A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my third year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, would much prefer you to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism!

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- Speech time: I will continue to flow your speech until ~10 seconds after time is up. I will stop listening/flowing past that point.

- Prep Time: I do keep track of prep in the round, and I will be a bit unhappy if you go over that time. If you end up using more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing: please finish before the round starts.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the start of round! Email is nylacrayton@gmail.com

I am a new and lay judge.

· 1. Please speak clearly and slowly. I won’t vote for you if I cannot write and take note of your arguments and understand what you are saying.

· 2. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence and strong analytical explanations. Please "signpost" in your speeches and go in a logical order.

· 3. Respect each other.

I will flow as much as I can. Tell me why I should vote for you. At the end of the round, I will vote for the side that is more persuasive.

Be slow. Be clear. Be persuasive. Be kind. Debate is a fun experience. Win or lose, enjoy it.

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
• I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will also bump speaking points if you send speech docs.
• I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
• Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org

PF

I can handle some speed however (within reason, i.e. no spreading), I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Congress

In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!

I debated in both PF and LD in high school and I'm an incoming freshman at Emory University

Add me to the email chain!! izzy.morris@emory.edu

General:

- tech > truth

- speed is fine, however, clarity>>wpm. I'll say clear if I can't understand you

- don't be mean/offensive. bad vibes = bad speaks

Some things I like to see:

- signpost because we both want that argument on my flow!

- weigh. the earlier the better, and warrant your weighing (also consider indulging in some metaweighing!)

- if you want something in my RFD, then it needs to be in summary and ff

- warranted evidence > warranted analytics > anything else

Some things I don't like to see:

- don't lie about evidence

- the blippier the argument, the less impact it'll have on my decision

- paraphrasing (and improperly cut cards in general) :(

- defense is lowk not sticky. extend or it didn't happen

Progressive args:

- I'm definitely not the most qualified person to judge a K/theory round, however, I'm not anti prog args and sometimes quite enjoy them! Run at your own risk haha

- don't run friv theory (pls?)

My email is aobrienslc@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a first-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

Unlike what some would have you believe (Cody Rutkowski), debate is a game, so have some fun with it.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

Speed is fine, but please don't sacrifice clarity.

Extend fully in summary and final focus, and it has to be in both speeches if I'm going to vote on it.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read new defense in final focus when it should have just been a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

Theory arguments are like any other argument, I need warrants for everything you say.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City. I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I did PF when the summary was 2 minutes long and most people were liars.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

I strongly prefer that debaters send their entire cases and rebuttal docs in an email chain that I am included on. Speaker points will reflect this preference. gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum. A paraphrased card is an analytic.

I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

I occasionally judge policy and LD. Consider me a lay judge in these instances.

If you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears.

Err silly and down to earth over dominant and aggressive.

Impact comparison is very important to me, as it is rare that one team categorically wins the debate on every issue. At the end of the round, I can generally identify won advantages and won disadvantages of the Aff; explicitly tell me why I should prioritize one outcome over another. The team that makes the most "even if" statements tends to win my ballot.

I am not impressed by teams which analytically claim to "pre-req," "link-in," or "short-circuit" their opponents' offense. These arguments are strongest when predicated on warrants and data from quoted evidence.

I tend to think it's strategic to answer weighing. I find it absolutely bizarre that most teams drop such arguments.

The probability of an argument being true in my decision is derived from the happenings of the debate. I do not think it is a form of impact comparison, nor do I have some lower threshold for responding to arguments I personally disbelieve. If an argument is silly, it should be easy to answer.

Arguments you expect me to vote on have to be in summary and final focus.

Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

The K:

Consider me a lay judge in this realm.

I will vote on the K if you clearly articulate what my ballot does and win that it is good.

Theory:

I tend to think that paraphrasing is probably bad and that disclosure is probably good.

I dislike the way that teams are getting into the weeds with their interps. I don't have strong opinions about open-source, round reports, author quals, or other such interps that have proliferated on the national circuit recently. I want teams to disclose and quote evidence, but I'd strongly prefer not to evaluate interps that demand more than that.

I find these debates painfully boring, as they are always regressive regurgitations of arguments I've seen someone else articulate more persuasively. Speaker points will reflect my disdain for strategic use of theory.

IVIs:

No.

I am a First-year out 4 years of PF

Add me on the email chain: Charlesetimm@gmail.com

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc. I can follow.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence is bad have cut cards.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I had very limited exposure to Ks when I was debating and so I do not know how I should evaluate a K round.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.