University of Wyoming High School Tournament
2020 — Online, WY/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEmail: amariy96@gmail.com
Experience: High School-LD, PF, Congress, Extemp, College-Policy, BP, NPDA, IPDA
I am willing to hear any arguments that you want to make, provided you don't make the debate space violent or exclusionary to anyone. I am comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. Whether you choose a more traditional or more progressive style of debate (I'm down to hear anything), I will likely evaluate the round within the same parameters, which are as follows:
Make sure to do impact calculus and tell me where I should vote and why. I will vote based on the flow, and while presentation is important, I place a great deal more emphasis on the substantive clash. No need to be super formal in front of me, just be yourself and make arguments that you are passionate about. Make sure that you always go beyond extending a claim or author name by explaining and extending your warrants and impacts. Please do not misrepresent your evidence and do not accuse your opponents of doing so if you are not certain that you are correct in your accusation. If there is a significant debate around a specific piece of evidence, I will likely call for that evidence after the round and evaluate it before making my decision. You will get higher speaker points for organization, clarity, good clash, and effective impact comparison.
Quick Notes
My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.
I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.
I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)
Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers
I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free
I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)
TRUTH OVER TECH!!!
Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous
Paradigms
-Speech Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)
The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)
How well you address your topic
I do not judge based off…
My personal interest of the topic
Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech
-Interp Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)
You will not be judged based off…
Which pieces you choose
-Debate Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)
Your arguments
Your examples (including citations)
The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)
Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)
How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)
Speaker points
Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others
Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event
Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event
Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event
Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event
I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.
Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.
Thanks and good luck!
*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!
I was a PF debater in high school and will be flowing each round. Tell me how you want the round judged! I want voters at the end of the debate; I'm willing to vote on just about anything. If you provide a framework (or in LD, your value/value criterion), I will vote on that so long as you argue it throughout the debate. If the only time your framework (or value/value criterion) is mentioned is in your case reading, don't expect me to vote on it.
Policy: I'm a stock issues judge, though I am willing to vote on a K or T if it is argued well.
Topshelf -
Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.
Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.
Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.
The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long
I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.
Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com
please add me on the email chain, maggiepiercea@gmail.com
I did PF for three years in high school and then policy debate for four years in college. I did two years at the University of Wyoming and then two years and NYU. I was a 2A for three years and a 2N for one. I have about 3 years of experience in judging high school PF (scroll for PF paradigm).
POLICY
Please run whatever you feel comfortable with in front of me. I will evaluate pretty much any argument.
To win my ballot, you need to concentrate on persuading me. You can to this by:
-
Articulating your arguments clearly. Big Tent Online will be my first tournament on this topic, so please explain your arguments well.
-
Engaging with your opponents' arguments.
-
Utilizing your evidence. Tell me why your evidence is the best. Make comparisons to your opponents' evidence.
-
Extending your arguments well. I will vote tech over truth, but you must properly extend arguments even if they were dropped. I am not persuaded by arguments that are not fleshed out and impacted out.
-
Explicitly telling me why you won in the 2NR and 2AR. In the final speeches, tell me a) why you won your argument and b) why it is important in the debate.
-
Making the space safe and enjoyable. Your language matters. I do not tolerate hatefulness of any kind. If there’s anything I or the other debaters can do to make the space more accessible to you, please let me know.
-
Not being rude during CX. If you’re winning an argument, then you’re winning the argument. You don’t need to be condescending on top of that. If you’re not winning the argument and being condescending, then you look like a fool.
Online procedurals
-
Do not start any speeches until you have confirmed that everyone is ready. Don’t ask, “Is anyone not ready?” Instead, ask “is everyone ready?” and wait for confirmation.
-
Keep your camera on when speaking unless you’re having internet issues.
General notes
- Case debate and case engagement are always very important
- I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand, so choose evidence that supports your claims and explain it well
- Impact everything out
Specific Arguments
Kritikal Affirmatives- I love K affs and have run them before. I do think they should be in the direction of the topic, but could be convinced otherwise depending on how the round plays out. I like when Ks have creative answers to T. Solvency mechanism warrants are important for me.
Topicality/Framework (v. K affs)- You should probably have a TVA that solves the aff offense. You also need to really impact out T.
Ks - A strong link story and good alt solvency is important to me. I am not well-versed in a lot of theory, so make sure your arguments are super clear and explain your evidence if you run that.
Counterplans- I don’t like judge kick. A counter plan is an advocacy. It is entirely your job to choose what you defend and don’t defend.
Disadvantages- Make sure a clear link and impact story established in the 2NC. I don’t like disads with shitty evidence. You can still get away with running them, but I will probably side with the aff if they do evidence quality comparison.
Theory- I like theory. Please slow down so I can catch everything.
PF
- impact out your arguments
- do impact & evidence comparison
- the only work I will ever do impact calc if I'm forced to. If no one mentions impact calc that guarantees low speaks.
- respond to turns before you kick out of an argument
- speak as clearly as you can. This includes me being able to understand the words coming out of your mouth and where you are on the flow. I can handle speed if you signpost.
- I will call for evidence if one of the teams tells me to. I take misrepresenting evidence pretty seriously, but it is the responsibility of the opposing team to bring it to my attention.
- Please don't be rude. This includes cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter. Being rude makes debate inaccessible and unappealing to newcomers. It also tanks your ethos.
- Your language matters. I do not tolerate hatefulness of any kind. If there’s anything I or the other debaters can do to make the space more accessible to you, please let me know.
Speaker points
You'll get bad speaks if you steal prep, get caught blatantly misrepresenting evidence, or make the space unsafe for others. You'll get good speaks for organization, clarity, compelling arguments, and good impact calc.
Below 27.5 - ethical violations, you've made the debate space unsafe
27.5-28.4 - you had some glaring errors
28.5-28.9 - you performed well during this debate
29-29.4 - you are a great debater and I assume you do well in your other rounds
29.5- 29.9 - you are an incredible debater and I am very impressed
Specific Arguments
I will flow any argument. If you want to run framework, topicality, theory, etc I will evaluate it. Just make sure you have warrants, links, and impacts.
Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.
I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.
I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.
I have coached and judged for over 20 years. I am willing to judge just about any event.
In debate I always wait until after the last speech to make a decision. Each speech is important and I like to hear the overall picture....the ideas...the research....how your ideas clash.
I don't have a checklist of arguments I like to see (or don't like to see) I prefer for debaters to set their own stage. I like it when debaters run advanced arguments, but in a way that supports civil discourse. Be nice to each other in round, professionalism is just as important as a well researched and presented argument.
I am a stock issues judge, make sure you explain how you attack the stock issues on NEG and defend all of them on AFF. I was a 4-year policy debater and am now a college debater. I was the assistant debate coach at Manhattan High School. I don't care if you spread but make sure I can understand you. My least favorite argument is the recency of your cards. Do not tell me to prefer your evidence because of the year unless you absolutely have a good reason why their evidence is invalid. Obviously no new args in rebuttals but feel free to run new cards in your 2AR. Not liking an argument is not an excuse to not interact with it. Always take your opponent's argument at its best. I'm not a fan of K debate but I will definitely vote on a K if it is well explained and well-argued. Don't kick arguments that aren't hurting you.
My email for chains/questions/feedback is katerina.thomas01@gmail.com !
In debate I seek clarity and organization. Your arguments are ineffective if they are not clearly presented and linked to your case.
I prefer substance over presentation. If you have clearly stated arguments that get to the heart of your case and address the concerns of your opponents I will reward that over style or presentation.
(Paradigm Updated as of March 22, 2022)
Dear Competitors:
Hello all! I am glad to be your judge at this tournament. I have competed for Green River High School in Wyoming for 4 years. My best event was in Extemporaneous Speaking; however, I also had success in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking. I did 2 debates in my high school years: Public Forum (3 years) and Lincoln-Douglas (1 year). I had a decent success record in debate, but I was much better in the realms of Speech.
These are my updated paradigms for the 2022-2023 Speech Season:
General Debate Paradigms:
In debate, I was that edgy traditionalist/progressive debater. Arguably, I was a bit more progressive than I was traditionalist; thus, either form of debate is fine with me. I do ask that if the speaker chooses to be progressive that they do not push the limits of what progressive debate is. There is a point in time where debate does become irrational in nature. Please try to avoid that.
1 - Offense over Defense
This is the number one thing that I look for in rounds, as a flow judge. This is basically assuming that debate is a sport; the more arguments you get across the finish line leads to the more arguments that win the round. The person that wins the round has the most arguments won on the flow, whether the argument is factually correct or not. (Note: I would prefer that you are factually correct, but my job as a judge is not to judge whether or not the information provided is correct. I try to be an impartial judge.)
An "offensive" argument is an argument that is either a cross-application, a turn, or any form of impact calculus. Typically, anything other than this is considered defensive on the flow. If possible, I would urge you to use the technical terms to help me on the flow; otherwise, I will make an assumption based on the argument that is presented to me.
2 - Impact Calculus
As mentioned above, I love to hear impact calculus. I believe that you can win an entire debate by just weighing the consequences of impacts against one another. Any form of impact calculus is good: timeframe, probability, magnitude, scope, irreversibility, pre-requisite, and root cause.
The best part of impact calculus is when you can make a reasonable assumption between the two impacts. Even though I prefer evidence, it is safe to assume the importance of some impacts. (i.e. The effects of climate change are irreversible.)
3 - Framework Debate
If a side wishes to run a framework, I am fair game for it. If no framework is presented on the round, assume that I will vote on cost-benefit analysis. This is the typical voting of your judges. Cost-benefit analysis should not be ran as a framework as most judges already vote on it.
If both sides propose frameworks, I would love to hear the framework clash. As mentioned earlier, offense over defense is preferred in the framework debate.
4 - Cross-Examination
I am not one of those judges that says that everyone should be nice in debate; however, there is an imperative to uphold some sort of debate etiquette. Thus, I prefer a "tense" cross-examination. What this means is that you are not being excessively rude, but having your opponent get to the point is perfectly acceptable. I am fine with people cutting others off to get to the next question.
If you are excessively rude in questioning or in debate, it will result in a significant cut in speaker points. I believe that a cut in speaker points is appropriate versus a complete loss in the round.
5 - Clarity/Signposting
All debaters, before every speech, must give me an off-the-clock road map. I need to know where we are going on the flow. If you jump around, it will be harder for me to follow your arguments and I will be more likely to miss an argument that you are making. Remember, it is my flow that counts toward your ballot.
I am pretty good with speed. My general rule is that if you are too fast, I will stop flowing and look at you.
6 - Tech over Truth
More evidence is always better. If one team has 14 pieces of evidence versus the opposing team's 1 piece of evidence, I will likely vote for the 14 pieces of evidence. This is because there will likely be more offensive arguments. The evidence debate constitutes the best form of debate, in my opinion.
With this philosophy, credibility does not matter (unless if you provide me evidence or logistical arguments as to why, of course). If the 1 source is from a Ph.D. who is well known and the 14 sources are from a variety of journalists, then I view this in favor of the 14 journalists. If credibility should be viewed as important, I ask that you run it as a framework to override this paradigm.
7 - Overview/Underview Debate
This is a unique paradigm of mine, but one that does not have to be implemented. I am a fan of people running overviews and underviews; they act as extra arguments in the round and are burdens that are placed on opponent's cases (or your own, if you choose). With these, please tell me where on the flow you would like me to put them.
With this type of debate, you can run a framework. Because there are no rules on where a framework can be stated in the round, you are certainly allowed to run a framework in your second to last speech and put it on the flow as an overview. Setting the debate up like this allows me to see how arguments narrow down, as the debate furthers.
Specific Debate Paradigms:
1 - Stock Issues (CX)
I consider myself to be a stock issues judge, but on a more traditional level. For clarity, the burden of stock issues is for the Affirmative to uphold all five and the Negation to prove that the Affirmative cannot uphold one of them. If the Affirmative upholds all five stock issues, then the debate proceeds to the argument level (advantages versus disadvantages, counterplans, etc.).
The reason why this is important: If the Aff cannot prove how the plan essentially would work, then I cannot vote for the plan. If the plan cannot solve the problem that it illustrates that it can, there is no reason for me to consider the arguments presented in the round. I also believe that this allows for a fair debate for the Neg, as I feel in CX, the Neg has a much more difficult job.
2 - Topicalities (CX)
In recent years, I have grown more accustomed to the idea of Topicality arguments. If you wish to run these, please make sure that it follows the normal debate argument structure (claim, warrant, and impact). I understand why a Topicality may be important for a team to run, but make sure that you can explain to me the importance of why they are ran.
An important note about Topicality - oftentimes, teams put Topicality at the top of the flow, which can be problematic. Topicality sometimes becomes the central focus of the debate and can result in the debate becoming indecisive. If the team wishes to run a Topicality, ensure that you have time to run the Topicality with your other arguments. As mentioned in a later paradigm, if you do not cover a specific advantage, disadvantage, etc. in the following attack speech, I regard the argument as dropped. If the Topicality takes too much time, it may be in the team's best interest to either kick arguments or have the Topicality kicked.
3 - Ks/Theory Debate (CX)
The National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level, has typically frowned upon this type of debate. Historically at this tournament, these arguments are voted down, not because of the argument, but because they wish to keep the etiquette of CX. For this reason, I will vote down any K or Theory that is presented in the round. If it is unlikely to succeed at the national level, there is no reason for me to vote for it.
*Note: If this changes in future tournaments, this paradigm will be updated to reflect the results of the National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level.
4 - Dropped Arguments (CX, LD)
An argument becomes dropped on the flow if it is not directly addressed in the corresponding speech. In LD, if the Neg does not attack any of the Aff arguments in the NC, then the arguments automatically flow to the Affirmative. This rule applies to each speech, in this debate (the 2AR in LD should only be voters, or a wrap-up of arguments).
For CX, this rule applies starting in the 2AC. Any dropped arguments from the Negation's proposal in the 2AC will be automatically flowed to the Negation. In the 2NC, this rule applies to the Affirmative, as well as the Negative's arguments.
If both teams do not discuss an argument, after it has been introduced, the argument flows to neither team.
5 - Value/Criterion (LD)
I find that Value/Criterion debate is the biggest misconception in LD. LD Debaters receive about 20% of their ballots being focused on this. For this reason, Value/Criterion is not a voting issue for me.
Value/Criterion is the mechanism in which the debate is bounded by. This is not a framework. With this being said, Aff can win the Value while Neg can win the Criterion and vice versa. Once a Value and Criterion has been determined on the flow, I will judge the offensive arguments based to that Value/Criterion and make a ballot decision. A framework can be added to the debate to ensure that a specific type of voting does occur, in addition to Value/Criterion.
6 - Progressive Criterion Debate (LD)
This is something that I do accept. This is where the sides spend less time discussing Values, but more time discussing Criterions. Effectively, what this does is it says that the Criterion best upholds both Values presented in the round rather than having a specific focus on the Values that are accepted.
An example of this would be a Value of Life versus Morality. A debater can run a Criterion of Teleology and claim that it fits under both Values; thus, there is no need to promote one value over another. If the debater convinces me that both Values shall be viewed equally in the round, then I will uphold two Values and the corresponding Criterion that sets the debate. An important note: If you run this, make sure that your case and your arguments fall under both values. Otherwise, I may have to vote for the other team.
7 - Voters (LD, PF, BQ)
Voters are important for me to see what offensive arguments took place in the round. When crafting the voter speech, make sure to tackle the most important points that you (or your team) won. A voter is not winning on "impact." A voter is winning on "my opponent's Contention 2."
8 - Logistical Argumentation (LD, PF, BQ)
While I prefer tech over truth, I understand that logic is sometimes the best for these debates. Just remember, if your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that says the opposite, then I will be more likely to believe that argument.
Logistical arguments are typically defensive, but are great setups for offensive arguments. If you want to claim that an argument is non-unique, then keep it short and set up a turn or cross-application to put more weight as to why you should vote for your side.
9 - Dropped Arguments (PF, BQ)
Since these debates have a different structure than CX and LD, the rule for dropped arguments is quite different. Typically, it is a case constructive, an attack speech, a summary speech, and a final focus. Since the 1st speaker can only attack in the corresponding speech, I find it unfair to call drops to their arguments. Thus, drops on arguments begin in the 3rd speech of this debate (for PF, this would be the Summary speech).
The final focus should remain focused on voters and basically should extend what was brought out by your partner (or yourself for BQ). If the final focus does not establish what was stated in the previous speech, I will assume that those arguments are dropped.
I am happy to be your judge and good luck in this round and your future rounds!
Cheers,
Spencer Travis
LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.
PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....
Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.