Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.