My top voting issues-

#1- Do not speak too fast and speak clearly! If I can’t understand you, how am I supposed to vote for you?

#2- Show respect to your competitors! If you ask a question, let them answer it. Your non-verbal language also shows respect, so be cautious of how you react.

#3- Give me voters- a summary of what took place shows me you know what you are talking about.

My Background-

My daughter did Policy (CX) debate and that is when I learned I do NOT like speed-reading cases. I have been coaching since 2017 and still feel like a new speech & debate coach.

If you want anything more specific, ask before the round starts.

I did speech and debate through all of high school, so I have a basic knowledge of how things work. I did mainly extemporaneous speaking and public forum debate, but I've also competed several times in lincoln douglas debate.

Debate Paradigms:

General- I want to be able to understand what you're saying. Speaking in a manner that makes it harder for your opponents to understand you also makes it harder for me to understand you. Speaking louder than your opponent does not make you automatically correct. Being assertive is perfectly fine, but I will vote against you if you are rude to another competitor. I will be flowing all speeches, so I will know if contentions have been dropped or attacked.

Public Forum- I know public forum best, so feel free to run more complex arguments. In the round, I will allow anything within the rules, but keep in mind that by the end I will rely mostly on weighing and impacts. If the teams agree to a different framework, I will decide by that. I do not expect either side to finish the debate with every contention standing, but if you need to drop a contention make it clear it's on purpose. Vice versa, just because your opponent dropped a contention does not necessarily mean you've won the round. I want to hear the reasoning for the contention's importance and it's impact in either the pro or con world. I want to see a team prove, with solid reasoning and evidence, that they've won the round.

Lincoln Douglas- I haven't debated in this event for several years, but I do still know how it works. Values should be the core of this debate, and I want to hear your value often. I do not want to only hear your value in your introduction speech and then have it dropped until the conclusion. Tie in your contentions to your value; I want your argument to be cohesive. If your opponent takes down your value, and therefore your entire case, early in the debate and you never defend it, that is enough to lose the debate. It is important to note however that I do not accept simply saying one value is more important than the other; it is a debate for a reason. Evidence is still important and can be used in weighing, but remember to focus on the moral aspect of the debate.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

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.

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!!

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

Value and Value Criterion Clash

Civility and Concreteness

Fine with fast speech, but speak fluently

>>> Short version:

Ex-Policy tab flow judge without strong technical background; tries not to judge PF and LD like they are Policy.

>>> Way too long version:

I am an ex-Policy debater, but from a time and place when Policy was less technical than it is today. Back then, it kind of resembled what we would see today in a faster, more evidence-heavy PF round. Speed had just started to get popular and argumentation was shifting away from focusing on stock issues and more toward focus on advantages/disadvantages. Although CPs, Ts and Ks were around, they were not well-liked by most judges and so most rounds would center around on-case and DAs since those were the arguments you could win on.

Policy:

As a Policy judge I consider myself tech>truth and tabula rasa. These are the judges I most enjoyed debating in front of, so this is the type of judge I am by default. That said, I do kind of groan when I have to listen to really bad generic DAs, really bad generic CPs, outlandish theory, Ks that even you don't understand at all, and throwaway Ts. But I understand it's all part of the Policy game to some extent, and I'll vote on this stuff (in Policy only). But I am happier if I can vote on good arguments instead of tricks or one tiny dropped part of a spread. I don't have a strong background in Ks, so if you are going to run one you will need to explain it for the layman and it will need to make sense to a layman-- frankly some Ks I cannot even flow without some added exposition because I have not a single solitary clue what the words being said mean as they are read off the page. You can read the whole entire K and my K flow sheet at the end will just say "buddy without Oregons ??? (scooby doo huh noise) ???". Although there are arguments that I personally like more or less, in general I will vote on anything that you can explain, win, and weigh. I've tried to learn the parts of "modern Policy" that are new to me, but it still is probably wise for very proficient Policy debaters to treat me as flay and slow down and explain the more technical args a bit. I don't give speed warnings; I expect you to know how fast you can go and remain understandable, and find that 99% of debaters do and it's usually not a problem. Although I can usually keep up with speed just fine in the "straightaways", I have noticed that in very fast rounds I sometimes lose the first part of a card or argument right after switching args. Because of this, if really speedy speedsters want to slow down just a bit during/after the signpost, take a quick breath, and give me a half second to find the right place on my flow, that would be great and prevent me from missing the first part of your next argument.

PF and LD:

In PF and LD, truth>tech.

I like all kinds of PF, both the slower more persuasive classic PF and the faster more evidence-heavy line-by-line PF. When rounds have a slower team against a faster team, I find that kind of tricky to judge. Obviously if I judged it like Policy, the faster team would almost always win. Because I like both styles and think they are both valid ways to do PF, generally this is how I judge PF so that slow teams can compete against fast teams: I flow the round using a Policy-style column flow, but I am much, much, much less strict about extensions and drops. I think a good argument made in PF can stand on its own without necessarily requiring an extension in every speech. And I will do some work on the flow if there are obvious ways that arguments interact, basically taking short leaps if I believe they are obvious and within the realm of how a lay judge would evaluate the round. I know it really stinks when judges put pieces together too much and you lose to arguments that your opponent did not even really make, so I try not to do that, but in general I believe PF should be judged by thinking humans and so your arguments should take into account the fact that the judge is able to think and reason. Basically in PF, I am an unbiased but normal, average, thinking lay human person who is open to being persuaded by the overarching story of the round. Each thing that gets said in the round is free to bounce around in my head and interact with each other thing, without needing to be told explicitly to be cross-applied or extended or whatever, it's all just a big soup of argumentation. Although I flow, I don't judge strictly off the flow, it is more of a personal notekeeping system than a gameboard. This is in contrast to Policy, where I am more of a strict argument-evaluating computer and the flow is the gameboard on which the round is won or lost. It seems to me like research and case writing are the critical parts of PF; it is usually very obvious which teams have spent time digging deeply into the evidence, reading beyond the highlights, and gaining a deep and nuanced understanding of the empirical facts; and those teams usually debate much better and are more persuasive regardless if they choose a faster or slower style.

I had no exposure to LD until I started coaching, but have really grown to like it. Basically all LD that I see in Wyoming is trad though, so if you are a competitor reading this at Nationals and you do progressive LD, it will essentially be my first time seeing that. My default way to judge LD is to treat the Value and Criterion like a framework or weighing mechanism. Because of this, it is very important to me that you don't ignore the value clash and that you tie your arguments back to the V/VC. The winning V/VC becomes the yardstick by which I measure the rest of what happens in the round and has a huge effect on what arguments end up mattering in the decision. If you ignore the V/VC, you will probably lose. Sometimes the V/VC debate is very close and hard to call, so it may be strategic to try to tie your args to both V/VCs just in case you end up losing the V/VC part of the flow ("even if x, y...")

General:

Generally speaking, a type of speech that I usually find persuasive and effective looks like this:
- Goes straight down the flow and explains why you win each point of clash, actually interacting with the point and not just reiterating what you previously said
- Extends the parts of the flow that had no clash (dropped stuff) that you still think important
- Does an overarching impact analysis, weighing, tying arguments back to framework or value. Explains broadly why winning the points you just discussed means that you win the round as a whole.
Definitely there is no one effective speech structure, this is just the type of speech that often leaves me thinking "dang, nice speech".

Speeches that I find not very persuasive do things like:
- Try to extend a point from your last speech but don't interact with the clash on that point. You ask me to extend something you said earlier in the round but do not interact at all with how your opponent answered that point. These types of "non-interacting extensions" are kind of not even flowable in my book. I really need at least one sentence of analysis explaining how your extension is able to hold, given the clash in the round on the point in question. Just saying "extend x" and no further explanation is not good enough when there is ANY clash on the point. When there's no clash, by all means "extend x" and move on.
- Similarly, trying to cross-apply without explaining how the point cross-applies. Just saying "cross-apply x" and moving on is not going to cut it unless it is extremely obvious how the cross-apply works. In general I would like to see at least one sentence of analysis explaining how the cross-apply cross-applies.
- Really vague impact analysis. I had in my paradigm last year that I liked weighing (which I do), and often people seemed to just throw in short vague debate camp statements like "outweigh on magnitude", "outweigh on probability". While that's better than nothing for sure, I would really love to see some more thoughtful analysis of how the impacts in the round stack up against each other and how they interact with any framework or value in the round.
- Only going line-by-line with zero overall analysis of the round. Even in Policy, I do like to see at least a little bit of overall summary beyond the line-by-line.

I don't really care that much about roadmaps. I'd prefer them off-time if you are going to do them just so they don't waste useful speech time. I do like signposting though especially in fast rounds.

I really prefer if everyone in the round is respectful to each other. I know it's debate and things can get heated, but let's keep it as civil as possible.

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.

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.