Email: ddagar1039@gmail.com

Tech over truth

Debated for 3 years, 2 years on Utah middle school circuit LD, one year HS PF. I went 10th in PF and 2nd in impromptu at state. 2022-2024

I teach the middle schoolers at my school how to debate, so I know what a good round looks like.

I've judged for several middle school tournaments before, so I do know how to write a good ballot.

Debate:

I vote on fallacies. They are the number one thing I vote on. I want you to use fallacies in the rounds because that is what TRUE debate is and that is how to be a TRUE debater.

I competed in a few policy tournaments in middle school, so I know how policy rounds should go. I'm fine with spreading, just send me the doc on the email above, I can't decipher your spreading and write a good ballot at the same time. I would rather you be clear than fast. As a judge, I like clear link chains and impact debates, source debate is fine, but it most likely won't be the reason you win, so don't waste time on it. If you make me laugh, +1 speaker points. In cross-x, you can be aggressive, but don't be abusive, it ruins the debate. Weigh your impacts, they're one of the biggest things I vote on. Signpost and go down the flow, I will follow you but don't make it hard for me. If your arguments are abusive, I won't vote on them. If your only way of winning is through abusive arguments, you don't deserve to win.

LD specifically:

Extend your framework and impacts.

If you go overtime, I give a 15-second grace period, try not to go over it. I won't give you the loss for it, but I will decrease your speaker points.

Speaker points:

25> You were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just plain mean.

25.1 - 26.9: You weren't understandable and made the debate hard for me (and my flow) to follow.

27 - 27.9: You're doing well but need some work.

28 - 28.9: Top half and you are doing well

29 - 30: Good job!

updated 3/19/24

current high school policy debater for Rowland Hall (HG), class of 25 (junior). I mostly debate national circuit varsity.

email chain + feel free to ask me any questions: elihatton@rowlandhall.org

Top Level: Be yourself, and have fun! Middle School is all about learning, so never hesitate to ask for help/questions after the debate. During the round, don't be afraid to make mistakes. Debate is a game*, so try to win, but don't take it too seriously. Humor in round is encouraged and respect for judges and your opponent is a must.

tldr----

tech > truth-- This means that I will vote for the arguments that are winning on a technical level and NOT what I believe (or you assert) is true or not true.

please disclose! even if you're a novice and the tournament doesn't require it, please do so if you can. It makes things better for everyone

Don't be a jerk. If you are rude to your opponents or personally attack them, you will get very low speaks. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful you will lose and get very low speaks. This also goes for impact turns ("racism good" and the like get you an instant L).

speed: I am fine with any speed if you're clear. I flow everything I hear, and I will clear you once per speech. Feel free to look at my flow after the debate if you want to. Don't clip (:

CX: it's binding but I will only evaluate it if you bring it up in speech and explain why it matters

I enjoy clash and creative args. Good work on judge instruction and framing will make your impacts much easier for me to vote on. I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Offense > defense

For middle school debates, I have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory because you all should probably keep learning about substance arguments (this doesn't apply to T which is something you should definitely learn). I default to the following but can be convinced otherwise:

conditionality is good within reason. Don't drop it and you'll be fine. Same for contradictions. I default to judgekick good (it's a logical extension of condo) unless the aff makes a serious argument (saying "cross apply condo" and moving on doesn't count)

Hidden ASPEC gets new 1AR answers

+0.1 speaks if you make a Jesse Pinkman reference!

LD:

I did this event a little in my freshman year. I'm tired of "traditional" LD debates. In other words, you should debate in front of me more like it's 1v1 policy and less like it's a 2-person speech event

I don't care about your value and criterion as much as most judges do, insofar as they use some arbitrary ideal of "fitting within" or tying back to other args you have made. I think of them as impact framing args and I will go to the value/criterion flow EXCLUSIVELY when evaluating competing impact weights. I will assume util/big stick framing if nobody reads a v/c. This means that, unless the round is really coming down to impact calc, you probably don't need your 45 second value overview at the top of the 2ar

As far as resolutions go, I default to ought=should unless you read another definition. I encourage you to read a plan. Similarly, cp's, k's, and T are fair game for the neg.

NoRVIs. Strike me if that's something you do.

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

That said, I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I might as well sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do.

On Critical Debate:

I love a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF:If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? How do I fill out this stupid ballot? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy. My feeling on plans is that they are usually not necessary and only invite topicality issues that can't be easily resolved because this format doesn't allow for topicality arguments, so don't run them!

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.