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.

Please add me to the email chain - wyokaitlyn@gmail.com

--General Stuff--

I'm a second year policy debater for University of Wyoming and two time qualifier to the NDT.

Debate is fun, you should make it safe and enjoyable for everyone.

Good warrants beat out bad cards.

Impact and evidence comparison is great - write my ballot for me.

Be clear in transitioning from cards to tags to analytics - monotone makes it harder to flow and will hurt your speaks.

Cross-x is a speech, I flow the arguments made here. Prep time is not CX time - asking questions outside of small clarifications during prep time is not what prep time is for and I will not flow those arguments.

Please do not send cards in the body of the email chain. Please use an email chain instead of speech drop.

Don't need to call me judge - just Kaitlyn is fine.

--Policy Stuff--

Any theory but condo is a reason to reject the argument not the team. Infinite condo is probably good, but the aff can win condo bad. Best neg offense is neg flex, affs should point out specific conditionality abuse in round. Hard debate is good debate.

Case debate is great - people don't do it enough. Love creative turns, innovation is good.

Topicality is fun - make sure you contextualize impacts - offense is everything in these debates. Tell me why your vision for debate is best - don't just be a definition robot.

For clash debates, give me a reason the aff is bad. The cap K vs K affs is probably not a reason the aff is bad - it will lose to the perm unless you have a hyper specific link. Same is true for Ks v. policy affs - need a reason why the aff's scholarship, impact, ideas, etc. is bad - or it will lose to the perm.

Fairness is an internal link not an impact on framework. Clash, skills, etc. are impacts - and they are often good ones.

Not sold on out of round spillup for K affs - give me a reason why your aff is good besides more people will talk about it out of round.

I've only judged a few debates on this topic - don't assume I know what you're talking about or the acronyms used.

--LD Stuff--

LARP > K > phil > tricks

Infinite condo is less good for LD - aff is still served well by pointing out specific time/strat skew that occurred in round.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

As a speech coach, I appreciate poise and precision in your speaking styles. I am not an experienced LD judge, so refrain from any jargon or technical language. Please do not speak too rapidly. I appreciate a typical conversational speed. I am looking for clash and will base my final decision on who gets me to understand their argument and supports said argument the best.

Off the clock roadmaps are ok, as they help to provide a sense of the direction of the argument and what the contentions are going to be. Have some passion in your speeches and in the debate, as it shows your connection and understanding of the topic; but don’t go overboard with it.
I do not mind if you time yourself, as long as it’s allowed by the tournaments. During CX, please be respectful and allow opponents to ask questions and answer questions. Summaries can help bring a case together and provide the opportunity to highlight important points.

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

I will judge to the best of my ability, however I will judge based on what I hear or understand. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed.

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.

PF Clash and complete citations on the initial read. If you don't present , I will not weigh in the round.

All voting issues, drops and evidence challenges need to be called by competitors. I will not insert myself unless egregious violations occur. I will also occasionally vote for the most passionate debater, the debater who shows the greatest desire to win. CX wins debates.

LD Clash and application. I rarely vote on criteria, but often on HV.

CX is the highlight of the debate, own it.

I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.

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.

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.

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.