm also a theater kid, so I stress diction to my team. Be clear. Speed isn't everything, being articulate and able to be understood is so important!!

Again, very excited to listen to this round, and Good Luck!