2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 1

Transcription

1 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 1 Idaho Digital Paradigm Manual: January 2018 Update Herby Kojima Idaho State Debate Commissioner

2 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 2 Table of Contents Aldridge, Kelly Araki, Kurtis Atkinson, Jodi Bamford, Carla Bates, Elizabeth Bell, Sara Benson, Bruce Bjurstrom, Nic Blue, Mark Boatman, Kristopher Bodily, Doug Borjian, Sara Borman, Zach Boylan, Camilla Bradley, Jack Bradley, Robert Buchan, Kristina Burbank, Diana Burns, Brittnay Bustillo, Ximena Butler, Jennifer Bynon, Lily Carlson, Jason Carter, Elaine Christensen, Robin Clayton, Bob Constantinescu, Corina Cope, Rachael Crabill, John Curr, Marcy Davis, Clif Dibelius, Pamela Di Dio, Amanda Di Dio, Donovan Drew, Kristen Drobny, Donnie Duggan, Glenda Dyer, Brianna Ekker, Gavin Facer, Dana Fairbanks, Nicholas Fisher, Denise Friend, Teri Gardner, Daniel Gigray, Frank Gonzalez, Melanie Gordon, Luke Gordon, Wendy Griffitsts, Diane Hall, Cliff Hammersley, Dory Hardy, Jerica Hardy, Jon Harrington, Elaine Henley, Jeri Higbee, Heather Hill, Zach Hobson, Shawna Honovich, Ray Hubbard, Christine Hunter, Kenneth Ingraham, Madi James, Janet Johnson, Colby Johnson, Dean Jones, Blake Kemper, Meghan Kemper, Michael Kojima, Herby Lee, Rebekah Leppert, Kiz Light, Greg Lord, Linda Magana, Karla Martin, Erin Mauney, Kyra Montrueil, Paul Moss, Sheldon Niederer, Andrea Nees, Jeslyn Newman, Ariel Ogaard, Judy Ogunrinola, Dele O Quinn, Rich Orr, Andy Ortmann, Paul Owens, Raub Perry, Michelle Petersen, Justin Petti, John Pham, Amanda Platts, Kevin Romriell, Holly Sauer, Welcome Schindler, Brent Schulz, Melinda Schutt, Michelle Scott, Melissa Shelman, Wendy Shumway, Jennifer Smith, Diana Smith, Heidi Smith, Kara Sondrup, Brock Sprague, Heidi Stoppenhagen, Jeff Tatterson, Renee Tiwari, Tripta Underwood, Julie Walker, Arie Wardwell, Paul Watson, Ben Watson, Deena Willford, Sterling Williams, Candace Worst, Susan

3 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 3 LAST C years affiliated I, J and roles E K FIRST D F G, H L M N O P Q R S T

4 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 4 ALDRIDGE years affiliated head coach, assistant coach and roles 3 Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. Citations KELLY CERTIFIED Vallivue, Ridgevue, American Falls It will impact my decision only if it is distracting or overly-used I want value/criteria debate. Competitors should uphold their value and criteria through out. I like all...having a mix of arguments can be very persuasive. As I judge, I do not respond well to kritik's in LD debate. All are acceptable. All are acceptable. They shouldn't...it takes up a lot of time.

5 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 5 ARAKI years affiliated judge and roles 2 Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. Sign post... please? Say "Next" or somehow emphasize your tag line and citation so that I can flow it -- you could go as far as saying something like "I will be reading three DAs with four warrants in each, and a counterplan with two" during your offtime roadmap and that would help tremendously. It's a 50/50 proposition that I'll be able to keep up it if you don't. None. Tag-teaming is 100% okay by me. From my point-of-view, your value and criterion combination should be quantifiable via some metric and not remain a nebulous concept. It's acceptable if this metric is just a binary, "yeah it exists, or no it doesn't." Think of it like you and your opponent are growing competing trees from the trunk (V/C) and up to the branches (arguments). If you're sharing the same or have similar trunks, then you will be trying to grow your branches while staving off your opponent's -- if the trunks are in separate plots of land, you had better try to chop of your opponent's tree at the trunk. Empirical, then theoretical, then philosophical. That being said, bad empirical arguments are penalized more than bad theoretical ones. I'm good with value Kritiks, mostly because these can be linked to the original resolution relatively quickly without an elaborate chain of warrants. I am aware of other types of Kritiks (e.g. language or thinking). Same criteria -- have a link story that is relevant to the original resolution. If you notice from a previous answer, since I'm more empirically driven, it would be a major risk to run a language or thinking Kritik with me. Please run all of these before the 1NR. New harms and significance are okay as long as it's in the framework of extending a larger piece like an Ad or DA. Aff needs to have a path towards solvency or I can't vote for them -- that is, that brand new Tesla may be the best car ever with ten advantages over the bicycle I currently use, but if you don't tell me or if I don't inherently know what deficiency I am addressing, then I'm not buying the Tesla. Please run all of these before the 1NR. You can extend all you want, but if I hear a new DA after final CX it's gonna drive me crazy -- nothing is more annoying than all four rebuttal rounds being consumed by a brand new arg. Be wary of Kritiks -- I'm good with value Kritik's nearly universally because of the ease of connecting it to the original resolution. Be careful with more exotic Ks like language or thinking -- I'm generally empirically biased, so I would guess that it would take an incredible amount of time on your part to convince me of it. CPs are fine -- it probably would be worthwhile to focus on uniqueness or it's a waste of time. T and DAs are fine. Run it as if I've never heard of the theory shell before. Please have a link story into your larger voter -- theory shells are for changing the variables and exponents of the impact calculus equation, not the coefficients. KURTIS Eagle

6 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 6 ATKINSON years affiliated assistant coach, judge and roles 2 Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Citations and evidence read Poorly JODI I like it when they debaters use values and criteria logically to support their arguments. Skyline Philosophical Sure, if they know how to do it correctly. Harms, solvency, advantages. I prefer to hear counter plans or disadvantages in policy debate Logic through out, supported with evidence.

7 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 7 BAMFORD years affiliated head coach, judge and roles K CARLA Jerome, Eagle L M N O P Q R S T

8 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 8 BATES years affiliated judge and roles 2 Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es. citations with dates are extremely helpful ELIZABETH Kimberly CERTIFIED none if polite stated clearly so we understand the relevance to your position empirical with statistics when possible no preference no preference just slow enough to be clear no preference just slow enough to be clear no preference just slow enough to be clear

9 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 9 BELL SARA years affiliated head coach, assistant coach, judge and roles Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. CERTIFIED Mountain View, Centennial, Boise Read tag, citation Neutral unless often/instrusive Clear use of value argumentation; the relationship between value premise and the criteria should be clear. Arguments should support value-criteria. open If I can follow your K I'm good. I need to hear link-impact-alternative. ROTB needs to not be abusive, and must provide clear, solid reasons why it is a good thing. judge on the arguments I hear Prefer topicality, but if you run K or CP, slow down so I can understand it. Keep it straightforward.

10 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 10 BENSON years affiliated head coach, judge and roles Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. All of the above BRUCE Madison CERTIFIED I strongly discourage oral and written prompting. Doing so will probably impact my decision in the round. All arguments should support the value. I do not like abstract criteria. I prefer Empirical arguments. The more logical the better. I will vote against Kritiks 100% of the time. I hate them. I am a policy maker judge. I want to see a very organized plan with definite advantages. I don't like Kritiks. Counterplans are very weak. One can only win solvency on a counterplan. I will vote on Topicality if it is structured properly. I will not vote on generic dis ads such a nuclear war. If you run nuclear war, plan on losing my vote. I don't like theory arguments. I want arguments that are logical and are practical.

11 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 11 BJURSTROM years affiliated I, J and roles 2 K NIC G, H L M N O P Q R S T

12 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 12 BLUE years affiliated and roles Judge, former CD/CX/LD/PF debater MARK Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. I am pretty lazai fair. Each card should be spoken with proper citation. If opponent's have to view the article it should be easily found and distributed. If I have to give an oral prompting, I am going to mark down that team. Debate is a practice of professionalism above all else. No one would expect anyone to perform a in work without the proper knowledge. I apply this base line to students in debate. I take no issue with time signals, in fact I encourage students to utilize them. I am a very traditional debater. A well ordered case should have a value backed up by criteria and arguments. Otherwise it's not LD. A debate is won or lost on the value debate for me. A good philosophical argument should win LD. This is the morals debate. However a combination of all three is needed to make a civilized case. If the tournament allows Kritik's to be utilized, then go nuts! If not, it's an instant DQ. A debater's K should be used as a theoretical exercise for the Neg. to provide for the resolution better than the Aff. or be argued in such a way as to prove the entire resolution unfair. I judge the round on linkage. If there is harms in the status quo or the Aff. plan then harms is proved. Same goes for inherency, solvency, and advantages. The plan is the summation of the case. Prove the linkage. I don't really judge debates on topicality except for extreme examples. Disadvantages are the weakest of judging criteria. A K and counterplan are subject to linkage. A debate should be about proving the K right/wrong and or an argument about plans. Debater's should treat K's and arguments as case arguments. However they like. I can follow just about everything. 2 Kuna

13 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 13 BOATMAN years affiliated head coach and roles 4 KRISTOPHER A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Century Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. citations are fine It won t impact my decision No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference

14 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 14 BODILY years affiliated judge and roles 1 DOUG Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Eagle, Nampa Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. No preference No impact No preference empirical No preference No preference No preference No preference

15 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 15 BORJIAN years affiliated head coach and roles E K SARA F Meridian L M N O P Q R S T

16 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 16 BORMAN years affiliated head coach, assistant coach and roles +5 Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. ZACH Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. I'm open to different structures as long as all components are present. I do REALLY like tags read a little slower and more clearly than the exerpts (which can be read significantly faster). Not at all as long as one debater CLEARLY is doing all of the thinking for the team. This is my preferred way of judging LD debate, but I am VERY open to progressive styles as long as cases are shared with opponent/judge. +5 CERTIFIED Rocky Mountain, Centennial, Borah I like a combination of all three :) In any way they like as long as it has a clear link (not just absolutely generic), and is not absolutely absurd. I'd consider myself a policy-maker judge, so there needs to be a real justification for initiating significant change in our government. If Neg can disprove this need, or cast serious doubt on the solvency of the plan, I will likely not vote for it. Clear, specific links. Show me why these must be dealt with first. Aff, don't disregard these, even if your response is analytical, these arguments should be taken seriously. I find MOST K's to be inherently absurd or unrealistic in their ALTs, point that out. I am a pragmatist by nature, if you can show your opponent and the judge a more thoroughly imagined world in the ALT, you might be able to undercut it. Make sure with CPs that they are unique and exclusive to the Neg. Perms are compelling and easily argued by the Aff. Theory can be a bit of a bog that is hard to track through as a judge. I'm not opposed to it, but don't drop a BUNCH of hyper-advanced philosophical ideas on me in a 6 minute and expect me to understand the intricacies of the semantics you want me to understand...unless you are analyzing/interpreting it clearly for me and telling me how it applies to my decision.

17 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 17 BOYLAN years affiliated judge, head coach, CX debater and roles Arguments should each be addressed individually. CAMILLA Mountain View, Nampa Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es. Tagline, author, date Not at all, unless the one prompting is doing all the work. Arguments should relate to V/C Any, as long as it is well done Not a fan Yes As long as they are done well and not generic. Any, as long as they are not generic

18 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 18 BRADLEY years affiliated judge, CX debater and roles JACK Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. The only preference I have is that they say, "and" to distinguish cards. It won't impact my decision in the round in any capacity on who wins or loses. If oral prompting is heavy, speaker points will probably be lowered however. In whatever manner they choose. I want them to utilize values and criteria in some sort of framework to uphold their value position. Framing of debates is important for me. 3 Highland No preference. I try to come in with an open mind about all of this. Use a Kritik case to interrogate the resolution's inherent flaws. In any way they choose. As an experienced tabula rasa policy judge, they can read any arguments they want in any capacity or format as long as it adheres to the rules in Idaho. I'm comfortable with them. In any way they choose. As an experienced tabula rasa policy judge, they can read any arguments they want in any capacity or format as long as it adheres to the rules in Idaho. I'm comfortable with them. In any way they choose. As an experienced tabula rasa policy judge, they can read any arguments they want in any capacity or format as long as it adheres to the rules in Idaho. I'm comfortable with them.

19 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 19 BRADLEY years affiliated assistant coach, judge and roles Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. Using the Author's last name is sufficient. Oral prompting is discouraged but it is not prohibited. Thus I may use this to break a tie but I will not use it in any substantial form. Presume that I don't understand your values /criterion and spend some time explaining your values /criterion and how I should understand the importance of your chosen values /criterion. The entire debate will depend upon my understanding of your values /criterion so please do not rush past this crucial part of the debate. Your arguments should support your values and criterion. I am more a rationalist than an empiricist. I have no preference for which argument is used to support a value position. ROBERT I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me I ve never done this before! Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. * Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer. Highland I will evaluate the kritik / topicality first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik / topicality must be compared to the plan, then the kritik / topicality will outweigh the plan or value position. I have no preference. I am open to kritik and topicality as valid forms of criticisms. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are pre-fiat because it is the only real thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented. My thanks to for their thoughtful analysis of kritiks.

20 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 20 BUCHAN years affiliated and roles assistant coach, judge, college debater, LD debater Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. Road mapping No impact unless it is clear one debater is ill-prepared KRISTINA value are criteria are tools in the toolbox, not the only method Blackfoot, Hillcrest, Skyline theoretical backed by warrants kritiks are rarely necessary, make sure they are warranted and unique speed is fine S provide unique harms along with analysis Warrant claims, provide unique impacts, not to be used as a time-suck

21 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 21 BURBANK years affiliated judge and roles 2 DIANA A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Be clear in your tag line and citation. I need to know it's real and verified. Rocky Mountain Depends on the extent. Should be kept to a minimum unless the partner says something catastrophic that could cost the round. Throughout. Consider the scope of the resolution and find a value that is consistent throughout your contentions. Make sure that your criteria makes sense on a logical level, and if you find that you are consistently explaining your value using certain criteria that you clearly explain that criteria from the start. No preference Make sure you go all in. I don't want to hear traditional arguments as backup. No preference, but I am a tabs judge. No preference, but I am a tabs judge. No preference, but I am a tabs judge. You have to be crystal clear on these.

22 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 22 BURNS years affiliated assistant coach, CX/PF debater and roles Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., A large quantity of arguments prove more persuasive than a few well-developed arguments., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. BRITTNAY Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Saying "next" between cards is helpful and saying "cut card" where you have marked cards. 3 Borah, Boise, Timberline It will not have an impact in my decision. I'm going to vote and evaluate however you tell me to. Tell me how you use these things to support a value position and why it matters. I have no preference. No preference. No preference. No preference. No preference. I do tend to vote on theory arguments.

23 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 23 BUSTILLO years affiliated assistant coach, judge and roles Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. Taglines should be one sentence and paired with a specific contention or sub point for reference. Citations should include the author and year published. Evidence should follow citation and include the specific data or analysis to be considered Depends on tournament rules The value should be what voting aff or neg should result in, the criteria is the mechanism to evaluate the value, and the arguments should explain how they meet the criteria and therefor the value. All arguments should be linked to V/C I prefer philosophical arguments, however case should include empirics to prove validity of argument They shouldn't. XIMENA 1 Ridgevue, Vallivue I have no preference- debater's choice I have no preference- debater's choice I have no preference- debater's choice

24 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 24 BUTLER years affiliated judge and roles 1 JENNIFER A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Eagle, Meridian Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. citations not certain. I don't know. I'm a new judge. I don't know. I'm a new judge. I don't know. I'm a new judge. I don't know. I'm a new judge. I don't know. I'm a new judge. I don't know. I'm a new judge.

25 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 25 BYNON years affiliated judge and roles E K LILY F Kimberly CERTIFIED L M N O P Q R S T

26 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 26 CARLSON years affiliated judge and roles JASON Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Canyon Ridge, Twin Falls Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es. Citations are highest priority followed by tag lines Use of oral prompting will give indications that the debater is ill prepared and will likely get a lower score. Values and Criteria must have established scope and impact related to the resolution. Analysis advertising clear thresholds have been met will be essential. Philosophical analysis are preferred for value potions. Empirical only if it can be clearly measured and theoretical only last based on the belief system of the provoker. A teleological response has more impact than a parsimonious response. In order of importance: Incoherence, solvency, advantages, harms. In order of importance: Disadvantages, topicality, counterplans, kritiks. Avoid abuse claims unless absolutely warranted. Global mass extinction is only valid if not paired with a nuclear exchange.

27 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 27 CARTER years affiliated I, J and roles E K ELAINE F G, H L M N O P Q R S T

28 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 28 CHRISTENSEN Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A large quantity of arguments prove more persuasive than a few well-developed arguments., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Preferably numbering each card as to distinguish between each. Each card should have a tag line, citation, and evidence. I dislike oral prompting, unless in extreme circumstances. If a partner essentially takes over a CX, I will drop them (or give extremely low speaker points) Values and Criteria should be used through the entire debate. They should be used to tie their whole case together. The best LD rounds use the value throughout the entire debate. No preference ROBIN years affiliated head coach, assistant coach, judge, and roles college debater, CX debater Highland, Eagle, Hillcrest I do not prefer kritik's in LD debate. In their aff? Also, I have no preference how on case is attacked, as long as it is attacked! I do not prefer kritiks unless they are communicated extremely well. Arguments should be shelled out. Theory should be ran in an organized manner (so I can flow). It should be communicated where I should flow it.

29 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 29 CLAYTON years affiliated head coach and roles BOB Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. I like tag lines, clear citations, evidence read and explained clearly. Students should stand on their own and answer questions without oral prompting. I don't like oral prompting during any portion of the debate round. CERTIFIED Bonneville, Skyline Debaters should weigh their values and criterions and arguments against their opponents and show why I should prefer their points of view. I appreciate both philosophical arguments and sound logical evidenced arguments. I am not a fan of kritiks; I seldom vote on a kritik. Debaters should present logical, easy to understand on case arguments. They should defend each stock issue that is attacked. Debaters should only present off case arguments that are sound, common sense, practical and that have real world application. Debaters should only present theory arguments that are sound, common sense, practical and that have real world application.

30 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 30 CONSTANTINESCU years affiliated judge, LD/PF debater and roles 3 Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them. CORINA Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. 1 Borah Tag line, evidence, citations It will give me another prospective to think about when making a choice. They should have their arguments be the evidence on why and how their value and criteria s work. That there are more benefits than harms with the values. They can say more things that they weren t positive about in the last debate in the next one. They should bring in evidence that they have found that may disprove or help arguments. They should be able to learn from the mistakes that they first made. They should find evidence that shows its success in the past or that may happen in the future.

31 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 31 COPE years affiliated assistant coach and roles 1 Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. No preference RACHAEL Hillcrest, Skyline None Criteria should prove value superiority Philosophical ppicking apart the other side's resolution. case sides should address stock issues and policy implications link brink violation impact clear and short

32 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 32 CRABILL years affiliated and roles head coach, judge, college debater, LD debater JOHN Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Tag Lines clearly and explicitly stated, followed by an Oral Citation of "According to...", followed by evidence. Say "Next Card" to move on to the next piece of evidence. It won't. Arguments should be focused on enhancing and pushing forward a value. Criteria is necessary for determining value importance. Cases should be focused on the importance of a Value above all. As Value-Resolutions are about Values, philosophical evidence is strongly supported as well as empirical. Theoretical arguments are acceptable, but need strong connection to be considered valid. CERTIFIED Nampa, Skyview, Columbia I do not accept a K as a valid case or form of argumentation in LD Debate. On case Arguments should be addressed in the 1AC and 1NC by debaters, and then supported in the 2AC and 2NC. The Aff should be presenting a plan that the Neg may refute. While Aff-K's are acceptable they need to have very clear links and harms. Any Off Case arguments must be addressed in the 1NC, if they are not they are new arguments and will be completely ignored. As with everything any Off Case arguments need to follow logic and be clearly stated. Make sure it is logical and clearly stated and understandable. If I don't understand it I can't judge on it.

33 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 33 CURR years affiliated and roles head coach, assistant coach, judge, college debater, CG/CX/LD debater Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es. None MARCY If you talk over top of your partner, interrupt, answer questions for them or in any way are rude or make your partner look bad, you will lose the round on courtesy and ethics. LD should be a Value based debate. While historical examples make great evidence, LD is not the place to propose a course of action or put forth a plan. Shelley, Blackfoot, Skyline, Highland, Hillcrest All are fine. No K in LD :) HIPSA is preferred. No Kritical Affs. T-sparingly, DAs-need to be case specific, or at least have a strong link. K and C/P-NO THANK YOU :) Procedural arguments take up valuable debate time. I don't buy into OSPEC arguments or state C/P. Prefer not to hear c/p or k. DON'T RUN ANY ARGUMENTS AS TIME SUCKS!

34 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 34 DAVIS CLIF years affiliated head coach, college debater, CX and roles debater A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. CERTIFIED Hillcrest, Shelly, Teton Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. Clear (non-powered) Tag Line, Author & Date N/A - color me unconcerned Value should be the "ultimate" desirable position - Criteria should be a weighing mechanism for achieving the Value All of the above are applicable. I am very Aristotelian in my approach. The Resolution (or the opponents particular approach) are always open to being (a) kritik (ed) especially in value resolution debate. I like "stock issue" debate with empirical examples. Alt justification/causation arguments (to me) show a desirable depth of understanding. Having a policy maker bent, I like well developed solvency aurguments. I don't like generic, non-linked arguments-link it and I will listen. Set the "shell" for "T" and clearly explain the violation. If the Counter Plan is Case Specific (or Topic Area Specific) and has a Non-Topical actor - it is completely viable to me. With clarity and linkage!!

35 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 35 DIBELIUS years affiliated judge and roles 1 PAMELA Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Mountain View, Capital Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate I judge not debate

36 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 36 DI DIO years affiliated judge, CX/LD debater and roles AMANDA Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. I use a flow so make it easy for me. Whatever works for you, works for me. Tag lines aren't as important as what the card actually says - make sure they are saying what you say they are. As long as the other team is okay with it, it won't affect my decision unless it is overbearing or harmful to anyones mental health. However they want. Debate is for education. Logic and well developed arguments will help you. Well developed one. Whatever you think you can argue best, do it. 4 Timberline, Centennial However they want. I ran kritiks, I understand kritiks. I've probably read your philosophers. I only ask that you have too. Please don't drop solvency or inharency, presumption is my least favorite RFD. If you're gonna run a DA heavy case impact calc is a must on both sides. Make the arguments for me. I think T is a valid voter. Same with Ks and CP. Know what you're doing and make solid arguments. Theory is as important as solvency. It shows a tabluras judge how to view the round. If a team brings it up, respond because I doubt their interp is favorable to your position

37 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 37 DI DIO years affiliated and roles assistant coach, judge, college debater, CX debater Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Please signpost next tags and read authors very clearly. Slow down on these if you need to -- I need to be able to flow you for it to be an argument. I always look at the arguments DONOVAN The values and criteria should frame how I view the arguments and how I make my decision. The more work you do in telling me how these are work together, the more likely it is you will win. Capital, Centennial, Timberline Empirical is likely more persuasive, but I don't really have a preference. Explain the link and how the alternative solves. Inherency -- Usually these arguments are just status quo solves or T-substantial. If the plan is actually being done in the status quo, then it's not inherent. Solvency -- should always be argued Advantages -- Be as clear as you can in why your advantage matters and how you solve it. Harms/Significance -- I just see these as framing the issues of the debate. Tell me which issues are the ones I need to look at when deciding and how those benefit you. Topicality -- Needs to be in the 1NC. If it's in the 2NR, it is the only argument in your 2NR. While I am comfortable with speed, topicality arguments require a lot of writing in a short period of time. Slow down on your counter-interps and standards debate because these arguments aren't just the warrants of a card. Treat topicality like a Debate DA. Counterplans -- You need to prove that the plan and counter are mutually exclusive. How that is defined is up to you. I'll vote on counterplan theory, but you need an interpretation and voters. Kritiks -- You need to prove that the plan and the alternative are mutually exclusive. You also need to be very specific on what your link is and how they link. Simply asserting "They use the state, the state is bad, therefore they are bad" will not win you the debate. Look at their plan text, look at their 1AC, and tell me what parts of it are problematic and how they lead to your impacts. Finally, this applies to answers to the perm as well. I generally think the perm solves, so you need to tell me why it doesn't. Disadvantages -- Tell me the story of the disad and why the status quo is the better option. I will vote on just a disad and a good, researched disad probably beats your CP or K. In general, using evidence well increases your speaking points and makes me vote for that team. The more you craft my RFD, the better. I'll vote on theory, but you need an interpretation and voters.

38 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 38 DREW years affiliated head coach, LD debater and roles Arguments should each be addressed individually. KRISTEN Ridgevue, Vallivue Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. taglines I don't like oral prompting, and it could potentially have a negative impact. Debaters should illustrate how their arguments uphold their v/c. philosophical They can use a kritik for a resolution but not a value solvency counterplans n/a

39 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 39 DROBNY years affiliated head coach and roles Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. No preference DONNIE Borah CERTIFIED Excessive prompting may negatively effect my decision Arguments should connect to criteria which uphold the value. Highly dependent on the selected value. In general I prefer philosophical arguments to support values Kritik cases may be used to argue against the worldview supported by the Opposition. Affirmative speakers must still support the resolution. Debaters should be consistent in their use of kritiks (i.e. a debater should not advocate against capitalism and also for economic advantages to a capitalist system). Stock issues should be clearly articulated and debated. Affirmative debaters should advocate a plan using the lens of stock issues. Harms should be significant but also reasonable. Topicality is a stock issue and therefore a voter. Counterplans have the same expectations of plans (although they should not be topical) and do not enjoy the benefits of fiat. Kritiks should be presented consistently and not simply as a time skew. Theory should be presented logically and include violations, standards and (when appropriate) counter interpretations.

40 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 40 DUGGAN years affiliated judge, college debater and roles 1 Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. citations and evidence read GLENDA I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas so I don't have much of an opinion here. Clear links should be made from all arguments to value, and debater should make clear how his criterion effectively measures accomplishment of value. If opponents use different values/criteria in a round, each should explain why his/hers is more significant than opponent's. I am more interested in the clarity of a debater's support and his/her ability to tie it to the value/criterion than the type of argument used. Caldwell, Nampa I do not feel prepared to judge policy debates at this point, so I don't have an opinion yet. If I were to judge policy, I'd be listening most carefully to inherency and significance, but also give attention to the other two. No opinion. I don't like counterplans--i want the neg. to respond to the aff case. (One of the reasons I don't like to judge policy is the use of counterplans!)

41 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 41 DYER years affiliated and roles head coach, assistant coach, judge, college debater BRIANNA Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive es. Caldwell Please just know what evidence you were quoting. If you can show me where it is I'm fine. Some will not really impact my decision. However, if it is overly used it will more persuade me that the debate team is not as strong in their knowledge as a team that is not continuously prompted. Values and criteria should be used to establish what is going to occur in the round and what is being debated. Arguments should align and uphold the value and criterian placed in the round. I don't care. As long as you can link it and explain why your arguments are valid I'm fine. I think that's a very thin line. If a debater feels they MUST use a kritik I expect it to be laid out extremely well and the student to be very explicit in why they used a kritik over running it straight. I'm a judge that's going to be very wary of accepting that case if not debated to excellence... Link it, give me evidence. That's about it. Explain why what you're arguing impacts the round and why you ran it. They should understand what they are arguing and why. Outside of that it's up to the debaters discretion.

42 2018 IDAHO DEBATE DIGITAL PARADIGM MANUAL 42 EKKER years affiliated judge, CX/LD debater and roles Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive es., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. Slow Tags, authors, years, do not power tag Should not be required. GAVIN Value is the paramount value to be achieved, everything else comes underneath it 1 Hillcrest, Idaho Falls Evidence based philosophy. Don't quote one guy to support your position. K's are the rejection of the resolution as a whole, maintain your position with the K or kick it. Be specific with the plan, do not give me the assumption that you barely prepped with vague or unrelated evidence. Make sure they are specific. I do not vote on cookie cutter off case. A politics DA is great, when it's specific to the aff, not in every situation. Theory is great, make sure that it's espoused as theory and not as case arguments. I will vote on theory that will further the debate and provide education to the debaters.