Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Make consistent eye contact (for interp. events hold a steady, consistent locus);

(3) Give a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what you mean;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why any competing viewpoints are wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't treat Speech like it is another debate event; it is an altogether different animal that requires a somewhat different, more empathic skill set. Don't be intimidated by this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I prefer understanding what is said - fewer, more convincing points - over spewing large amounts of information so fast it can’t be processed, unless showing the amount of information is important to make a point!

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 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.

LD and PF - I'm very tech over truth, but I love empirical evidence. I do vote off of cross - I also love it when you lay out your points and tell me how to vote. I don't mind a far-fetched argument as long as you have some evidence. I also value solvency, even if you have to stretch on solvency.

Speech - I love passion and confidence.

Policy Debate - I am a lay judge. I work in Marketing so I understand a lot of key economic concepts surrounding both the economy and fiscal redistribution. My son does policy. I've been judging LD/PF for 3 years so I have a decent idea of how debate and flowing works however I am still new to policy and don't know a lot of the more progressive arguments but I do have somewhat of a grasp on how the basics work. While I understand some of the lingo I am not yet fully proficient so don't go super heavy into it.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing - I would prefer you go slower but as long as I have the doc (including analytics) feel free to spew/spread. I don't care about clarity as long as I have the doc (again including analytics)

Arguments:

Kritiks- While I'm open to kritiks you will probably have to explain them to me like I am 5 years old. I am not deep into the literature base of everything. I am open to framework however I'm not a huge theory nut so explain everything like I am 5. I would much rather the K alt is real world and that you prove solvency rather than dropping the K and going all in on FW. Explain the story of the K (the links, the internals, impacts, and alt). That being said, don't run PIKs.

K Affs - I don't like K affs, I don't understand them, I don't think they are topical, don't run them please.

T/Theory - I don't love the idea of theory because I feel like it does take away from the debate however I will still evaluate it if there is actual in round abuse. The threshold for proving the in round abuse is going to be pretty high. However, topicality is a little bit different. I do believe it is the aff's burden to be topical so if the neg can solidly prove why the aff is untopical and how that hurts the debate space I will vote on it.

Counterplans - I absolutely love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have some sort net benefit. I tend to like internal net benefits more than external net benefits however I will evaluate both as long as you clearly link the external net benefits together. I will not kick out counterplans for you. I will not judge kick for you. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP you will lose on both (this is for external net benefits, for internal net benefits this doesn't apply). Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still new and learning how to evaluate everything. I am okay with PICs, process CPs, and agent CPs but again explain the net benefits clearly.

Disads - This is pretty basic, just make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, clearly link it to the impact. I don't mind extinction impacts but please tell me why we get there. I absolutely LOVE impact calculus.

Case - I mainly judge off of the stock issues (im a parent judge so give me a break) Again I love impact calculus but tell me how we get there. The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so if you don't prove you solve you lose. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence, your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I know I have said it before but I am very story driven, tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love offtime roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up but no guarantees I will catch everything. I love analytics and heavy analysis on everything. I also love evidence and card warrants (again very story oriented.) Take everything with a grain of salt though because I am still a new policy judge trying to get the hang of everything, there will definitely be updates the more I figure out what I like and dislike! Debate hard and have fun!

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

I am a volunteer and new to judging. I have recently taken and received certification in the NFHS Adjudicating Speech And Debate program, which includes a section on Cultural Competence. I have read over some additional information about judging as well.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

I appreciate clear language and well-built arguments, and I like road map and framework.

I debated Public Forum for Bingham High School.

Paradigm

Flowing is probably the most important thing about debate, Winning on the flow is pretty much a guaranteed win for me. Keeping it organized, I like to see you flow the Final Speech. Defense on your own case is undervalued.

I like CX, anyone can read their cards from a laptop, it takes good understanding to be able to answer questions in the crossfire/cross ex

Clash is one thing that I see missing from most rounds, its like two ships passing in the night. I'm here to see good debate.

Being respectful is also a big thing for me, you can be aggressive in rounds without sounding condescending so if I hear you being a little snappy to your opponents you'll probably get docked a bit on speaker points

I'm fine with Speed if your opponents are.

Time yourselves, you're all young adults.

I'm cool with swapping evidence OT but if it takes longer than necessary it will cut into prep.

"This isn't Policy" isn't a good enough reason to not answer the opponents question in PF

I don't carry a copy of the events rules in my bag.

Speaker Points.

Don't talk to your laptop, Speak loud enough so that I can clearly hear you but don't yell. Once again, be respectful in and out of round, Banter between schools is fun but keep it civilized, nothing directly harmful. Respect pronouns.

I flow on my computer. I'll send you a copy if you ask for it but don't assume that I'm not paying attention.

(serranojoseph99@gmail.com)

If you wanna contact me about the round, email me. Livsick04@gmail.com Also, add me to any email chains in the round.

I debated all four years of high school and did just about every event there was. I mainly did policy and duo. I know what a round should look like, and I know how to judge them.

I was the type of debater to hate the teams who wasted a good round arguing theory. You can run theory, just don't make that the only thing you are arguing, and make sure you know what the entire theory argument is before you decide to run it. (violation, voters, interpretation, etc.) Don't run a ton of theory arguments unless the other team is really doing something wrong cause that's just a time skew, and I think it's dumb to waste time on that rather than your other arguments.

Topicality- Make sure you explain exactly why the other team is untopical. Have a full T shell don't just make something up. Don't run a T if you can't prove the aff is actually untopical.

Kritics- IF YOU RUN A K, PLEASE UNDERSTAND IT WELL. I hate judging rounds where the team running the k is just running it for fun. Make sure to know the alt., the world post alt, why this matters, and the origin behind it. I have run k's in the past, and I have a pretty good understanding of what should be in them, so make sure it's all there.

CP's- You can run as many CP's as you want. Just make sure they don't contradict. Understand the cp plantext.

DA's- Run whatever you want just make sure they actually link to the case. Also, make sure all the parts are there.

Basically, run whatever you want; just understand what you are running. I vote a lot off of the voters of the round if you don't tell me what to vote for, I get to choose, and some of you might not like what I decide, but if you give me no other option, that's what will happen. I will also only vote off of another team's argument they dropped if you tell me to in your rebuttals. Make sure you extend your evidence, or I won't flow it. If you state specific cards and what exactly in the card is good or why it goes against a point probs to you, it'll make you look better. I don't flow cross, so if there is anything you want flowed bring it up in your next speech.

Speaker points- Speak clearly. I'm really good with speed, so you can speak as fast or as slow as you want. Make sure you say and or another word in between your cards, especially if I don't have your cards, so I can make sure I flow everything.

Prep- flashing isn't prep but don't take forever to flash or email something. I'll time your prep just to make sure you don't use way more than you were given, but I will usually go off of what you timed.

I will time your speeches and give you a 30-second time buffer. After that, if you keep speaking, I won't flow it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in round or email me.

IE Events: I'm looking to see if you have a clear thesis and if you do a good job supporting it. I will not rank someone very high if there is any ambiguity in what they are saying or if they lack persuasive evidence. Please do not be worried if I will agree with you or not. I just want to see a good argument and know precisely what you are arguing.

Debate Events: Clarity is really important. I want to judge according to the best arguments, but please remember that your judges are most likely not going to be as familiar with the subject matter as you are. Be deliberate in your speech and thoroughly explain your evidence.

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.

I have experience in a wide range of debate and speech events. Here are my paradigms for some.

LD-

I did LD for 3 years. I love a good ethical, ought and should debate- if the topic allows for it. Please note that I don't think solvency of the problem is what LD debate is. We need to touch on how the actions we take will impact in the real world, but to win my ballot you must win the moral and ethical debate- ought we to do something not just would it solve the problem (unless you use Consequentialism for V or C and win framework). I studied some philosophy and ethics in college but please make clear what your value and criteria are. That way both me and your opponent's know exactly what you mean. Make your contentions clear and logical. Framework is important and I like you to tell me what you think the voters should be for the round. Clash will always keep me more engaged and I think it is a key part of any debate, so I will be factoring that into my decision. If you run K's or progressive you better make sure they are VERY good, topical and still allow for clash.

Impromptu-

I love impromptu. Please try new things. I will judge based on devilry and content. I love if you can include some humor, because we all need a good laugh! I like structure in a speech and a take-away. What should I get out of listening to you for the last 7 minutes?

Policy or Team-

I did team my first year of debate. I can flow fairly fast but if I put my pen down you have lost me and it might be worth your time to go back a bit and catch me up. I don't mind well done spew but if I can't understand you it won't matter how fast you deliver your content. For policy I don't mind topicality, solvency or similar arguments.

Exempt-

I follow both domestic and foreign events so present information that is current and correct. I will judge on content and delivery.

When reading my ballots please understand that I try to offer some ways you can improve with every round. I always liked ballots like this because I felt I could take that and be a better debater. These are NOT my RFD. My RFD may include some of those. For example, if you failed to make an argument that was necessary to refute your opponent than I might put it both places. I am not a huge fan of K debate so if you run one, you better make sure you get better solvency and/or lower impacts and MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. If it's in LD you better also make the argument that it is the most ethical course of action. I promise to always try my hardest to be fair and make my RFD be who had the better round.

I flow and consider values and criterium. I also flow cross and will consider the overall value of the evidence, and voters would be appreciated on final speaks. I have done Public Forum debates for three years at Bingham High and know my way around an argument. I will not be biased toward a topic; instead, I will consider all arguments regardless of my beliefs.

Aaron Tanuvasa

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (9 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

I look for professionalism/poise, conscious involvement, and organization. Knowledge of the topic is a perk.

I dock for eye rolls and drama.