2022 — SOUTH JORDAN, UT/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.
While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.
I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.
P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.
I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.
Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.
I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for that same bullshit.
I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.
I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.
Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.
AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.
K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.
T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.
K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.
CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.
DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.
REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!
If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been coaching for 16 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.
1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE
I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for over a decade. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds. (Every event really but particularly Policy):
a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.
b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.
c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.
d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.
e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.
f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.
g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.
LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.
a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.
b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.
My name is Ty, I use he/him pronouns.
I would like to be on the email chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I am currently a sophomore in college. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school. I have judged mostly novice policy debate this year, so if there are any specific acronyms so I know what you're talking about. I am generally ok with speed, however, it has been a while, so please make sure that if you are speaking fast you are CLEAR.
As a debater, I mainly debated policy arguments rather than Kritiks, however, I will listen to your Ks if you choose to run them, I will need you to explain well why the K matters most in the round/why I should be voting for you based on the K. It will be more difficult to win on a K for me.
In order to convince me to vote for you please make sure you explain how I should evaluate the round, and why your team wins based on this framing. I don't want to have to extrapolate what matters most from vague comments that are not well explained. If you have questions about my opinions on specific types of arguments please ask before the round, but I will generally evaluate any argument as long as they are well-argued.
For LD: Keep in mind I did policy, but in general I will keep up with most differences quickly. Ask me any argument specific questions in room before the round starts.
Please do not be racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-semitic, or otherwise bigoted and discriminatory in round.
I have judged debate before but I am not an experienced policy judge so speak slow and show me clear arguments. I have background knowledge about policy but in order for me to vote into things like topicality. Terms like Perm, mutually exclusive or conditionality or condo (any theory terms ect) will need to be explained (very well) in round. I wouldn't run theory/topicality arguments unless you this it is very likely you will go for them in the final speech. Whoever proves their point best wins. Case debate is good.
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.