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 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I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated.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I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old).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) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

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

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

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

Don't be intimidated by all of this 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 in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

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 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.

First time judging, mainly looking for statements that support position.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking:I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization:I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content:Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea.

Delivery:How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact:I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

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.

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!

I used to debate so more could be expected from me than a parent judge. Speed is ok; however, make sure to prioritize clarity in the second half to make the voting less difficult.

Cohesion is important and can win the round, especially when people move onto meta-weighing instead of circling around established arguments. I do like non-traditional cases with critical theory, social justice, and framework, but such argumentation and framing must be established within the first speech and still evaluate the apposing framework. Teams that use such cases shouldn't just use these cases to earn ballots and be extra sensitive and knowledgeable. Ultimately, I prefer arguments grounded in the real world and palatable scenarios. I expect link chain arguments and extinction scenario cases to be fleshed out and allow for actual argumentation to occur.

Evidence is important and I will check it if need be, but evidence comparison should not be used to avoid argumentation. Do not abuse evidence.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

Debate is a communication activity. Other than using communication skills, debate requires the use of logic and reasoning. All debaters must speak clearly for me to hear all the points being made and must watch rate of delivery. I can’t vote on what I don’t hear or can’t understand.

Debaters should display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis within their arguments. It is very important to utilize respectable, factual evidence, but also clearly verbalize how the evidence supports your position or argument.

I believe the round is about you, not me. I will judge whatever arguments you present.

Most importantly- Debaters should provide a very clear link chain throughout the debate. Signposting is vital; when transitioning from one topic to another, to tell me what you’re responding to etc.- down to the subpoint or specific card-, and use off-time roadmaps to further clarify flow and primary points of argument.

In Public Forum-

Please do not present new arguments during summary or final focus. New evidence to support arguments already made is acceptable during summary. Final focus is your opportunity to clearly articulate which arguments you believe should weigh most importantly on the judging decision. I am looking for organization, accuracy, and eloquence during final focus.

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.

Hey!  I debated ld in high school competitively. I am fine with k’s but make sure to have a direct link to the topic. For LD, I love a good value criterion debate. Losing the criterion argument will be waited heavily because if you can’t define the scope of the debate and what is important it’s hard to value what arguments are going to have the greatest impact. I know I hated reading this in high school, but it has been over ten years since I have heard any spreading so please go relatively slow for me. Excited to keep going and listen to some great debates! 

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.

I'm a flow judge for PF, LD, and Policy. I competed in PF throughout high school and I now compete in Parli for the U of U. I'll list more specific information for each event below, but most of all, be respectful and have a good time! Debate is meant to be educational and fun!

PF:

Voting:Extensions, impact calc, and terminalized impacts are all very important. I would suggest starting to weigh in summary, and by FF, completely focusing on weighing instead of line by line. Tell me why you’ve won the round, where you’re winning, the mechanism by which you outweigh. Framework is also key and I’d suggest extending it throughout the round.

On extensions, if you make a new argument or bring up a dropped argument in second sum or FF, I will notice. If your opponent brought up a new arg, point that out if you still have a speech left. If it’s second FF and you don’t have a speech left, trust me, I will notice without you pointing it out.

RFDs:I'll always give everyone a good, long RFD on Tab. If there's time, I'll give some feedback in person. If for some reason you don't get a long RFD, its probably because Tabroom locked me out of the ballot before I was done.

I'm a flow judge for PF, LD, and Policy. I competed in PF throughout high school and I now compete in Parli for the U of U. I'll list more specific information for each event below, but most of all, be respectful and have a good time! Debate is meant to be educational and fun!

PF:

Voting:Extensions, impact calc, and terminalized impacts are all very important. I would suggest starting to weigh in summary, and by FF, completely focusing on weighing instead of line by line. Tell me why you’ve won the round, where you’re winning, the mechanism by which you outweigh. Framework is also key and I’d suggest extending it throughout the round.

On extensions, if you make a new argument or bring up a dropped argument in second sum or FF, I will notice. If your opponent brought up a new arg, point that out if you still have a speech left. If it’s second FF and you don’t have a speech left, trust me, I will notice without you pointing it out.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

Tech arguments: Feel free to go tech as long as it's against a qualified opponent. K and other tech arguments in PF are fine by me, but you can absolutely use theory against such an argument. If you make a good case for why I shouldn't allow it, I'll vote it down.

Framework/Niche frameworks: I don’t see a ton of value in running policy framework arguments in PF, like Baudrillard, extinction good, etc. You’re welcome to do so against a qualified opponent, but I don’t think these args are very valuable.

Theory: Know that I rarely buy paraphrasing theory, but if you make a good case I’ll consider it. Disclosure theory doesn’t matter to me in PF, especially on lower circuit tournaments.

Spreading: Please don't. It is important to keep PF accessible to the general public and those with speech/hearing disabilities. If your opponent is going too fast, feel free to say "slow." If you get slowed, don't worry about it, just drop your speed and continue with your speech.

Non-discrimination and abusive behavior: Offensive or discriminatory language, as well as personal attacks on opponents, constitute and immediate loss and zero speaks. Things like yelling, constant interrupting, dominating cross, and post-rounding will result in low speaks but will not result in am automatic loss unless the behavior is particularly egregious. If you're pushing it, I will warn you and give you a chance to fix the issue.

Evidence Violations:Per NSDA rules,verified instances of falsifying evidence are an immediate loss. In my book, an opponent’s accusation of falsifying evidence is not enough to prove it happened. If you believe someone has falsified evidence, you should stop the round and show me the issue.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

Tech arguments: Feel free to go tech as long as it's against a qualified opponent. K and other tech arguments in PF are fine by me, but you can absolutely use theory against such an argument. If you make a good case for why I shouldn't allow it, I'll vote it down.

Framework/Niche frameworks: I don’t see a ton of value in running policy framework arguments in PF, like Baudrillard, extinction good, etc. You’re welcome to do so against a qualified opponent, but I don’t think these args are very valuable.

Theory: Know that I rarely buy paraphrasing theory, but if you make a good case I’ll consider it. Disclosure theory doesn’t matter to me in PF, especially on lower circuit tournaments.

Spreading: Please don't. It is important to keep PF accessible to the general public and those with speech/hearing disabilities. If your opponent is going too fast, feel free to say "slow." If you get slowed, don't worry about it, just drop your speed and continue with your speech.

Non-discrimination and abusive behavior: Offensive or discriminatory language, as well as personal attacks on opponents, constitute and immediate loss and zero speaks. Things like yelling, constant interrupting, dominating cross, and post-rounding will result in low speaks but will not result in am automatic loss unless the behavior is particularly egregious. If you're pushing it, I will warn you and give you a chance to fix the issue.

Evidence Violations:Per NSDA rules,verified instances of falsifying evidence are an immediate loss. In my book, an opponent’s accusation of falsifying evidence is not enough to prove it happened. If you believe someone has falsified evidence, you should stop the round and show me the issue.

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.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Assistant coach at Rowland Hall.

2023-2024 Update 1: I think topic education good arguments are very good on this topic and you should go for them in front of me.

I am currently a student at the University of Utah majoring in both classical philology and German. I love language, both as a heuristic tool and as a vehicle for persuasion. I debated at Weber State University (2017-2019) for Ryan Wash (whom I can only aspire to imitate as an adjudicator in each and every debate I judge) and at Copper Hills High School (2014-2017) for Scott Odekirk.

I will for nearly no reason insert anything I think independent of the debate round into my decision or evaluation of said round. I don't care if you think something is a bad argument or morally suspect, if either of these things are true in context of the round it should simply be easy to beat. This applies to most all things, illogical or not. This also means I have a low threshold for what needs to be said to beat a bad argument.

Tech > Truth ... BUT it will be nigh impossible to convince me to vote for a factually untrue argument.

I strongly believe that debate is a game which you can choose to approach however you would like. Because of this, you should attempt to win in any way possible. PIK's, theory, cheating CP's are all fair game if you can defend them (some are easier to defend than others of course).

Framework when not contextualized to the AFF being read in the round is pretty much never going to persuade me. Framework debate has become too formulaic and repetitive resulting in facsimiles of prior debates playing out against different AFF's sometimes three times a tournament. Some blocks and card extensions are obviously universally applicable, but they still need some case specific analysis done for the round that is happening. The ability to make unique arguments on the spot is a sign of a good debater. This all goes doubly so for K's. I read mostly Cap and Baudrillard in college and high school and the failure to contextualize your links and alternative to the round at hand is a strategy destined for defeat.

K AFF specifics: 1. I need to know what it means to vote AFF before the end of the 2AR. 2. Impact turns to framework are good and your best way to winning my ballot. 3. There must be a role for the negative which you have clearly outlined at some point in the round (the negative can argue that it is bad, but it must exist). [EXCEPTION: If your argument is that the negative should not exist at all (hard to convince me this is good)].

Framework specifics: 1. Fairness is an impact, but you still have to weigh it. 2. I think the argument that clash makes us better advocates for our causes is the best framework argument. 3. Good TVA's need evidence.

Framework update (11/16/2022): I have found myself voting neg in framework debates far more than I used to. I think that this is due to a combination of K AFF's being more unfair to debate against on the NATO topic as well as negative teams doing a better job explaining the particular in-round impacts of topicality to me. Do with this information what you will, but the voting record tab should capture my voting trends at each tournament and if this trend has shifted for some reason.

Misc. Arguments:

1. The 1AR is allowed new responses if the 1NC reads an embedded ASPEC sentence on a topicality shell and it is NOT flagged. Stop doing this.
2. 50 state fiat is a reason to reject the argument not the team.
3. No inserting re-highlightings, you MUST read them or they DO NOT exist.

1 CARD MAXIMUM IN THE BODY OF THE E-MAIL!!!! DO NOT ASK.

My speaker points scale, while fairly average (majority 28's), can easily be increased with humour. What ever happened to debaters being funny and persuasive in round, and why are these two things not more intricately connected with one another? Also, don't go faster than you know you should, slurring your speech at 400WPM will not help you win a round, focus on making good concise arguments with less filler and you won't need to force yourself to talk at Mach 10.

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.