Smith,+Josh

Last edit: 10/9/15

I'm judging policy at Beehive because my team could not find enough policy judges.
 * Teams should remember to do three things to pick up my ballot:**
 * 1) Communicate with your partner so that you both know at least one argument you're going to ensure is a clean and clear place for me to vote. Watch out for dropped arguments. Dropped arguments tend to be my biggest frustration in policy.
 * 2) Give more explanation on the technical arguments like T and theory. I have had less exposure to them because I usually do LD in a largely traditional circuit.
 * 3) Keep an eye on whether or not I'm flowing. I genuinely like faster debates, but, trust me, you're simply not as clear as you think you are. You've heard your case countless times, but I am unfamiliar with the topic literature and have never heard your case.

I’m leaving my old paradigm below, but it’s too long and obnoxious to be useful for you. It’s there as a reminder that brevity is valuable.

I have just a few things worth considering when you debate with me:
 * 1) I am open to whatever you want to do as long as you do it well. I really mean this. Debate ought to be fun. Both progressive and traditional debate can be enjoyable.
 * 2) Remember the value of maintaining a community.
 * 3) I have voted for people who I thought were rude in the debate room, but they suffered in speaker points. I don’t think I would vote for someone who made outright sexist/racist/homophobic arguments, but you're welcome to find out.
 * 4) Slow for tags.
 * 5) Distinguish tags and authors from the actual text of the card and my flow will look better and you’re well on your way to winning the round.
 * 6) I lack some technical knowledge.
 * 7) I don’t dislike theory and T debates, I just don’t feel like I fully understand the issues at hand because gaining those skills when I actually debated were unnecessary in my more traditional circuit where I was one of the more progressive debaters. I’ve never squirreled when I have voted on theory/T. The way to deal with this is to slow down on those debates a little and explain why they’re important.
 * 8) Give me a clear place to vote throughout the debate.
 * 9) Choose one argument you think will win you the round to continually extend throughout the debate. This is a huge problem when I judge CX or PF. Teammates have a problem being on the same page. Make sure you agree on one thing to extend cleanly throughout the debate so I have a clear place to vote. I hate having to weigh crappy extensions against crappy extensions and decide one is better than the other.
 * 10) Avoid acronyms.
 * 11) I enjoy a faster debate, though I haven’t been as involved with debate this year (2014) so I don’t know quite as much as other judges might about the topic. So avoid acronyms. You are, of course, free to debate at whatever speed you like to debate at. Just pay attention to me to make sure I’m keeping up. Slow for tags and you’ll be golden.

__**Experience - **__

I competed LD for Sky View High School in Utah for two years. I am now an assistant coach at Sky View since graduating.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The Short - **__

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Run whatever you want, I'm not going to drop you for what you run or how you run it. I will vote for anything you run if you run it well and I understand it.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I'm fine with speed, though I'm finding that sometimes I get outclassed, usually when debaters don’t slow down for tags. So slow for tags and give lots of analysis and you’ll be fine. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Debate the way you're comfortable. Sit or stand, whatever you feel most comfortable doing. CX can be sitting or standing as well. You're going to debate better if you're comfortable, so please, for the sake of not boring me, make yourself comfortable. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">To determine who wins I first resolve issues like theory/T, then move to substantive issues. Framework first, determining what counts as offense, then who has the most offense under that framework.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Policy **__

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I've judged CX a few times, whenever my team can't find someone who did CX. I'd say for most questions refer to the other parts of my paradigm. I'll stress three things: 1 - Give a short summary of your argument after you read it. 2 - Slow for tags. Policy kids have been really bad when I judge at slowing for tags. 3 – Explain the acronyms. The kids who win do all three of these things.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Long - **__

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Cautiously, I say that you can run whatever, and however you want in front of me. I’m not going to drop you for how fast or what you run in front of me. Though I do have natural biases and other qualifiers that I'm attempting to express below.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Now for the caveats -

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">1 - I care. I was a debater, and I care about how the round is judged. I’ll do my best every round.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">2 - I’m a debate judge. This means debate in front of me, not simply orate. I prefer debates with clash, dueling oratories put me to sleep and that shows up in your speaks.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">3 - I’m somewhat inexperienced in the technical area of debate. Arguments such as critical affs, theory, and topicality, rank low on the list of arguments that I ran myself and I may not have a good base of understanding before the round. HOWEVER, I will vote for them, if clearly explained, and I understand them well enough to feel comfortable voting for them. I have voted on T and theory, show abuse and make it easy for me to justify it. (I prefer a substantive debate to these technical issues. Don’t run theory as a cheap way to win)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">4 - I only vote on things I understand. I’m a quasi-assistant coach at Sky View and so I usually have a basic grasp of the topic before coming to the tournament. However my knowledge on: critical literature, theory, and topicality, is limited. Again, if you’re good at explaining your arguments then I can and will vote on it, because I'll understand it.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">6 - Slow down for taglines. I can flow fast rounds, IF you slow for tags. If you opt for not slowing down for tags, it won’t be flowed, and what isn’t flowed can’t/won’t be evaluated. I’ll jot down some general notes, have a general idea of your position, and do my best.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">7 - I presume aff, because of structural skews, unless given reasons otherwise in round. I will also presume an impact calculus to weigh the round if neither framework works, or if they’re both somehow dropped, which I’ve only ever seen in novice rounds. Winning the framework debate will almost always win you the round.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">8 - In signing my ballot, I do the least amount of work possible. First, accept some kind of framework to judge/weigh impacts on, then weigh the impacts presented and make a decision.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">9 - Clarity. Seriously. I'm fine with speed, but I really hate spending 45 minutes trying to figure out what you're saying because you're awful at spreading. Ways to clear up your spread: drills, clear and understandable case structure, and pausing briefly around tags and authors.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Specific Arguments - __

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Theory - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m open to theory because of my inexperience. Explain it well, show abuse, and I’ll vote for it. However I don’t enjoy theory for the sake of theory, or as a cheap way to win. If you can show in round abuse you’ll easily get my vote on theory. Compliments of Steve Knell: “My complaint about the theory arguments is that I think that theory can be used as an important pedagogical tool to check in-round abuse; however, I tend to think that in practice, it is most often used as a sketchy way to unfairly make life harder for your opponent than an argument against actual abuse.”

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Courtesy of Mark Veeder: “If you run theory against someone who doesn't know what it is, an easy way to gain speaker points in front of me is to be nice about it, and to help explain it as much as possible. If you can turn it into a learning experience for them, that is always good.”

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Topicality - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m open to topicality because of my inexperience. Explain it well, show abuse and I’ll vote for it. I don’t care if it’s run as a time suck but I generally don’t find it to be an enjoyable debate, and that may, unconsciously, effect your speaks.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> K’s - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m unfamiliar with critical lit, but I understand how K’s work, and ran them myself. If you run them just explain them to me, don’t assume that I have any prior knowledge, I probably don’t.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Spend a lot of time on the alt. If you are running real world impacts, spend a lot of time there too, I’ll buy them if clearly explained and you win the debate there, though I think they’re at least slightly ridiculous and that may give me a slight bias against them while judging. Explain your K’s framework too, sometimes I’m confused if a framework isn’t included in the K, make sure to explain it to me by giving a normal value/criterion framework or a “discourse first” type framework.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I have now seen several critical AFFs and feel pretty comfortable with them, again however, be able to explain them well and clearly show brink to your impacts.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Plans/CP’s - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I understand how they function. My threshold for your opponent showing abuse here is relatively low. Plans/CP's are something that I'm not sure I like in LD. But as with all arguments, I'm open to you running them and will vote for them.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Extensions - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Claim-Warrant-Impact, but more quickly and simply. My threshold isn’t as high as in the original speech.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">If your opponent doesn’t attack it at all the threshold is very low, but I always prefer a complete Claim-Warrant-Impact, it makes me feel much better voting on it. Crappy extensions such as, "My opponent dropped my contention 2 so extend it," will be voted on if you really won everything else and it's clear who the better debater is. If it's close then I might not extend them. I understand AFF's timeskew so the threshold there is slightly lower, but don’t risk anything on the best arguments.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 2AR (LD specific) - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This three-minute speech is just awful. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I don’t mind just voters in the 2AR. Cover the main issues and you’ll be fine, though extensions on main arguments are nice as well. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">No new arguments. This will hurt you in speaks, a lot.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Flex Prep - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m fine with it, though I prefer that you use it for questions and don’t just take 7 minutes of prep time. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Tell me if you’re using flex prep though, otherwise I’ll go straight into prep time. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m fine with questions during prep time as well, though I don’t require that an answer be given.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> After round - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I’m happy to answer questions, talk, or give critiques. It’s tacky to challenge me though. I won’t change my vote, it’s not worth trying, challenging me can only hurt your speaks. If you feel like you’re asking too many questions, stop, and find me later in the tournament and I’ll help you out. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Ask and I’ll give critiques. I’ll give as long of critiques as you like, regardless of what the tournament director has said about them if you ask. We'll probably have to walk and talk, but not allowing critiques sucks.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Disclosure - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">If both debaters want disclosure then I will disclose. Otherwise, the one who wants disclosure can walk with me, or wait until their opponent has left for disclosure.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This is also something I’ll only do if asked. After the debate, or later during the tournament I’ll tell you. If you ask sometime other than immediately after the round tell me what round and flight. After judging fifteen different people in one day I may not remember every round perfectly.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">After judging some more I've found that my RFD's get long and sound kind of pretentious. I apologize, I'm just trying to explain as fully as possible why I voted the way I did.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Speaks - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">In my first year of judging I was pretty generous except when I actively tried to be really critical. Do your best. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Some general tips: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Don't say "I affirm/negate the resolution, resolved:...". I think adding resolved is redundant, and it annoys me every time I hear it. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Being nice will help, especially if your opponent doesn't understand your argument. Explain it well, and without sounding like a pompous jerk, and you'll get better speaks.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Hand Signals - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I'm bad at hand signals. For best results bring your own timer.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Calling For Evidence - __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I really don't want to have to call for evidence. Barring evidence, which is being called into question as to being used correctly or fairly I don’t want to have to look at evidence. I'm pretty sure it means I'm doing work for the debaters that I shouldn't have to do, AND that it biases me in favor of that evidence.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Questions? __

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Ask before the round starts, I dislike answering questions after the AC, but I understand if she or he goes before your question gets asked.