Firstly in application to all debates please be respectful to your opponents as much as humanly possible, this especially applies to CX periods if you're not nice during these you will be jacked for it, debate should be fun for all. As it is exactly what I do I am more than okay with fast speeches and cases, but please make sure to signpost everything you are doing and make sure your opponent is okay with you speaking quickly.

LD: Luckily for you folks, LD is the debate I am the most versed in. Meaning I am more than capable of keeping up with shorthanded terms and difficult topics. As it is specific to LD I will often vote on the framing of values; show me why both cases should follow your framework. I flow very closely and will be able to see arguments if things aren't attacked. If you point it out and are right that almost always secures a win for the round. In your case, if the link chain is strong that's an early advantage. Overall, I will vote on frame, the spread of arguments, and more importantly tech over truth.

PF: Very important for PF kids, please tell me where cards are from and why they are credible. If they aren't explained and your opponents call that out it looks bad on the flow. In PF the use of questioning periods is so important. If you can use it to your advantage and tie back to the questions that's a likely vote for you. Make sure to flow arguments if you aren't I am and I will see when things aren't attacked/defended. If an opponent doesn't attack or defend something point it out and I will probably vote on that. Importantly I will vote a lot on tech over truth.

Experience - I am currently a high school debater and I have been doing policy debate since I was a sophomore and was a national qualifier my junior year. I also did LD and Public-Forum debates my freshman year. For all debates I can keep up with any speed of spreading, just make sure you are enunciating well.

LD - I don't have much experience with LD but please make sure that you have a good value and value criterion. Please make sure that you present a lot of evidence. I will always vote more with strong evidence than just analytics. Since I am so inexperienced with LD, please be sure to explain exactly what your arguments are; give me a good weighing mechanism, evidence, and impact calculus. Remember that a good debate has clash.

PF- Very similar to LD, I am not the most familiar with this type of debate so please be very clear with your arguments. Do not assume that I am familiar with the argument or the argument type so walk me as a judge through the argument.

CX- I prefer a pretty traditional debate. I would prefer if things like K were avoided on the NEG and I will not weigh K arguments and other theoretical/moral arguments as much as I will more evidence based arguments and CP and DA arguments specifically for that case or similar cases. That being said, if the AFF does not properly respond to any K or theory arguments brought up I will be counting that as the same as not responding to any other argument. All in all, I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

Debate:

Being well versed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas in my high school career, I know how to flow pretty well and usually am good with understanding the verbiage of anything in that area. I will approve off-the-clock roadmaps, abide by the 30-second grace period for speeches, and as long as you know the difference between being assertive and aggressive, that will help the pace of the round.

I don't particularly care for super fast speakers and if I am having a hard time understanding you, know that you are probably going to be losing speaker points. There is a difference between speaking with diction and clarity at a fast pace OR going through a case at lightning speed that doesn't make any sense. If you are trying to cram evidence at the cost of sacrificing comprehension, that is something that needs to be restructuring before you are reading these paradigms :)

Finally, please know that arguments structured on the basis of having more cards or evidence than the opposition will not be a swaying factor for me in final speeches. That time is dedicated to you proving to me that your arguments should be upheld, and not making new attacks on your opponent. Unless this is a novice tournament, you should be aware of the key points in this speech and how it should be formatted in accordance of the rules.

ALSO, if you make a statement that the opponents never made a certain argument and my flow says otherwise, I will have to drop that voter. Please respect the "new arguments" rule too, it really shouldn't be something that is brought up in closing.

Interp. Events:

Doing these events requires a lot of structure already so know that I am not a stickler on formatting your speech a specific way. I've done many events under this umbrella so I will follow the rubric of what it calls for and know that if you can give a speech or a performance that allows me to follow along with your logic, opinion, or piece in a cohesive manner, that will work for me.

The only room for me to have an opinion should truly be on your ability to project, command the room and figure out how you were able to convey your topic in a manner that is memorable when compared to your competitors in the round.

As a judge in speech and debate competitions, I recognize the significant responsibility that comes with this role. Judges play a crucial part in shaping the experiences of participants and determining the outcome of events. It is essential for me, as a judge, to establish a clear paradigm that reflects my values and priorities. In this essay, I will outline my personal paradigm as a speech and debate judge, detailing the principles and criteria that guide my evaluation of participants.

One of the central pillars of my judging paradigm is the emphasis on clarity and effective communication skills. I believe that clear and well-structured presentations are vital in ensuring that the audience can fully grasp the content of the speech or debate. I look for participants who articulate their ideas coherently, maintain proper organization, and engage the audience effectively. Elements such as eye contact, vocal variety, and non-verbal communication are crucial in this regard.

While effective communication is essential, it should be coupled with substantial content. I value presentations that are well-researched and grounded in facts and evidence. Participants who demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and provide comprehensive and accurate information will receive high marks in my assessments. I also encourage participants to cite credible sources and engage in meaningful research to enrich their arguments.

Civility and respect in discourse are fundamental to my paradigm as a judge. I expect participants to treat their opponents with respect and engage in a constructive and courteous manner. Healthy competition should not compromise the principles of respect and ethical behavior. Demonstrating sportsmanship and fairness is important to me, and I evaluate participants on their ability to engage in discourse without resorting to personal attacks or disrespectful language.

Integrity and ethical conduct are non-negotiable in my paradigm. I value honesty, both in the representation of evidence and in adherence to competition rules. Participants who demonstrate a commitment to ethical principles and maintain a high level of integrity in their presentations and interactions will receive favorable assessments. Ethical behavior not only ensures the fairness of the competition but also contributes to the overall educational experience.

I appreciate participants who display adaptability and strategic thinking. In debates, the ability to respond effectively to opponents' arguments and adapt to changing circumstances is a valuable skill. I look for participants who can adjust their strategies on the fly and anticipate counterarguments. In speeches, the ability to engage the audience through compelling narratives and persuasive techniques is highly regarded.

As a judge in speech and debate competitions, my paradigm reflects my commitment to fairness, clarity, educational value, respect, ethics, and adaptability. I believe that these principles not only guide my assessments but also contribute to the growth and development of participants. It is my responsibility to ensure that the competitions I judge are conducted with integrity and that participants are provided with valuable feedback and opportunities for personal and intellectual growth. My paradigm, as outlined in this essay, serves as the foundation upon which I base my assessments and decisions as a speech and debate judge.

I've done a little of most events here, so I understand the basics of every event. I've gone to nationals, and competed in Speech and Debate for 3 years now.

For Debaters: Do not spread. I've done CX before, and I understand that you're trying to get a lot of information out at once, but if I can't understand what argument you are trying to make, I'm not going to stop listening to your speech trying to figure it out. Speak clearly, or it most likely won't make it onto my flow sheets.

For Interp/platform: Speaking clearly applies to you too. I can't judge what you're saying if I don't know what it is. Other than that, please be respectful to other competitors, and please let me know if you have to leave the room :)

Hey y'all! A little about me, this is my 4th year in speech and debate and I've done each event a couple of times so I am very aware of the rules and general do's and don'ts of each event. I've gone to nationals for world schools and extemporaneous debate, and was third alt for duet interpretation.

For Debates: please do not spread, if I cannot understand your argument it will not be taken into account when choosing a winner. Please remember that we are all human so before or after round please do not bad mouth each other, because nobody wants to hear that! I don't mind sass, but if it turns into rudeness, that is not a very good look. Lets keep the debate civil and clear.

For Interpretation: please please please be respectful while others are presenting, I know you have all worked so hard on your pieces I don't want whispering or comments to ruin that. I understand if y'all cannot stay through the whole round just remember to let me know so I know where you're going in case something happens, I don't want you to be lost!

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

Please put me on the email chain: jlfwillson@gmail.com

Updated 1/9/2024

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a 2nd year policy debater at the University of Wyoming and debate coach for Hot Springs County High School. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance.

LD

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for three years in high school. 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. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted. Debate is a space for students to do what they want, so "this isn't policy debate" isn't a real argument. Explain why what they have done is bad for LD, don't just assert that is. This is probably best done on the framework level of the debate, have a value that prioritizes theory over pragmatism and convince me that their focus on consequences is bad.

PF

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

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Case

Teams should have better case debates around a few, well-developed args in the 2NR. I like to see a bunch of stuff to test the AFF early and then boil down to one or two positions per sheet that have a really convincing story. Go in-depth and use examples and applications to show why it mitigates the solvency of the AFF and makes the DA/Alt more threatening. Teams go for too much in the 2NR/2AR, make the debate small and powerful.

Ks vs. Policy AFF

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts and how it solves the links. Make sure link packages are specific to the AFF and explain the links that were made in the round. Overviews are cool because they provide an opportunity to engage with the impacts of the AFF and solvency to create a presumption push.

FW vs. K AFF

FW is a T argument at its core, so you should provide me with impacts for why their model of debate is bad for topic engagement. I will evaluate both fairness and clash as impacts, although I tend to be more persuaded by clash and skills. TVAs help a lot, give me reasons it accesses their lit base and solves your offense. I will vote on AFF impact turns, but I like to see a well developed counter-interp. This should function like a counterplan/alt that solves the AFF and NEG offense. Debating about debate is one of the most fun parts about this activity, so enjoy your opportunity to have a meta discussion about the activity you are participating in!

T

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated. Explain why grounds and limits are important to the debate i.e. why they are internal links to your larger impacts. 2NRs should directly compare models of debate, what does debate look like under their interpretation, what's the case list, is there a TVA? These are all very important questions to answer.