I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

For PF and LD, I will not flow CX. If you want it on the flow, then make sure to bring it up in your following speeches. If you don't bring the event from CX up, then it will be as if it never happened.

Feel free to spread, but if I can't understand you or you go too quickly for me to flow what you're saying, then it won't go on the flow. Spread in the round at your own risk.

In your final speech of the round make sure to summarize why your side of the debate is better than your opponent's side. 

The value and value criterion debate is the most important debate of the round. If you want to win You should defend your value and value criterion

explain. please :)

I judge off of 3 primary aspects

1.     Your ability to communicate

2.     Your ability to understand the topic

3.     Your ability to argue your point

Have good clean fun, this is just a friendly competition, don’t get overly defensive

Enjoy yourself, it ends up being a lot better debate that way.

My main paradigm is to make me understand the morality of each resolution and how your side is the most moral. If you spew or just have evidence and no actual speech linking the evidence to the morality of a situation, you will lose. I also need eye contact, if you look at your case and read everything off the computer it's not debating.

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.

Do whatever if you are good

Background: I'm a parent judge but an educator as well.  

Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress.  I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous.

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue.

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness.

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding presentation and rebuttals.

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

About me! I am currently a double history and philosophy major and I did debate for 5 years. I've been to nationals twice and ranked in BQ at nats over the summer. I have done PF, Big Q, and LD. I’ve placed at every tournament I've competed at… I promise you, I know my stuff. ;) So you don't need to define super basic things, I got you! I absolutely ADORE debate and am so excited to be your judge! I give lots of comments and feedback. You will always know why I voted the way I did. I’ll tell you why I gave the speaks I did as well. I promise I’m not scary but I do know what’s up!

I loathe petty debate, you are attacking and defending ideas, not people. Be clean. 

Cases: I do have quite a bit of experience in debate from camps, tourneys, and coaching so I'm aware of just about every type of case you could possibly run. I love philosophy and history so I will be aware of precedent. I love creativity, I love theory, and if your argument is clear I will be able to follow any complex theories, K's, disads, off cases, etc. I'm not lay so no need to change any of your arguments! I can handle fast speaking but DO NOT SPREAD (cx ppl look below). I will immediately doc your speaks. If your argument isn't linked and clearly stated don't expect me to flow it.

Times: I give 10-15 seconds grace but I will cut you off if it gets excessive just for fairness and respect for the round. I'll keep times too.

Flow: I flow super heavy. I mark all extensions, impacts, and links. I do flow cross but please bring stuff up in speeches. If you don't extend, I'll drop it. Don’t be rude in cross, allow time to answer and ask specific pointed questions. Cross is a really good time to convince me that you know your info, and you are a skilled strategic debater. 

Definitions and observations: If there are definitions disputes try and just agree on a def during cross and move on. It should not be the bulk of your argument.

Speaks and Voting: Speaks will be docked if you are disrespectful. I did debate so I know what abuse looks like, you don't need to point it out if that's going to be the only thing you say in final speeches. Please stay topical and kind. weighing > being told how to vote. Explain why impacts outweigh or why the evidence should be favored but I don't really enjoy hearing "judge we provided the best evidence, vote aff" give me link chains, reasons, and good solid impacts.

Speeches: please don't start 1R’S with a case review. You don’t have to extend from 1C to 1R. I'm not gonna forget what you just said. ROADMAP FOR ME PLEASE I BEG OF YOU. I will give you a 30 if you make all of your speeches clear, with minimal filler words, and you follow a logical roadmap. Please go down the flow in a way that makes sense. I do not want to have to struggle to find where you are.

PF: Impacts please, don’t card spit. I want a logical link from cards to the argument. Use prep I promise it works wonders.

LD: Run whatever! But make sure you have a framework.

Policy: You can spread but make it good, bad spreading is miserable. Put me in your chain plz! Gabrielle.e.hilbig@gmail.com 

BEST OF LUCK!!

Traditional, no spreading.

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 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! :)

I did debate through high school and am good with any arguments you want to run, as well as any speed that is comprehensible.

If you don't signpost and I flow something in the wrong place, I'll be a little sad.

Be nice. Debate is meant to practice civil public discourse, it's not a competition to see who can be more passive-aggressive.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I've been involved in speech and debate since middle school (suuuper nerdy right...) and currently compete for the University of Utah. Most of my experience is in IEs, but I have debated in World Schools (HS), BQ (HS), British Parliamentary, NFA-LD, IPDA and NPDA.

DEBATE:

For all debate events, I do not mind spreading as long as your opponent is able to understand you.

• PF: To be honest, PF is the event I have the least knowledge about. Impact calc/weighing is something to keep in mind for your final focus speeches- in fact, it's probably what I will consider first when casting my ballot. Show me why your team should win the debate or the consequences if you don't. You can extend the constructive into the first rebuttal, but you do not have to. All other feedback will be specific to the round.
• LD: If you run a K or any form of theory argument, it's totally fine with me. However, if you’re running a K and you cannot explain in lay vocab or it’s obvious to me you’re trying to exclude your opponent from the round with some esoteric argument… it’s unlikely you’ll win. Next, I know there's a lot of discourse on progressive vs. traditional LD, and with regard to my judging, I will vote for the debater who convinces me why they win. Voters are key, and along with impacts, they are what I will consider first when making a decision. Offense and rebuttals (telling me why you win the debate) are preferable to defense (why you're not losing).
• CX: I will vote on T if you run it properly and collapse to it. I don't mind Ks, but if you are running a K, please make sure you understand it and link it well to the resolution (a good rule to follow: if you can't explain it in lay terms, don't run it). I don't have any preferences for certain CPs or anything. I don't mind if you run something unique, ironic, gamey, etc. as long as you can link it well to the rez! :P
• BQ: BQ is so fun, and it's also unique to the other debate events. It definitely calls for a higher level of respect- so when touchy topics come up (as they will), please treat your opponent(s) with kindness.

IE/SPEECH:

Some general things to consider... First, do not rely on the grace period. I was a high school speech kid, and I would do the sneaky thing and write my speeches right up to 10 minutes knowing I could usually get away with 10:05 or something. That 30 seconds is there to save you in the event you have a memory lapse, get interrupted by kids in the hall, etc. Don't rely on it to hit 10 minutes: practice makes perfect. Second... being memorized (in OO, info, interps) is always preferable to being unmemorized or partially memorized. Finally, as a general note, I will gladly give time signals and I will definitely offer them before each round, but I am not the best at them... I'm usually too engrossed in your speech!

Moving into some event-specific things:

• OO: As well as a strong presentation, I look for logically sound arguments (i.e., does your solution make sense for the problem you are trying to solve, are the causes/effects you present supported by real-world examples and evidence, etc.). In terms of presentation, I'll be looking for the use of a good speaker's triangle, hand gestures, and good eye contact. Importantly, present to the group, not just to me. This shows that you're gaining the skill, not just trying to win the round. Make sure you are verbally citing your sources- this becomes very important at the national and university levels!
• Info: Your VAs, if you are using them, should complement your speech, not inhibit it. Your implications should be realistic and make logical sense with the other two main points of your speech.
• Extemp: Stick to the 3-point structure, and if you deviate, justify it. Please be verbally citing your sources and not just providing examples/information from prep time. Fill your time as best you can without going under/over and relying on the grace period, as discussed above.
• Interps: I have the least experience with interps, but am aware of the regular rules for blocking and cutting, especially for duo. Just be mindful of those, and I'll base any other feedback off of your actual performance.
• POI/Poetry/Prose: Your gestures are just as important as your content, so be sure to move purposefully according to your topic/text. Incorporate the book where possible, and have fun being creative with it! Use drama/emotion purposefully and sparingly.

Hello!

I am an experienced Policy debater, qualing to State every year and going to Nationals my Senior year. I vote tabula rasa, and won't allow my own views to intercept and alter my perception of your arguments. Feel free to run whatever you want, I am a fiend for the more out there arguments (ran my own Kant K most of Senior year). I vote off of tech and flow. If you don't warrant your claims with ev, I implicitly don't buy and will not flow.

This year is a wonderful topic and has a lot of grounds with regards to our future and safety. I am currently a cybersecurity professional and hold 4 industry level certifications, Micrsoft Network, CompTIA A+, CompTIA Network+, and CompTIA Security+. I am very well versed in the cyberspace and enjoy a little bit of grey hat hacking on my time off :) With this, I don't expect you to have the same level of knowledge as me; however, you will be held to a standard higher than what other judges may.

As for the debaters themselves. No harsh words or discrimination towards each other (don't mind untargeted harsh words, nevertheless). There will be no sexism, racism, bigotry, etc. Not even jokingly. If this ensues, I will walk you to Tab.

I don't really care other than that so feel free to let loose and have fun! Y'all are already eons awesomer because you are doing this so be confident and HAVE FUN!

-x

My paradigm is this: persuade me.

Here are some things that will help:

-I need to hear you clearly to understand you

-I need to believe you when you reference evidence

-I need to see a thread connecting your evidence to your claims

-logical arguments are more persuasive to me than the volume of evidence. I will respect evidence, but I will not count cards.

In CX, I don't want to hear hyperbolic assumptions. I will try to flow, but I tend towards big picture...just being honest here.

In LD, I want to hear a justification for your philosophical framework and to see how that framework is guiding your position. That will be more compelling to me than speed, cards, or rhetoric.

In PF, just make me believe you are right. 

I did LD all four years of high school, alongside some policy, pf, and extemp. I am ok with spreading, as long as you are comprehensible. I will flow, but I will not do your job for you. When you rebuttal, be direct and tell me what you are rebutting. Even if I know your impacts, framework, and links are stronger, unless you tell me so in the round, I can't vote off of it. I will only vote off of what you give me in the round. Crossex will not determine how I vote in the round, however it will determine how high your speaks are.

Roy Highschool '19

eneiswanger@gmail.com

I did PF and Policy debate in high school, each for one year.

Tech ------------X------------------------------Truth

Flows the doc --------X----------------------------------It's on you to be comprehensible

Spin > Cards ----------X--------------------------------Cards > Spin

Poker face-------------X-----------------------------You'll know my thoughts on everything

Not ideological in clash debates -----------------------------X--------------No plan no ballot

Pomo/high theory expert -----------------------------------------X-Whatever the opposite of that is

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------------X----------------------------Delib k2 solve warming/Movements

Counter-defining and offense/defense on T --------------X----------------------------Impact turning everything

2NR needs TVA to win-----------------------------------X------Overrated/unnecessary most of the time

K links to the plan -------------------------------------X-------Unnecessary if you win framework

Extinction outweighs/impact turn vs K ---------------------------------X----------Perm/no link

Conditionality bad -------------------------------------X--------Infinite and good

1NCs that proliferate incomplete arguments-----------------------------------X-----Aff gets new answers

Bad for process/"cheating" CPs ------------------------------X--------------Being neg's hard

"We're topical but don't defend implementation"-------------------------------------X------Makes literally 0 sense

Theory debates hinge on ideology -------------------------------X-------------Execution is everything

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs ----------------------------X--------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Intrinsicness bad -----------------------X---------------------Better for it than most

Logical internal link presses/recutting their ev --------------X----------------------------Impact D to everything

"Insert this reHLing" --------------------------------------X-----Gotta read it

Bathroom breaks and small talk ---------------------------------------X---Decision time is short

Having to read an essay with my thoughts on debate ---------------------------------X-----Short judge philosophies

I debated all four years of high school splitting my time between LD and Policy pretty evenly. I debated on the National Circuit in LD, so I have a good grasp of both traditional and progressive LD so feel free to debate in the debate style you're more comfortable with. That being said I love a good progressive LD round, but won't be upset if the round ends up being traditional. I'm good with speed but only if both you and your opponent are both good with it. Be respectful, be kind, and have a fun round!

email for the chain: 16annapage@gmail.com

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.

In general, my judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc. I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis; I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. I like to hear voters and signposting-if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.

Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.

Cross-ex: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to ask for an explanation. Responses should answer the question, not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I am originally from South Africa and have been in the US for 11 years. I am trained as an Electrical Engineer and I work for Rio Tinto as a Manager.

When I am judging speeches or debates, I look for speakers that are well-paced, have a good grasp of their subjects, and are confident. I like it when speakers "own" the room and use the space available. Timing is critical. I also want to see that participants are enjoying themselves.

jessicavangesen@gmail.com

Quick Overview:

-Judge traditional and progressive

-Truth<<Tech

-Trick is bad

-Quality over quantity (argumentation and spreading)

-GO LINE BY LINE 

-Time yourself

History:

I debated for Copper Hills High School from 2019-2022. I did both Policy and LD although LD was my preferred event. I competed on both the national and local circuits. I prominently debated progressive but I am more than qualified to judge traditional. 

Traditional:

Framework is my number one voter. I go into a round with no bias or weight. You as a debater should tell me how to weigh the round and why I should vote off that. With no framework, I will go back to a basic utilitarian criterion. You can run as a complex framework as you would like I am well versed in the subject but it doesn't guarantee I am an expert on your choice so explain it well. I prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speaking. Line by line will increase your speaks. It is good to get into the habit of answering a subpoint by saying, "Subpoint A says... However, 1 (argument) 2 (argument)..." I am a purely tech judge in traditional as well. However in the 1NR and 2AR if not brought up I will not flow. Please do not read any unimportant definitions it wastes my time and yours simply say "I have the right to define upon request." Only read a definition if it is key to the round.

Progressive: 

Theory: I will vote on theory but I will not be happy. I dislike most theories especially speed or complexity theory. To me, it just seems like the argument "I am not as good as them and that is unfair." I will vote on it if dropped, however. the only theory I do not hate is disclosure, conditionality, or fiat theory in a progressive round. If you do not have a complete theory shell do not run it. 

CP: I am good with any cp feel free to be creative. Make sure to impact out solvency and Net Benefit in the 1NR for me to vote on it. Answer perms or else I will flow AFF.

DA: Impact Calc is huge. Make sure to properly kick out of a DA if not I will still flow the aff arguments. Make sure your link is strong and don't use a basic DA shell.

Phil/K: I was a Phil/K debater so if you've been waiting to run that complex KAFF or anything else I am the judge to do so. With that, I am very critical of them so make sure they are well-written. I debate Kant, Foucault, and Baudrillard extensively. Still, I expect you to explain what your philosopher is saying because that is a necessary part of becoming a successful Phil debate. For K's I ran, CAPK, Security K, Neo-Lib Imperialism K, Fem K, Death K, Colonialism K, and more. I am well diverse in K debate but the same goes explain it well. 

Topicality: I was also a T debater in my time. With T debate I expect a well-written framework and not a crappy shell. Limits are huge in my weighing along with definition and violation. Make the T shell have real impacts or else it is worthless. T is apriori so no matter what I will vote on it if not properly weighed. 

Speaks:

I judge pretty normally on speaking quality over clarity. Order is ranked high. Passion and calmness. Keep in mind I did policy so if you are aggressive I will not mark you down depending on how you do it it might even help you. This is the only time CX will be used in my decision I will not flow but it does effect speaks.

Add me to the chain, (thanexzeeh@gmail.com), or alternatively, use SpeechDrop.

General information:

1. Background:I debated for three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, I debated for three years on the NFA circuit in LD as well as BP in college (UT 22'), and I do a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker).

2. At a high level: I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant.

3. My position on "unconventional cases": Arguments are arguments ... performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

4. Keep it nice: Spirt and heart, while necessary for debate, should never be conflated with being rude, mean, racist, sexist, or any other isms. If you are ahead, do not twist the knife, be supportive, and turn the round into a learning opportunity.

Procedurals:

1. Extending arguments: I will not extend a conceded argument for you if you do not extend and explain its importance in the latter part of the debate. I will presume you do not want that particular argument evaluated.

2. New arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the debater but I will disregard the argument. I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded

3. When the timer goes off: I stop listening, flowing, and evaluating any argument made the moment the timer goes off.

4. Typing during cross-examination: If you see me typing during cross-examination I am probably tidying up my flow or typing out feedback.

Specific Arguments

1. Topicality, theory, and abuse: To win T or Theory you need to prove abuse. I won't vote for a "better vision of debate" because frankly, no one cares how I vote while me voting one way or another won't change communal norms. I also tend to defer to reasonability. Again, I tend to defer to reasonability. Quality of interpretations also matters (precision is probably good).

2. Kritiks: I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of the framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good in answering the K, epistemology first in running the K, or anything in between. I also find I place more emphasis than some judges on "why my ballot matters", perhaps I've enjoyed the normativity K too much, but, I digress.

3. Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense. Like T however, I need you to prove abuse.

4. DAs/CPs: I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a neg ballot arguments. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a great strategy.

LD & PF - my take on speed:

1. LD Speed: The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell.

2. PF Speed: PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.

Bolded for TLDR

Any pronouns

SLC West '22

University of Utah '26

Hi! I'm Henry - I did debate all four years of high school for West High, did half a year of PF then switched to LD. If you have any questions about the way I voted or just want to ask me any questions, feel free to email me at henry.zheng727@gmail.com or text me at 801-674-1898 (preferably text).

Fine with speed, slow down on tags and analytics.

Tech > Truth

Summary:

• 1 - LARP, Trad
• 2 - K and Phil lit bases that I know (see below)
• 3 - T
• 4 - K and Phil lit bases I don't know (see below)
• 5/Strike - Trix / Theory

I do not flow cross, bring it up in a speech to get it flowed.

Don't be abusive. I think inclusion in the debate space is good and comes before substance, so I will drop you if you are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic.

Please please please make your 2NRs/2ARs easy to evaluate. Ideally, my RFD should sound exactly like the first 30 seconds of either speech.

I like speech docs, I normally use speechdrop.net or email.

Trad

Go for it! I debated exclusively trad for 2 years, although it may be an uphill battle against progressive arguments. If you're a trad debater, chances are I will be able to understand the flow and your round pretty well. Most of the time (in my opinion) the value/criterion debate ends up as a wash, 99 percent of my value debates come down to "X value is a prereq to Y value" and "Y value includes X value" which is literally the same argument but framed as offense for a particular side. If you want to go for framework, please have a clear relation from your impacts to your framing. If you're running something that can be won on either framework equally well, just kick it (I will not be docking speaks if you collapse as long as you can still explain why what you have wins the round). Weigh in your 2NR/2AR - write my ballot for me. You can try to go for the emotional appeal in front of me but most of the time I'll just evaluate what is said, not how it is said. That being said, if you're more comfortable with a ton of pathos, you don't need to change that for me.

LARP

I debated a lot of LARP my junior year, and still ran the occasional DA/CP combo senior year. Please weigh in your 2NR/2AR. Give the kind of speech in which I can immediately write my ballot 5 seconds after the debate because of how clear the voters are. If your 2AR is just a 3 minute 1AR (no weighing, just line by line) I will be annoyed and your speaks will suffer. Generally, I won't be super well-versed on topic lit - explain buzzwords, acronyms, etc.

K

K debate is really fun, probably the style of debate I like the most, although I'm worse at judging it than LARP because of how differently final speeches are normally structured.

Lit bases I understand: Deleuze, Afropess, baedan, Wynter, Fem, Marx, Cap, Security, Foucault, Psycho, Agamben, Stryker

Lit bases I sort of understand: Baudrillard, Model Minority Myth, Mollow, Setcol, Moten, Weheliye, Yancy, Mills, Edelman, Russell, Federici

Lit bases I don't get at all: Beller, Bataille, Preciado, Puar, Cybernetics (or really any Heidegger stuff), Derrida, Glissant, Halberstam, Munoz, Hardt + Negri, Haraway, Chandler, Ahmed, Berlant, Bey (if your lit base is not listed here, assume I am unfamiliar with it)

Phil

I ran phil a lot my senior year. I will understand most basic frameworks, but if your framework is listed as one of the ones I don't understand, do extra explanation in the 2NR/2AR.

Lit bases I understand: Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls

Lit bases I sort of understand: Butler, Contractarianism, Existentialism, Nozick, Pettit, Plato (Virtue Ethics type beat)

Lit bases I don't understand: Levinas, Hegel, Jaeggi, Pragmatism, probably most forms of skep

T/Theory

Being honest, this is the worst thing you could probably run in front of me. I'm terrible at flowing and I will not catch most of your arguments. No ideological bias against theory, I just suck at evaluating it.

T-FW: Framework is fine. You can debate about whether it's policing. I'm kind of bored of framework because it's very generic against affs and I feel like it doesn't really incentivize going into and learning about literature bases, but that's just a personal pet peeve that won't affect the way I judge your round.

Nebel T: Tbh Nebel is probably a true arg. Semantics aren't really a voter for me but I'll evaluate it if you say it. I'm prob more persuaded by pragmatics on Nebel (small school prep burden is real).

Trix

Trix are for kids

Probably ideological bias, I try to keep tech > truth but trix annoyed me as a debater which probably influences how I feel judging them.

No, but honestly, these are pretty annoying to evaluate. I did collapse to presumption/permissibility triggers a lot my senior year, but most of the time, trix debates end up in random minutae that I'm not a huge fan of.

Layers:

Theory

Ks

Contention-Level Args

(This is just the default, I can be persuaded to change the layering if arguments are made)

Do:

• Make good arguments in round. That's the main point
• Good weighing in the 2AR/2NR and clear voters
• Good logic (looking at you, trix debaters)
• Signposting

Don't:

• Do anything abusive
• Be blatantly violent in round
• Read complex args / spread on novices

Speaker Points Guide:

30 - Will win the tournament

29 - Above Average

28 - Moderate

27 - Below Average

26 - Needs quite a bit of work

20-25 - Made the round unsafe or acted in a way that was exclusionary in round