LD Debate

Value/criterion framework is essential. I believe that debaters should prioritize the values and criteria that are most relevant to the resolution and that provide the best guidance for evaluating the arguments presented.

In my view, the value should be the overarching principle that guides the debate. The value should be clearly defined and related to the resolution, and the debaters should use it to frame their arguments. The criterion should be the standard or set of principles by which we evaluate the arguments presented in the debate. The criterion should be logically connected to the value, and the debaters should use it to demonstrate how their arguments uphold the value.

Debaters should present arguments that are relevant to the value and criterion, and should clearly explain how their arguments relate to the overall framework of the debate. I will evaluate the strength of the arguments presented based on how well they support the value and criterion, and how effectively they address the opposing arguments.

Debaters should also be aware of the burden of proof, which rests on the affirmative debater. The affirmative debater must provide a compelling case that upholds the value and criterion, while the negative debater must show why the affirmative case fails to do so. The negative debater may also present their own case, but their primary task is to refute the affirmative case.

In addition, I value clarity, organization, and effective use of evidence. Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, and use evidence to support their claims. However, evidence should not be used as a substitute for logical reasoning and analysis.

Public Forum

As a Public Forum debate judge who prefers flowing, I believe that debaters should prioritize clear and organized argumentation, while utilizing a logical structure that makes it easy for the judge to track the debate.

Debaters should begin by clearly defining key terms and outlining their case. They should then present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, with each argument logically building upon the previous one. Debaters should signpost their arguments and use clear transitions between different points.

I expect debaters to provide evidence to support their arguments, and to clearly explain how the evidence supports their position. Debaters should also be able to distinguish between credible and unreliable sources, and explain why their sources are reliable. Debaters should avoid using biased or inaccurate sources, and should be able to defend the accuracy and reliability of the evidence they present.

Debaters should also respond effectively to their opponents' arguments, by directly addressing the opposing team's key points and providing clear and concise rebuttals. They should be able to identify the weaknesses in their opponent's case and explain why their own position is stronger.

In terms of teamwork, I believe that debaters should work together to present a cohesive case, while avoiding interrupting or talking over their opponents. They should also avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior towards their opponents.

Policy Debate

As a policy debate judge, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented by each team in a fair and impartial manner. Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Flow: I will be taking detailed notes throughout the debate to keep track of the arguments presented by each team. I expect debaters to clearly signpost their arguments and make it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.

2. Argumentation: I believe that the strength of an argument lies in its ability to support its claims with evidence and logical reasoning. I will be looking for clear, concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I will not be swayed by unsupported assertions or ad hominem attacks.

3. Framework: I expect debaters to clearly establish a framework for the debate. This should include a clear resolution, definitions of key terms, and a set of criteria for evaluating the arguments presented. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their arguments fit within this framework.

4. Clash: I believe that the heart of policy debate is clash - the back-and-forth exchange of arguments between the two teams. I will be looking for debaters to engage with each other's arguments in a substantive way. Simply restating one's own arguments or attacking the other team's character or motives is not sufficient.

5. Evidence: I expect debaters to cite evidence to support their arguments. This evidence should be high-quality and relevant to the topic at hand. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their evidence supports their argument and how it relates to the broader debate.

6. Delivery: I believe that effective communication is essential in policy debate. Debaters should be clear, concise, and confident in their delivery. They should be able to adapt to the audience and use appropriate language and tone.

7. Flexibility: Finally, I believe that the best debaters are those who can adapt to unexpected arguments and situations. I will be looking for debaters who can think on their feet and respond to new information or arguments in a thoughtful and effective way.

For Policy Debate:

Introducing an abundance of new evidence quickly calls into question the validity and quality of that evidence.

If AFF, must provide evidence of topicality and a good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

If NEG, if case is topical, move on.

For Lincoln-Douglas:

Introducing an abundance of new evidence quickly calls into question the validity and quality of that evidence.

If AFF, must provide evidence of moral framework and good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

If NEG, must provide evidence of moral framework and good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

Both AFF and NEG can value clash during the debate; however, it should not be the primary objective of the debate. Instead, the primary objective must be flowing the value through your case, not getting caught up on the frameworks themselves.

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

I am first and foremost an interp/platform/congress coach who gets involved with debate when necessary. Keep this in mind for your debate rounds - you are being evaluated on your speaking and presentational skills as well as the content of the debate.

For both PF & LD, I am very traditional. Prog LD is frankly just not at all appealing to me. Sorry to any CXers out there, but please keep the jargon and bad habits of policy out of these events. In LD and PF, truth > tech always. In a policy round (pity me if I get a policy round), I will go tech > truth most often.

I do not want to see Ks in these rounds; I will hear you out if that’s what you’ve got, but it will be hard for you to win me over with a K.

Spreading is not real debate, it is throwing as much at the wall as possible to see what sticks. I take quality over quantity any day. Truly engage with the nuance of what both you and your opponents are saying, and you’ve got me. Spit as many words per minute as you possibly can, and you’re going to have a harder time picking up my ballot.

I will double check your evidence if I find it necessary. Do not cut cards in a sketchy way, chances are that I will call you on it and you are not likely to win that round.

The point of LD is the framework clash. It is a value debate. This is why the event was created! Prove you win the value clash and you’re 90% of the way to winning the round. If you throw out the framework, you have thrown out the entire intention behind LD.

Finally, just don’t be a douchebag. Keep things clean and respectful. Bullying your opponents is THE easiest way to get the L from me.

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

Berkeley is an exciting time! Have fun, and make smart decisions! I can keep up with speed, but be fair to other debaters.

The ability to craft an argument towards your judges is a critical skill, and so checking paradigms is a good start. Mine are simple — be kind, be realistic, and be better than your opponent.

If not nice, be decent. No name calling or intentional interruptions.

If not realistic, be unrealistic within reason. Try not to speak in absolutes like “There is no way impact X could happen because my 1 card refutes” or “my impacts of nuclear fallout absolutely flow through with 100% certainty in 5 years.”

Falsified evidence is also not cool! Don’t do that!

If you’re not better than your opponent, you’ll probably lose the round. Unless they are needlessly rude and unrealistic (see above).

I can keep up with any type of debate, but I'm not going to judge you strictly tech over truth. I won't make arguments for your opponent, but I'm not gonna let you say the sky is red, and make your opponent prove the sky is blue, because that undermines the quality of debate. Being accurate is an important part of winning.

My email for evidence sharing is loganchr@usc.edu

Also, I won't take points off, but avoid off-time roadmaps. Use the time that the NSDA gives you in your speech to outline your speech.

Jason Clarke

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

Patrick Coggin (he/him)
patrickcoggin4@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________
Retired Director of Debate @ Cheyenne East High School, 3rd year trad PF debater.

General Paradigm:

Please. Just ask, "Is anyone not ready?" Wait a moment, then you can start speaking.

Just be kind to your opponents. I understand that CX can get heated, but just know that there is a clear line between obviously being rude/attacking the opponent and asking questions pertaining to the debate itself. Along with this, constantly talking over each other (reasonable if an opponent talks for a minute or basically tries to filibuster), yelling, or saying statements instead of questions will definitely play a factor in the ballot.

I'll just give you the L if you just feel like being rude to your opponents. I could care less if you had a school rivalry with your opponents for decades, we're all here to enjoy a debate.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you need clarification on anything! Good luck!

PF Paradigm:

tl;dr - how to win my ballot
1. warrant out your arguments, it needs actual backing instead of some weak claim with no evidence backing it up
2. be responsive when refuting arguments, should dedicate some time to this
3. weigh args/impacts along with comparisons, implicate, and also tell me why i should vote for your arg over your opponents
4. solve clash with clarity (it doesn't matter if you're a pretty speaker or not, but clarity does go a long way)

in-depth stuff:

K's/Theory does not belong in PF. PF was designed to be a fun debate to understand (usually). Policy exists for a reason.

I prefer off-time roadmaps so please don't ask me again in round. The only road map that should be used is "our case, their case" or "their case, our case" because I understand that either way you will be attacking, extending, frontlining, weighing, defending, etc.

I can understand fast-paced debates, but I don't understand top-speed circuit spreading. More cards spreaded ≠ a higher chance of winning.

Do not bring up new evidence in the last summary speech.

I understand that the Wyoming circuit doesn't share cases, cards, etc., but just set up an email chain before the round if you plan on calling for cards. If this doesn't happen, god forbid, start using prep once your opponents locate and give the evidence to you.

At a minimum, read the author's last name and last two digits of the year for each card you have.

Signpost throughout the round. If you want me to vote on the flow, you need to be very clear about what contention/card/argument you are extending.

You should weigh in the round so you can summarize why your arguments outweigh your opponents. Please provide an actual explanation of why you outweigh and not just say, "i outweigh so i win."

Tell me why dropped arguments matter. Along with this, develop arguments by warranting them out, refute arguments, weigh impacts with comparativeness, and resolve clashes with clarity.

Truth over tech. :)

i never judged ld or cx so i'm sorry if i your judge in those events

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

I’m more of a policy maker judge. I prefer to see good policy passed and i want it to be reasonable. Ks are ok for Cx and i like to see a civil round.

CPFL

I like big impacts and critical arguments. I need the impact to have a realistic logic chain and to heavy link. Make sure you do impact calc in your closing speeches and to tell me where to vote. 

LD: In judging, I will be looking at the framework and, more importantly, the impact of the arguments. Speaking should be clear, at a moderate pace, and polite. I focus on the content of the argument, not social conventions like making good eye contact. Points will be lost for rudeness, inappropriate behavior or language.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

Experience: I competed at NWC for 2 years as a nationally ranked parliamentary debater. My partner & I were also the first female-female team in history to be awarded the prestigious Bossard-Twohy award. I was a frequent "K" debater so I'm okay with critical arguments.

Sign posting & impact calculus is vital.

A) Tell me the argument you're addressing, then read your argument(s).

B) Tell me WHY your argument matters: give me some impact calculation, tie it back to the framework, put them in a double-bind, cross apply another argument on the flow, point out a contradiction, etc.

C) As the debate comes to a close, use a "Voters", "2-Worlds" or similar format. Explain to me why the arguments you're losing don't matter & how the ones you're winning are paramount.

Make sure I can flow you.

Repeating definitions, tag lines, etc. will benefit you.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

I’m currently a policy debater at UW. Go Pokes!

I did policy debate (pretty much the only event I did) all 4 years of high school. My partner and I were flex debaters (mix of policy and kritikal arguments; we especially loved running soft left affs) and I competed in both the Wyoming circuit (very traditional and lay) as well as the national circuit and NSDA Nats, so I’m amenable to both progressive and traditional arguments and debate styles.

Be kind and don’t say sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. things or low speaker points for you/I’ll be inclined to vote against you. Speech and debate should not be a place where that behavior is tolerated.

Add me to the email chain: 23sgomelsky@gmail.com

*cough cough* (You should have an email chain or a filedrop because you should be sharing ev)

Policy/Cross Examination Debate

If you are confused about anything below, don’t be afraid to ask before the round. I’ll be happier if you ask questions than if you just stay confused, because it shows you actually read my paradigm. If I forgot to include anything, feel free to ask about that too. I care about your success and will leave detailed feedback. I’m also more than happy to explain anything or answer any questions after the round:)

Cross-x: is a speech. You get to try to make arguments and set traps (which I will flow). I LOVE evidence comparison and love seeing crosses where debaters pull out lines from their/their opponents’ evidence.

Spreading: I'm good with whatever speed so do or don’t, it doesn’t matter to me. If you do, though, remember that debate is about persuasion, so your priority should be persuading me rather than trying to speak as fast as you can.

Time/Off-Time “Road Maps”: Confidence is key. There’s no need to tell me a summary of the speech you’re about to give, just tell me how many pages. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’

Ks/K Affs/KvK: I’ve primarily been a K debater in college so I am very familiar with just about anything you wanna go for. I think that K debate belongs in Wyoming and if you’re looking for a round to practice or just try out going for a K, I encourage you to do so. That being said, obviously I will not hold it against you if you don't run a K and I am totally down to vote on FW/T.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I've done LD on the Wyoming/regional circuit. I'm just going to be honest and say that I dont think its that big of a deal for debaters to run counterplans or "policy-esque" args. Debate however you're most comfortable and be confident that your debating will win you the round rather than spending the round complaining about the type of arg someone else read. Just answer it like you would anything else.

That DOESNT MEAN, however, that I'm coming into LD expecting or wanting to see a policy-like round; I have respect for LD as its own event, so while judge adaptation is important and you should be aware of the type of arguments I lean towards, please understand that presentation-wise, I don't expect nor want to see you change your personal debate style to fit something more "policy-like."

I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted.

Public Forum

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting. Most of my sentiments in the Policy/LD section will likely inform my judging for PF. But again, that doesnt mean I'm coming into PF expecting or wanting to see a policy-like round; I have respect for PF as its own event.

Congress/House

If you have me as a judge for these events, I’ll be crying and you should be too.

Speech Events

I am quite familiar with most if not all events. While I am a debater, I <3 watching speech rounds, so have fun and do your thing:)

PUT A TRIGGER WARNING IF YOUR PIECE WARRANTS YOU DOING SO. “Shock factor” is a horrible reason not to.

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

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

Last updated for Stanford- 2/11/24

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If you time yourself, your alarm needs to silent. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - You can speak at the pace you prefer, but it is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose. Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. If you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Framework - This is everything. This needs to be clear and connect to all the contentions. I expect strong framework clashes. Impact analysis should revolve around this.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Kritiks and Plans/Counterplans - No. Join policy.

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Final Focus - This needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is largely dependent on the voters.

Policy

Flashing - One free flash. After that, it comes out of prep time.

Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

I judge on stock issues. In terms of stock issues, the most important one is significance.

Hey y’all! If you’re reading this, it is probably because I am judging you. That being said, here is a little bit about me: I did speech and debate in high school and primarily competed in LD, congress, and extemp. I’ve competed in multiple states and on the nat circuit. I love debate, and I am excited to watch y’all!

Things to keep in mind:

- Off-time roadmaps are fine and appreciated.

- I will flow speeches and important parts of cx, but I won’t make the arguments for you.

- Tell me how to vote!

- Speed is fine, I was a fast debater. However, do not spread- If I can’t understand what you’re saying/need to read along to understand, I will not flow it.

- I will time, but I expect you to time yourselves as well. If you go 10+ seconds over your allotted time; I will cut you off.

- Make good arguments. Don’t just tell me something without backing it up/explaining it. Claim, warrant, impact!

- You can ask for evidence, and I will not include it in prep unless it feels excessive.

- Be respectful!

- LD specific- V/VC are important, carry them through the debate.

- Congress specific- Congress is a debate, so debate. Bring up other speakers, disprove/expand on their points, etc. Use evidence in congress speeches.

Live, Laugh, Love!

Stock issues judge. Background in CX debate. Not big on K affs or theory. Speed/ spreading is acceptable.

Interp:

Memorization is important. I'll usually vote on Body language, eye contact and as long as you're having fun and It's enjoyable to watch I'll have a good time :)

LD:

This is LD, not CX, please (please) don't spread, If I can't understand your arguments, I wont consider them in the debate. Kindness matter, I understand that you have to cut people off in cross, but there's good ways and bad ways to do it. Absolutely no personal attacks on your opponent. Truth over tech, just because you made an argument and your opponent didn't touch it doesn't mean it's true.

PF:

Same as LD

Katie Jack (she/her)

I would like to be on the email chain please: katiecjack@gmail.com

I was a traditional LD debater for most of high school with one semester of Policy. I've done Policy and British Parliamentary in college.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Please don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences, but if you're curious here are my thoughts.

Framework – Please try to engage each other's interpretations and arguments instead of just extending your own. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think the case debate is really under-utilized. Case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DAs/CPs – I'm definitely the most comfortable with these types of arguments.

Kritiks – Please don't assume that I'm familiar with your literature base. I think kritiks are most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC, so I appreciate specific link analysis that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I don't really like critical affirmatives.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Nontraditional Debate – I am not the most comfortable with this, but as long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do what you'd like.

Speed – I'm not the best flower. I would prefer for you to slow down, but I can handle speed if that's what you wanna do.

Biography

I have a MA in literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and am familiar with many of the writers cited in K's. It excites me to see young people still utilize this philosophy; however, it does not excite me when people might run a K and then also run a counterplan that the K would also critique. I am all for theory, but be genuine about it. Fred Moten wrote in The University and the Undercommons, "The prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already-existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be." A K is that willingness to speak the brutal truth and then invest in the alternative of what it could be. A K is not to speak the brutal truth and then turn around and propose a counterplan that only perpetuates the systemic violence inherent in a brutal society

Lincoln-Douglas:

I value debate as a speaking and listening event and also as an education event. After all, the original Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates were a platform for two senate candidates to meaningfully introduce themselves to voters during the 1858 senate election in Illinois. Also as a consolation to anyone who really tries their hardest in round but winds up losing: Lincoln also lost that senate election. Debate isn't just about winning and losing. Speech and debate is about growing your confidence to prepare you for an even bigger thing in your life.

I hope you as debaters also value communication and thoughtfulness in your own presentation during round by doing your best to meet the following standards:

1. Talking clearly and deliberately. I understand urgency, but you can still be urgent and intelligible.
2. Being mindful of your language. I understand a lot of debate lingo has made our community increasingly esoteric. Words such as "cross apply," "inherency," "exploding grounds for debate," etc. don't mean much of anything to the outside community. They certainly wouldn't have won neither Douglas nor Lincoln any votes. Please do not throw your case or rebuttals full of a lot of jargon. Don't just say "cross apply my Jackson '24 card to their contention 1" when doing a rebuttal. I flow and take notes, but I am not making sure I copy down authors; instead, I'm doing my best to follow your argument.
3. Being mindful of your language (part 2). Please don't use a phrase like "my opponent is being abusive." Abuse is a very specific physical, emotional, and psychological horror. Just say your opponent is being unfair.
4. Doing the work for the audience. Give me clear voter issues that crystallize the round and properly weigh what has been said. I'm still flowing though, so be mindful that you don't strawman or misrepresent your fellow debaters' positions! I really dislike it when a debater says another debater "dropped their whole contention 1" when in fact they probably did address it.
5. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate. For Colorado debaters, this means no grace period for speeches! Secondly, during cross if someone asks a question at 2:45 or so, that other person can respond, but please keep the response concise.
6. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 2). I do not participate in email chains or case sharing. My role as a judge is to listen to each debater communicate their case verbally to an audience including myself. Speech and debate is a speaking event. It's not like the US Court of Appeals where over 80% of cases from the appellate are decided by just three judges reviewing written cases.
7. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 3). If you suspect dishonest behavior like misrepresented or powertagged evidence, slow it down and make the case. Don't rely on debate jargon like "the internals of the card do not support their warrant." Break it down for me and spell it out. Also, tell me you want me to pull this card. I don't intervene as a judge unless I am explicitly asked to.

Public Forum Debate (formerly known as Ted Turner Debate):

The original category for PF debate suggests its interest in being arguably the most accessible form of debate. Named after media mogul Ted Turner, PF should give the audience an approachable view of the topic that is ultimately educational. Imagine you are on some distinguished network like PBS and you represent the very best of advocates for your position--like David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart for example (on PBS). All seven of my interests from LD apply to PF.

Policy Debate:

I do not participate in email chains, dropboxes, etc. All debate events are communication events. Debate events are not like the US Court of Appeals where over 80% of all court cases are decided solely by a judge reading briefs.

I enjoy the freedom policy debate provides its competitors where everything can be done from performances and spectacle to augment the rhetoric of a given case to critiquing the resolution to splitting hairs and debating topicality of proposed plans. All of that stuff is incredibly worthwhile and essential for a future adult life enriched by critical thinking, observational skills, and listening.

All seven of my interests from LD apply to Policy.

JD Jacob

Coach, Mountain View HS

jd.audiovisionary@gmail.com

As an educator, my feedback is always intended to help you improve. If you have questions, please feel free to reach out.

I do my best to evaluate every round without my preconceived notions about what debate should be, so you do you. However, if you want to go the extra mile, here are some things that will help:

Clash - Too many debates end with "two ships passed in the night." It is your responsibility to engage with your opponents arguments. Impact calculus, logical refutation, and citing conflicting evidence are all great ways to engage. With so many tools, there really isn't an excuse for a lack of clash.

Choices - With the limited time of speeches, sometimes quality is better than quantity. I tend to reward students who make deliberate and intentional choices when deciding which arguments to go for. While going for "all of them" is a choice, students are often better served by identifying a single (or perhaps two) win condition(s) and going for that. It is OK to concede an argument in favor of spending more time on a better one.

Communication - If your effort to speak quickly interferes with your ability to effectively communicate, then you would be better served by slowing down. I don't mind fast debate, but am more impressed with debaters who go about 80 percent of their top speed and focus on efficiency. Arguments that I can't explain to your opponent are not arguments that I am likely to vote on.

Instruction - I don't want to feel like I had to step in to have a round make sense. I'd rather let the conclusion of arguments come from the debaters themselves. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in the round. When telling me how to vote, show that you have good understanding of what has been happening in the debate round. Your overview should be my RFD.

Persuasion - Persuasive arguments are the best arguments! As persuasiveness can be subjective, here are some examples of what I find persuasive: Comparing arguments, impact calculus, evaluation of a body of evidence, moral imperatives backed by sound story telling. Also, consider avoiding these less persuasive arguments: Extending a drop without providing an impact, citing the rules (I'll take care of it if it is a rule violation), citing evidence without providing analysis.

Style - As far as progressive LD goes, I will not punish students for reading that style of case. I simply prefer cases that provide a Value and a Criterion as evaluative measures I can use to vote. If you do not provide a Value or a Criterion, be prepared to defend that choice if your opponent does provide one.

Topicality - I think students should read arguments that engage in the chosen topic. Topicality helps to facilitate clash and I think fairness is a relevant impact. Non-topical arguments (pre-fiat critiques, etc) tend to limit clash, so I think it is a safer strategy to read topical arguments.

In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.

In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.

Experience:

2 Years High School Congressional Debate

Two Years Collegiate Public Forum Debate

One Year Collegiate Extemporaneous Speaking and Persuasive Speaking

LD Debate:

By my own admittance, my experience in LD is limited. However, I do have a few main things that I favor when judging. I like to see clash, so make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. Make sure that you are using both offensive and defensive strategies, as I will ultimately judge based on which side has more arguments still standing. However, keep in mind that not all arguments are equal. If you can prove that your argument bears more significance, or that your opponents' have less, I will count that in your favor. If your opponent drops a point, call them out on it. You can speak fast, I can keep up, but make sure you are still speaking clearly- I can't give you points for things I didn't hear or understand properly. Finally, don't outright lie about what your opponents have said. Misunderstandings happen, and it's fine to attempt to underplay what your opponents have said as well (if they don't call you on it), but do not claim that your opponents have made an argument that they clearly have not, or that they have not made a certain argument that they clearly have. You will lose lots of points from me if you do this.

Congressional Debate:

Speakers- For your speeches, as long as you deliver your points well and make your case clearly, I don't really care what conventions you break for the most part. However, I do have a few things I want to see:

• Make your arguments clearly, and in a way that is easy to understand. Additionally, don't make assumptions about what I know, lay everything out
• I'm here to hear your arguments, not other people's words. Relevant quotes and direct quotes from evidence both are useful and have their uses, but if that's all you have to say in your speech, then I'm not hearing you speaking. I value logic and chaining evidence together to create a full argument much more than just quoting a bunch of sources and letting them do the talking.
• Please speak clearly, structure your speech, and signpost. If I can't understand what you're saying, or I miss how things connect in your speech or where you transition to different points, I can't properly judge those parts of your speech.
• Having several points is good, but I do prefer more in-depth analysis of a few key points than a vague overview of a lot (quality over quantity)
• Finally, be respectful to your fellow competitors. I like to see clashes between speeches, but be respectful and courteous while doing so

Chairs- I respect chairing a lot, and I know how difficult it is to do, so I'm not going to place you low in the chamber just because you made a mess-up or two, as long as they are fairly minor and you handle them well. At the end of the day, as long as you keep the chamber moving smoothly and make good decisions when needed, I'll rank you fairly high. However, I will rank an excellent job chairing much more highly, and on the flipside, if you really mess up, I will rank you much lower.

Public Forum Debate:

In Public Forum debate, my judging is fairly straight-forward. Clash with your opponent, make sure that you're attacking and defending instead of just one or the other, I value how you connect evidence more than the evidence on its own so make sure that you're clearly connecting all your evidence to your argument and not just reading off a bunch of cards, and make sure to be courteous to your opponent. In addition, however, I do have a few things that I do not want to see in rounds:

• Please do tell me why you win and your opponents lose, but don't outright lie to me about what has or hasn't been said in the round. If your opponents didn't make an argument, don't tell me that they made that argument. If your opponents attacked one of your points, don't tell me that they didn't address that point. Instead, in the former case, tell me why your opponents' stance leads to that conclusion, and in the latter, tell me why their attacks/defenses weren't sufficient.
• In crossfire, don't dominate the time, and keep questions and answers brief and to the point. Also don't get off topic, or use crossfire as just more speech time, I will mark you down severely for this. Furthermore, once again,be courteous. Don't interrupt others during crossfire unless they are taking far too much time.
• Additionally, regarding crossfire, don't use loaded or leading questions (loaded questions being ones that have an assumption built in to them, and leading questions being questions framed to force a certain answer that is disingenuous). I will dock points for such questions, and you are within your rights to refuse answering a question that seems to be of either type. However, I do also commend debaters that are clever enough to turn these questions to their benefit.
• I am fine with roadmaps either on the clock or off the clock, whichever the competing teams would prefer. However, if both teams disagree, my default will beon the clock.
• Don't talk a-mile-a-minute. If I can't understand you or can't keep track of your argument, I can't tell how good of a job you actually did. Slow down a bit, focus on enunciation, and make sure I can follow what you're saying.

Also of note, I will be flowing debates, and I will be keeping track of where arguments go and what is countered where. If you drop points, I will notice, however it is still the duty of the opposing team to point out what points have been dropped. Basically, I'll flow the debate so I can properly judge it and so that I know if someone is disingenuous, but it's still up to the debaters to give effective summary and final focus speeches that tell me what points stand and why they win and their opponents lose.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

My criteria for limited preparation events is simple: structure, presentation, persuasiveness, and content. If you can do each of those well, and be within time, you're golden.

I look forward to judging for you, and here's to some great debate rounds!

Speech & Debate Judging Paradigm

As a judge with limited experience in debate events but a background in platform events, my primary focus remains on content and engagement. I prioritize effective communication and the ability to convey ideas compellingly. In exempt and informative speaking, I value substance, clarity, and the speaker's ability to connect with the audience.

Extemp & Informative Speaking:

• Content: I seek well-researched, informative content that is relevant and engaging. Speakers should demonstrate a thorough understanding of their topic and provide valuable insights or perspectives.
• Engagement: I look for speakers who can captivate the audience through compelling delivery, including vocal variety, appropriate gestures, and effective use of visual aids if permitted. Engaging the audience through storytelling, humor, or personal anecdotes is highly valued.
• Clarity & Organization: Clear structure and organization are essential for effective communication. I expect speakers to present their ideas coherently, with logical transitions between main points and supporting evidence.
• Connection with Audience: The ability to establish a connection with the audience is crucial. Speakers should demonstrate empathy, authenticity, and a genuine interest in communicating their message to the audience.

Oratory:

• Influence & Persuasiveness: In oratory, I prioritize the speaker's ability to influence and persuade the audience. This includes the use of persuasive techniques such as emotional appeals, rhetorical devices, and compelling storytelling.
• Content & Substance: While persuasion is paramount, the content must also be substantive and well-supported. I expect speakers to provide credible evidence, relevant examples, and logical reasoning to support their arguments.
• Delivery & Style: Delivery plays a significant role in persuasiveness. I look for speakers who command attention through confident delivery, strong vocal presence, and effective use of body language. Passion and enthusiasm can enhance the persuasive impact of the speech.
• Memorability & Impact: Memorable speeches leave a lasting impression on the audience. I appreciate speakers who craft speeches with memorable phrases, powerful imagery, and a compelling call to action that resonates with the audience long after the speech has ended.

Debate Events:

• Content & Argumentation: While my experience with debate events may be limited, I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. I expect debaters to present clear, concise arguments and effectively refute opposing points.
• Engagement & Rebuttal: Engaging with opponents' arguments and providing effective rebuttals is essential. I look for debaters who actively listen to their opponents, address counterarguments, and adapt their strategies accordingly. As a sidenote, however, I do not have extensive experience with tracking the whole flow of a debate, and this might leave some debaters feeling frustrated if I miss a piece of their case flow. Please just recognize that debate is not in my wheelhouse generally speaking.
• Clarity & Organization: Clarity and organization are crucial for effective communication in debates. Debaters should structure their arguments logically, signpost key points, and maintain coherence throughout the round.
• Professionalism & Respect: I expect debaters to conduct themselves professionally, treating their opponents, judges, and audience with respect. While passion and conviction are admirable, debaters should avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

In summary, whether evaluating exempt and informative speaking, oratory, or debate events, my judging criteria prioritize content, engagement, influence, and persuasiveness. I appreciate speakers and debaters who demonstrate a deep understanding of their topic, connect with their audience, and effectively communicate their message with clarity and conviction.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Hi,

I'm Caius Krupp, A college student in Political Science. Before that i was a CX/Policy debater for 4 years in high school, and a congressional debater as well. I enjoy debates with a lot of clear clash between the aff and neg case. Below I've separated my paradigms based on events. In general however if you are found to be rude or disrespectful outside of a round, or in anyway sexist/racist then I will change my ballot to reflect that.

CX

I am no stranger to K, Theory, Topicality, and other nuanced CX debate styles. However K's should have a direct link into the case, that increases clash and provides a productive round. Using K's of communities you are not impacted by is also a bit of a red flag, Do not be reading me Set col or Afro pes as a full white team as these arguments poorly reflect on you as an individual. Nothing is off the table, but think with some foresight on how you look debating this case.

PF

Anything goes, But please do not waste CX time asking if you may ask a question or a follow up. Please keep the clash heavy and strong. Join CX its a better debate platform and you will use its skills to improve yourself.
LD

As a former CX debater I have little care for heavy value criterion and definition debate, keep the focus on the cases and the round.

Congressional Debate

anything goes

Extempt

anything goes

Info/Oratory

just be memorized

Inter (Drama, Duo, POI)

anything goes

I do not like spreading. Please slow down.

I expect you to treat your opponent with dignity and respect.

I am looking for a good mix of fact base and anecdotal evidence to support your position.

Good luck!!

I value clear and concise communication. Please articulate your words clearly when speaking and avoid an overly fast or auctioneer-like debating style.

Thank you!

She/They pronouns please!

Last updated for the Holiday Classic

Add me to the email chain - MeliaLever@gmail.com

Don’t ask me if I’m ready, ill tell you if I’m not.

All debate summary

This is your show and run it how you want. Don’t be problematic in in round. If you are I'll vote you down independent of the rest of the debate, that’s about as much judge intervention I'll ever do. Tell me why you win the debate at the end. Lots of impact calc, lots of judge instruction. I don't like to do work for either side but will if I'm not given anything by the debaters. Ill vote for K affs if they’re topic specific and there's warrants as to why the K aff should be allowed.

Tech over Truth

Any reference to Brian David Gilbert and his series on polygon, "unraveled", or Dimension 20 fantasy high will make me like you more.

The winner gets a 30 for speaks and the loser gets the closest value to 30 the tournament will let me assign.

CX - This is my main event. I know the most about it (tech wise) and can track anything you read. I'm good on speed, dont go 100% online. Don’t assume I know the topic. Meaning with T debates you should spend some time explaining why the aff isn't topical.

Counterplans

Condo is the only reason to reject a team, all other theory arguments (assuming you win them) are reasons to make the argument go away

K’s

The bar for a K is high, but not impossible to reach. If your opponents drop arguments or just ignore it then it’s the same as every other dropped argument so long as its properly extended. Otherwise, lots of work needs to go into the alt debate to explain to me why it does solve. I’m compelled by the argument that “discourse does nothing” so if you’re alt is “reject the aff and talk about the problem” that’s gonna be a hard debate to win (assuming the aff has the evidence). But if the alt results in material action in the world (I.E., revolution to overthrow a capitalist system), then it’s easier for me to vote on. Mindset K's are also a hard one for me to vote on. I struggle to believe that reading the K in front of just the room will eventually spillover to the rest of the world.

K aff's need to relate to the topic, otherwise the threshold for T is low. So long as you relate to the topic and can explain how (even if its tangentially) then I'm willing to vote for you.

For both I would also prefer if you kept the K’s away from broad, overreaching topics and narrowed it down to the nitty gritty of the debate. I understand that’s not always possible, but the more you explain the links, impacts, etc. then the easier it is for me to vote on.

PF and LD

I have judged these debates but know very little about them. I’m not totally sure how either works, or the theory behind arguments. You shouldn’t treat me as a lay judge, but don’t assume I’m going to be the single greatest judge you’ve ever had either. I know and understand debate. Lots of what I said for policy applies. Make sure you extend arguments, explain warrants, etc. Otherwise, you can do whatever.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

I am looking for traditional LD values. I did debate for 4 years and I always worked based on moral values connecting to your framework. If you start to use policy methods you will lose points with me. I want this to be a discussion of morals and pragmatic ethics, not a fistfight of evidence.

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

Debate In General

Be Civil.

I prize good clash and Clear Arguments. I dont like speed.

Framework in PF is moot to me.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. Value and Criteria Clash are paramount. Criteria should be ethos driven and provide a clear road to achive the value and measure the achievment of the value

I dont care for progrsssive LD.

Evidence in LD is lesss of a concern to me than reasoning.

Cross Examination is also very important to me.

I am a flow judge, so if you want it on the flow, speak clearly.

Obervations are moot to me.

First things first- YOU ARE AMAZING! Look at you, doing speech and debate. You give me a renewed sense of hope in the future of our world. I'm proud of you.

LD/PF

I appreciate clear speech, a cadence that I can follow. Do not yell at me. Do not yell at your opponent.

Please be kind and respectful of each other. Especially in cross. On time roadmaps. You get two free card requests; any more than that must be used during your prep time.

I will keep time, feel free to keep your own time as well, however, I do not want to hear an alarm go off. It's distracting for your opponent(s) and for me.

Please do not stare at your laptop and read your speech. I'm not here to listen to you recite a paper you wrote. I appreciate eye contact and speaking from knowledge and passion. I want to hear sources. I want to experience clash. Attack your opponent's speech. Do not spread. I cannot follow when you speak so fast I can't hear your Value, Value C, Contentions, Definitions....etc. If I can't follow, I'm not flowing and therefore, those items will not flow through.

Speech

Do you embody your character(s), blocking? Is your piece funny (humor), does it get to my heart (drama), are you passionate (poetry), can I follow what you're saying, is it cohesive and does it grab my attention? (OO) I don't love when you use a large portion of your time (more than 30 seconds) for an introduction to your piece. Also, I don't want to be lectured in an acting piece about your personal views that you then make normative to the rest of the world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Don't use your introduction to state something as fact that is in fact, not a fact.

I am a coach-adjacent (married to one) judge, and I have been judging policy, PF and LD for 18 years. I was also a policy debater in the last century. That said, I am not necessarily dialed in to the most current strategies and shorthand, especially in policy. My overall approach is basically tabula rasa- I will consider any argument that you can explain in terms of engagement with your opponent, i.e. if you can tell me WHY what you are bringing into the round should win my vote. That could be evidence, impacts, kritiks- whatever- I just need to know that you are listening to your opponent, engaging them directly and weighing their response to you. I’m not really drawn to debates about debate (theory?) in a debate round, but I value thoughtful kritiks about the appropriateness and shortcomings of topics/resolutions in the real world. I will vote on topicality, but it needs to be rigorously adapted to the case in round by specifying exactly why something is non-topical. I’m well aware of the implications for educational purposes.

In terms of mechanics, I can flow fairly speedy rounds, but I have always been a quality-over-quantity judge. Debate is still about communication and persuasion, and presenting a great volume of evidence/sources accomplishes neither goal. Having a some background in technical fields as well as philosophy makes me also appreciate strong analytical arguments.

For Public Forum rounds, much of what I like to see in policy applies, only more so because the time to make arguments is so abbreviated. The winning team will have narrowed their best argument down to one or maybe two by final focus, and will keep it TIGHT, clear and concise.

In LD, I am old school, and I appreciate the idea of a ponderous, reflective and challenging philosophical discourse on a contentious topic. I want to see well developed cases and arguments that explore the moral implications of respective sides of a resolution. A good LD round, in my view, is one in which both participants can speak like orators and use the power of language as well as rigorous analytics to bring the listeners to hear the righteousness of their position.

This is my 3rd year as a Coach for Debate and I competed in high school for 3 years in Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with LD but have never competed in LD. I work as an AP History teacher, understanding the context behind the topic is paramount.

I flow all rounds and look for carefully constructed arguments that have a logical explanation that is clear and concise with impact. "Connect the Dots" for me to prove your logic and understanding.

Knowledge of the topic is essential to the debate; debaters must show they understand the topic and all the points they make themselves. Debaters need to be able to address all attacks on their case and provide logical defenses while also being able to address all arguments made by an opponent.

Speed- Speak at a rate that is easy to understand.

No flexible prep time- use the designated time allotted.

State impacts clearly, when making claims of fact support with evidence, avoid Fiat cases- looking for clash.

Hello all! Just wanted to get a few official things out of the way first!

I will be weighing your arguments based on the evidence that you provide with them (if you give me 6 statistics but do not explain how that corresponds to your argument, that argument will stand as if there was no evidence provided). Correlating your evidence with your argument should be a skill set you already have.

During your final focus, I expect everyone to explain to me why they have won this debate. Advocate for yourself, tell me why you deserve the 1. It can be anything from "My points are better" to simply providing me better reasons to prioritize your plan above your opponents. All I want to see is some form of self-advocation.

Keep things clean and professional! Abusive tactics are a huge no no. We are here to have fun, not to beat someone else down. With that being said, I want all of you to have fun! Enjoy the nature of the debate. It should be a good time for all parties involved.

Good luck, and have fun!

My paradigm for LD is pretty straight forward. I am a traditional judge, I do not care for: Spreading, Kritiks, Plans, or Counterplans in Lincoln Douglas debate. I think that if you want to run those types of things do Policy/CX. I will heavily weigh whomever convinces me that their value and value criterion is the most important, but what really matters is the clash. Do you answer your opponents arguments with substantive points? Are your arguments valid and have magnitude? Do you deliver your arguments clearly and in an organized manner? These are what will decide a round for me.

I enjoy clear, succinct arguments.

Think fast speak slow.

Volume and tone matter.

Respectfully communicate.

During Extemp Debate I look for:

• Respectful debate, don't talk over each other. If you ask a question during cross, do not talk over their answer.
• Stating your arguments clearly with the points in defense
• Using sources, statistics, and research to back up arguments
• Responding to the counter's arguments in full with empirical evidence in the reverse (if you don't acknowledge an argument, I will assume you agree with it)
• Stop when time is up, don't try to cram in another sentence of two. . . I will not consider it.

In all debates I look first for respect. While it is ok to disagree, it is not ok to disrespect. In life if you truly want to convince others insulting them will be the quickest thing to move them away from your side.

I prefer clarity in debate over speed, though can flow it. Look to utilize all elements of the rhetorical triangle and I enjoy when CX has a clear line of thought and attack

Look for clash and make your argumentation clear with signposting.

Have fun

About me:

swideckimichael1@gmail.com (include on email chain please)

8 years and counting policy debate experience. Current University of Kansas Graduate Assistant Coach.

High School specific thoughts for your pref sheets:
1. Yes Speed
2. Yes theory
3. Yes K's (Aff and Neg)
4. Yes evidence sharing
5. Yes off-time roadmaps
6. No grace periods (we have time limits for a reason)
6. No judge intervention
7. Tech over Truth (unless in extreme circumstances as outlined below in point 1)

Some thoughts and useful insights for all debaters (an ever growing list):

1. Familiar with mostly all types of argumentation, I'm down with reading whatever argument suits you, just defend it well. There are very few args I will not vote on. If you say racism/sexism/transphobia/ableism are good you will lose. Everything else is up for debate. I am particularly partial to clever impact turns that catch opponents off guard.

2. I'm becoming increasingly familiar with K literature, I debated as a flex K debater my senior year of college reading args about Queerness and Feminism. Although I assume I'll understand what you are talking about, you should probably not trust me. Thus, if you are going to be relying on some super complex K terms, I would appreciate a well explained extension just to ensure we are all on the same page in subsequent speeches. I do my best to keep up, but there will always be something that I didn't have time to learn.

3. I like clever counterplans that use the aff against itself (within reason of course, I'm not afraid to vote on theory so be careful with your "creativity"), unless you have really good evidence, I'm not likely to vote on generic CP's that copy and paste the plan text from every round. If the CP is unique to the aff or a small section of affs, that's ideal.

4. 2AC addons are underrated.

5. Nothing in your speeches should go unjustified, every piece of evidence and every analytic you forward needs to exist for a strategic reason. Chess players (who want to win) don't just move random pieces. Everything is purposeful, strategic, and thoughtful. Your speeches are a piece of art and you should treat them with that respect!

6. Cross-ex is a speech, give it well.

7. Be kind, prep well, debate smart, have fun, good luck.

(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

PF:

Former PF debater. Spreading is fine. Open to any K or theory except disclosure theory (disclosure theory will result in an instant loss).

Time with whatever you want. I start CX timing when the first question is asked. I'm okay with off-clock roadmaps unless I state otherwise (only for cases where we are on a time crunch).

I won't weigh an impact unless you tell me to. I'm not getting paid to think.

LD:

If you somehow get me for LD, may god help you.

WS:

As far as WS goes, I competed at Nationals once, and judged once, and that's all of my experience with the event. As far as the structure of the event itself, consider me a lay judge. As far as args go, run whatever you want, go crazy.

Experience:

I am a band nerd from the University of Wyoming
I have not judged Speech or Debate very long

Preference:

I prefer those who I can understand. If I cannot understand you, you will receive a lower score, this includes spreading.

I strongly dislike those who are rude, antagonistic, or generally mean. Not being professional in round will be looked down upon with a big frowny face.

I do not shy away from seemingly ridiculous arguments. However, if the speaker does not take their argument with the upmost seriousness, they will be ranked more harshly than those with a serious argument. I expect those who are against a ridiculous argument to tear it down viciously and counter the speaker's arguments.

K arguments are lame. K = L

Treat me as a LAY judge. With a big L.

Congress People: I do not have your bill in front of me. If you do not properly describe your bill in a way that I can understand, I will be upset.

Howdy, I am William Wayne Ward from Wyoming.

Experience:

3 Years High School Congressional Debate

1 Year British Parliamentary Debate

1.5 years College Public Forum Debate (current competitor)

Currently Learning College Speech (at large)

President of UW Speech

Debate:

I enjoy the technical side of debate but better speakers will often win my vote should the speaker's clash and arguments be roughly equal. I really enjoy watching clash, especially lively ones, but I severely punish Ad Hominem arguments and general disrespect. I prefer on the clock roadmaps but I do not care much. I shouldn't have to read y'all's case to understand, it is lame if I do. If you give me a K argument that is not on case, I will likely give you an L. Spreading makes me Sad. I believe that ridiculous arguments require minimal responses, the bar for a substantive response is lower. Please do not force me to listen to a definition debate where the two terms are not meaningfully different.

Congress: I expect chairs to be efficient, know parliamentary procedure, be fair, and to take good precedence. Newbies are more forgiven. I have a ton of experience here, I can smell procedural BS a mile away so do not cross any major ethical boundaries.

Chair, I detest question precedence and RNG speaker selection. That is not in Roberts Rules of Order.

Speakers, you are in congressional debate, not congressional oratory. The later half of the debate needs to have clash or I will have an excellent nap. Don't tempt me.

LD: Please explain why a value or criterion clash matters, what arguments I should drop or if I should entirely ignore your opponent's case. You are in a moral debate, not PF Lite™, explain why morals matter.

PF: If I cannot explain your case and it's logic in 1-2 sentences, I probably will not vote for you. Simplify your case for me into easy logic if possible. I am sadly, a pea brain.

CX: Pray I am not your CX judge. If you have the misfortune of seeing me as a CX judge, K arguments that are off case are annoying and spreading is lame. Treat me like a lay judge.

Debate differences: I will try not force my preferred lay and PF view points on you, I detest how CX judges decide PF, but I cannot reward something I do not understand just because it is the norm.

Speech:

I judge heavy on energy and blocking (when applicable) as well as speaking ability. I would much rather judge a room full of the same subject with great performance than unique topics with poor performance.

In my view, you are in Speech, not Debate, which means that the best subject, topic, or argument does not always win. It's all about how you can present it, but an interesting topic certainly helps.

Ballots:

I like to flow what happens in your feedback on Tabroom for most events, especially debate so you can see everything I hear/consider. That said, I flow faster on paper so in elimination rounds I will likely not flow on the ballot.

↑ Effective Judge Understanding > Flow Transparency. ↑

I might add emojis to most ballots. ???? ← Might look like this. If I do not have much under your feedback or RFD, it is because I forgot to fill it out like a dingus.

Contact:

for additional feedback or questions about your ballot:

email: willward2002@gmail.com

text at 307-921-0711

Just don't dox me, thats not coolio.

I'm a traditional judge, the framework is important (so don't drop it), and I appreciate proper decorum within the debate. Please be respectful of opponents at all times without being condescending.

Otherwise, you must be pretty amazing for getting this far; so keep doing what is (apparently) working!

Previous PF debater! Flow judge, please weigh arguments during summary and FF, and I don't flow crossfire. No off-time roadmaps and no theory! I'll time you, but please time yourself and your opponents. If evidence clash becomes a big deal in the round, I will call for all of it at the end.

Tech > truth, if you can argue it and extend it through round, I'll vote on it.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts! Or if you have questions on RFD email me (trinitywhite0917@gmail.com)

Former CX debate and IE competitor from high school and college. In debate just make your argument. Don't get too stuck on a slip up from the opponent, make your case. Some speed is fine, make sure you are clear and articulate. I am looking for great arguments and not how many words you can say in a minute.

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.

Cherry Creek 23 // KU 27

Please add me to the email chain: albawilsonaxpe@gmail.com

There's nothing out of the ordinary here - just do your job in facilitating a positive debate environment and always be honest and respectful. Ask any specific questions about my preferences before the round!

CX: I started policy in college so I'm still pretty new but I am okay with anything. Prioritize clear judge instruction. Speed is fine but not at the cost of coherency

PF: Always frontline in second rebuttal. Absolutely no new evidence in FF - FF should mirror summary (extend voters, impacts). I flow cx

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.

I am an old-school judge. In LD I want to see very clear values and a criterion that weighs them so I can judge whether you've tied your impacts in support of your case. I am going to judge your arguments on quality not quantity, so please don't throw out a bunch of statistics and cards without putting them in perspective for their impacts.
Most crucially, I do not like speed or spreading. Make your best arguments and support them. If you go too fast and I can't understand your argument because of how fast you're speaking, I can't score it.

I am an old-school judge. In LD I want to see very clear values and a criterion that weighs them so I can judge whether you've tied your impacts in support of your case. I am going to judge your arguments on quality not quantity, so please don't throw out a bunch of statistics and cards without putting them in perspective for their impacts. In PF, everything applies other than the value and criterion, but it should be clear from your contentions what is important in the round. I appreciate frameworks, but not kritiks so if you do a k without contentions that support your aff or neg, it's probably not going to score very high.

Most crucially, I do not like speed or spreading. Make your best arguments and support them. If you go too fast and I can't understand your argument because of how fast you're speaking, I can't score it.

TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)

Background: I'm currently a junior at Stanford University and I've coached PF at Redwood MS and am currently the Speech coach for Palo Alto HS. I've competed in PF debate, Original Oratory, Extemp (primarily international extemp), and have done POI and poetry during my 4 years in high school.

Email: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com (feel free to contact me about my comments on your ballots or if you have any questions :)

PF Paradigm: I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

Policy Paradigm: I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed-wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.

LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

Speech: I judge based on content, delivery, and creativity. I appreciate a speech that has solid content where the arguments are well structured and supported. For platform events, I find that many points are surface level so speeches that go in depth on your points will get extra brownie points. I love for analysis to connect and piece together everything for me so that it's obvious the message that you're getting at. Ambiguity in speeches does not equate to nuance and I would make sure that you know why you're leaving things ambiguous so that it is more purposeful in your speech.

For interp events, I focus specifically on blocking and the clarity of the storyline. I like pieces that have a lot of meaning but a clear exposition, climax, and "resolution" (doesn't have to be an exact solution to the problem you present and are showing us, but should be a good ending to showcase your message).

Overall background on me: I've been a state legislator for 2 decades, and a collegiate political science instructor for 15 years. I can handle all sorts of crazy arguments as long as you have evidence and some thoughtful analysis to support your position- no matter how controversial. I do ask you treat your opponents with the respect and deference they are due in the competition from the first interaction until you walk out the room.

Off-time Roadmaps are fine.

I like Evidence, followed up by more Evidence, with some thought based on Evidence.

If you have cards or citations from obscure, non-mainstream, biased media (on either side of political ideology) I get a bit grumpy. Also, cards/evidence more than a decade old don't carry much weight with me unless you can somehow tie it to present or future state of affairs. I also appreciate acknowledgement of ALL opponents' main contentions. If one side has three contentions, and the other side constantly attacks 2 of them and forgets the 3rd, it will likely not go well-If you must, at least tell me you've heard their 3rd contention and it's not worthy of debate :)

Always open to any questions before a round starts.