I am a parent judge and have an immense respect for Speech and Debate Participants.

The nearly 12 hour competition days that you all endure, an athlete of any other sport would tire out.

Everyone start with a perfect score. In the end I will score you on

1) How close you kept it to the intent and rules of the particular competition.

2) Did you present with respect and in a manner that avoided outright aggression.

3) I give points for a bit of a forceful argument if it has validity.

Often in the final rounds it is very difficult to rank and a vast majority of the times a single point is the normal gap.

I judge with complete fairness on any topic. Every event that I have judged has left me with profound thought and more often than not a tear or two is shed with some of the amazing words that you all share.

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.

I don't like any sort of cut-offs or interrupting for the sake of asking more questions. Questions should be given specifically and be for looking for answers not to just think of good questions to ask or to make your opponent look a certain way. I also need phones silenced. Self-timing is completely fine. Timing your opponent is never okay and will result in me requiring your phone to be left outside of the room or away from your reach for the remainder of the round. I look for speaking ability, rhetoric, and ability to use evidence throughout your argument.

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.

In judging, I will be looking at the framework and the impact of the arguments. I will need the speaking to be clear, polite-no cursing-and moderately paced. Rudeness or inappropriate language will lose points.

• Think fast and speak slow.

• Respect other people

• Make sense - please don't just speak; make sense when you do

Hi all. Thanks for reading my paradigm. I started and coached the Speech and Debate team at Denver School of the Arts (Denver Public Schools) from 2007 to 2020 and have been judging mostly policy debate since 1984. I would like to think I have embraced the authenticity of all debate and endorse the student driven evolution of the events.

For 2023 Nationals, I've been hired to judge World Schools Debate. I have watched two practice rounds and viewed two national finals online. I like this event and want to judge it fairly in a way that supports debaters. That said, I still plan to flow heavily because it is what I know. My CX/LD paradigm information is below. I realize WS does not use the same terms, but it seems that those terms have been replaced with things that mean basically the same thing such as substantives, layers, models and burdens. I appreciate clear burdens (which I understand as framework) and models (which I understand as plans or criterions). If you bring these up, please thread them throughout the round and signpost when you are referencing them. Anything that tells me how you want me to evaluate the round is super helpful. Even though this type of debate seems less heavy on evidence and sources, I still need warrants. It is very hard for me to vote on arguments that fail to really go past the claim level. I appreciate a good, clean performance. I don't think anything is ever lost in showing respect for your opponents. You all deserve that from me and from each other.

I appreciate any high school student who is taking their weekends to engage in discourse so before the round begins you have my utmost respect.

Topicality: Feel free to run this though I rarely vote on it unless I think a particular aff is abusive in its treatment of the topic. Even if your case is more narrative in nature, the narrative should in some way acknowledge the topic.

If you run a narrative or Kritik, run it as a one off (perhaps with brief topicality but nothing else) and give me a lot of specificity. Tell me how your position functions, link it to the aff or neg and the alt needs to be clear and well thought out-not just a do nothing or reject all instances.

I'll listen to anything within reason. I also enjoy straight up policy rounds. When debaters execute well, I've found myself voting for arguments and positions I never thought I could consider. That means I'm here to listen to you and will try to set my own political biases aside as long as your advocacy is not lacking in humanity.

Debate is ultimately a performance to me, so make sure that your arguments and ethos are in harmony-please don't run polar opposite positions on neg. I'm not a fan of disembodied arguments; I think you should believe what you argue.

Clear speed is OK, but kind of silly. If you are going to make a complex argument to me, why would you self undermine it by making it so quickly it can't be processed by someone with four college degrees? Give me words and I'll flow everything the best I can. No, I won't yell clear, but your partner can.

Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round.

Hi! I'm Lauren, I was an LD debater in high school for multiple years, and I'm excited to be judging!

LD:

- Talking fast is ok but in order to judge you guys fairly I have to be able to understand you. I will do my best to flow and keep up but if you talk too fast it's not guaranteed I will catch everything, so please don't spread.

- Off time road maps are cool, just let me know you are going to do one before you start

- I will do my best to flow the arguments made on both sides but it's possible I will miss something here and there, so let me know if your opponent dropped something or if there is anything you really want me to focus on

- Value and VC are super important for LD so make sure you are coming back to that throughout the round. I will do my best to judge on evidence and reasoning as well but if it comes down to it V/VC are what can make or break the round so make sure you are emphasizing that as well

- Tell me how you want me to vote! Make sure you are letting me know about dropped arguments and what your voting issues are.

- Be nice to each other! This is a debate so it can be scary and competitive which I totally understand, but don't be mean to your opponent or cut them off. If you go over time I will let you finish your sentence and then stop you, but please just be courteous to each other.

- Please time yourselves. I will time you but it's a lot easier for me if you time yourself as well

- Have fun!

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High School. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Talking fast is a proven method to avoid clash. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will likely win).

2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.

3. A small puppy dies when you don’t signpost, weigh, or have voters. In addition, if you reframe or clip cards, the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a tiny kitten gets adopted into a loving home.

4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.

5. Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.

6. I don’t disclose after the round. If you ask me, the other person will get a default win. Congrats—you played yourself!

7. Friv theory; no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.

8. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time; I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.

9. If you have an anime reference in your speech, I’ll give you extra speaks and my respect.

10. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented, and NSDA intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. It needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong VVC clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF, for one.

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I dislike hangnails, and I will dislike your case and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I dislike counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF

1. PF is card-heavy. Create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped, the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and include an impact analysis. You have four minutes; use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs clear voters and an extended summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all), not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess like four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so do what they do, and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. I'm less likely to vote for teams that avoid clash.

2. I don’t want people flashing me in public, and I don’t want teams flashing cases to each other.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue, they win unless they run a counter plan. Then, the round is just a comparative analysis of ads and disads.

4. Topicality is the most important aspect of stock issues for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside the room, as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.

5. 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 in any event)!

Congress

1. My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be slightly harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).

2. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread, you are failing in every aspect.

3. PO must follow basic parli pro and make the session fun for everyone.

4. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech is expected to respond to arguments from previous speeches. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

5. To get a high ranking in the chamber, you must engage (speeches and questions influence the chamber).

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.

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.

Classical Debate = Yes!

Core Values = Yes!

Criterion = Yes!

Flowing = Yes!

Discussion = Yes!

Philosophical support = Yes!

Spreading/Speed Readng = No!

In all debates, I look for two things:

~ Effectiveness of Arguments: are your points supported effectively? I will do my best to take flow notes on all arguments, but I also can't catch everything. I will use my own flow to determine who won in each argument throughout the debate.

~ Delivery of Arguments: are your points and arguments delivered effectively? Can I as the judge actively see and follow your points throughout the debate?

Whichever team is best in both scenarios will win the debate.

Please do not speed-read or speak extremely fast.

Off-time roadmaps are a waste of time, please do not include them.

Hi everyone! I'm a current freshman at UT Austin, and I'm excited to be judging you. I mainly competed in International Extemp in high school, though I'm also familiar with US Extemp, Congress, and Worlds.

For Extemp, PLEASE answer the question, and (if needed) preface how you're going to answer the question in your intro. In general, I value analysis more than presentation, but I always like a good joke.

In Congress, I care most that the speech you give matches where you are in the round. If you're beyond the first cycle, please refute previous speakers!

Have fun! I made my best friends from debate :)

I am a first diamond coach from western Colorado. I have some knowledge judging debate.

In a debate, I look for clarity and link. If your content has zero link to you are trying to solve, then I cannot consider it. I expect information and logic that help decide my flow.

Do not attack your opponents but you can attack the information that they provide.

Opening speeches should be detailed and well organized. Evidence should support contentions. I like crossfires that are respectful and with use of evidence presented and then attacked as appropriate. Final summaries should convince me why they are correct and their opponents are wrong. I like good even voice tempo, not rushed with good use of voice inflection.

Affiliations:

Downtown Magnets High School: 2018 to 2021

University of Northern Colorado: 2021 - Present

Things to know:

Be nice.

Have four years of policy debate (CX) experience, so I understand the concept of debate and everything that it entails. If you have any questions or concerns, email me as fast as possible (danielmangandi1029@gmail.com). To flash please send it to mang2626@bears.unco.edu.

Some background about me is that I am a gay/hispanic person (he/him/they pronouns), I am very fond of queer theory and have run it before. I am a psychology and philosophy major at the University of Northern Colorado, with a specialty in studying metaphysics and epistemology. I also have some experience in logic and identity theory (mostly feminist and queer theory).

Some things to take note of:

1. Interrupting your partners during cross-ex. Trust your partner's response or at least make them finish their thoughts before you add on. DON'T INTERRUPT them during their sentence.

2. Being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I will automatically stop the round and call it out. You will be punished with your speaks (0) and an automatic L. Debate is a safe space and those types of rhetoric/actions are not acceptable. Micro-aggressions committed would be called out during the round with a warning, if it continues I would stop the round. To add on, I will talk to your coach/team about what happened during the round.

3. Speed. If you are going too fast that it starts to become unclear I would warn you at most twice. If it still continues I would just stop flowing. In the top of your speech start off slow and build up your speed; so that it becomes easier to flow your speech.

4. Please have clash! Respond to your opponent's arguments and extend your own.

5. I will vote on the easiest argument happening in the round. If you drop the Disad I'm voting for it (if impacted out). If you drop the violation on T in the 2Ar I would vote for T for the Neg (if impacted out). Don't make me do the work for you. If I do an excessive amount of work to vote on you, you'll probably get low speaks. --Note-- Just because something was dropped doesn't mean I'm always gonna vote on it. Don't just say "they dropped [blank], vote for us" it needs to be explained as to why dropping the argument is something worth talking about (dropping a link defense is not the same as dropping a turn).

7. If you want to read a Kaff, please make it accessible for everyone (have a transcript to send it to everyone in the round. If you don't... I might not catch it, and if your opponents drop it then I'm not voting for it because you didn't make it accessible.). Also, make sure that you explain what your theory of power is and what are you doing about it. NOTE OF WARNING: Have your Kaff be in the direction of the topic, not gonna vote on something outside of the topic because I would be lost once the moment you send the 1ac (my brain can't handle your big brain energy).

8. For T, make sure that you have your interp, standards, and violation extended. One of my favorite off-cases so I am very nitpicky on how you run it and how arguments are impacted out. I think that fairness and education impacts are very persuasive but not fully impacted or articulated then I am prone to go with aff reasonability.

9. For Da's, articulate your link story, if its vague I won't buy it. Have an impact story and say why the impact outweighs.

10. Make your Cp's textually competitive. Also biased towards condo args (6 off-cases are fine but any more makes it iffy for me and tend to go aff leaning).

11. For K's make sure your links are contextualized as well as your alternatives. I have knowledge on cap, security, fem/queer, bio-politics/bio-power, topic generics (i.e the K everyone runs during the topic like for the cjr topic it was the abolition k), and settler colonialism. If you want to test your luck on very complex K's, I would recommend explaining it very well (don't use too much jargon... imagine you are explaining your k to a 5-year-old).

12. Good Luck! Remember that debate is a place for learning, safety, and fun.

I believe debate is a communication event, so I'm not too fond of speeding through cases and using too much jargon. You can have off-the-clock road maps and can use your phones as timers. Cross-examinations need to be respectful and thoughtful. Please provide voters with your final speech.

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 believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for NSDA Nats, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan6045@gmail.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. You'll probably be best adapting as if I'm flay - I strongly prefer slower, well warranted argumentation with a clear collapse. In general I prefer traditional debate, but I'll definitely listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:

1. Time yourself, I'll forget.

2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

For LD, Value Clash is important. Make sure you link your value and criteria to your contentions. Tell me how they work together in your argument. No spreading.

For PF, no spreading. Make your impacts clear and make sure you give me clear voters at the end. Tell me why you win.

I was an LD and PF debater throughout all of high school. In LD, I think it is very important to apply the core value to the overall main argument of the round as well as taking advantage of the time to go through the opponents case in-depth. In PF, I value convincing arguments and good speeches. In both debates I value attacks all the way down the flow and strong defenses to the attacks.

I enjoy clear, succinct arguments.

Think fast speak slow.

Volume and tone matter.

Respectfully communicate.

I have coached and judged for over 20 years. I am willing to judge just about any event.

In debate I always wait until after the last speech to make a decision. Each speech is important and I like to hear the overall picture....the ideas...the research....how your ideas clash.

I don't have a checklist of arguments I like to see (or don't like to see) I prefer for debaters to set their own stage. I like it when debaters run advanced arguments, but in a way that supports civil discourse. Be nice to each other in round, professionalism is just as important as a well researched and presented argument.

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

Right off the bat — I competed in speech and debate in Colorado for 4 years in high school. My main events were Congress, LD and poetry; but, I have competed in almost every event at one point or another. I was also a two-time state and national qualifier.

First thing, and I think the most important thing people look for in paradigms: I am a flow judge so do with that information as you will

General:

- Speech and debate is meant to show off your abilities as well as having fun. That being said, be kind and respectful to one another. Ethics violations will be taken seriously and nobody wants to deal with those

- If you have any questions regarding my paradigms please don't hesitate to reach out - especially if I leave something out here

Speech:

- Because there are so many different events, my paradigms will all be found in the comments and RFD for the round

Debate (PF and LD):

- Speed: Don't spread, if you do you're not only making things more difficult for your opponent(s) but for your judge as well and I don't like that

- Timing: Please keep track of your own time; however, I will also be keeping time and mine is the official time. Additionally, don't have your timer go off on your opponent(s), I find this rude and unnecessary

- Off-time roadmaps: These are fine, but keep them short and simple. If you go on forever I will be starting your time

- Signposting, weighing, and voters: These are your friends! Please use them in your speeches!

- Counter plans and kritiks: Don't even think about using these in PF or LD. These are not the events to do so, and if you really want to then go debate in policy

- PF specific notes: Do not use CX as a rebuttal speech, if you do I reserve the right to stop it. The same goes for GCX. If it turns into a hot mess, I will also be stopping it. I want to watch a debate and not an attempt at a UFC fight

- LD-specific notes: LD revolves around the framework. For this reason, there is less evidence weighing and more emphasis on the VVC. If you do not attack the VVC or link it to your impacts the odds are you will not win

Congress:

- Congress speeches are centered around execution and persuasion. I want to see ethos, pathos, and logos, as well as good public speaking skills. Do not read straight from your paper or computer screen the whole time - especially during impacts!

- The best Congress rounds are those similar to the ones at nationals in terms of how speeches progress through the debate. There should be speakers at the beginning who introduce the legislation, additional arguments and the furthering of arguments on both sides, and then crystallization speeches at the very end. Rounds in which speakers continue to give the same arguments with no clash get really boring really quickly

- Questions should be thoughtful and answers should be more than one word. At the same time, don't ramble forever just so there is less time for other questions. The more people who can ask questions is better for everyone

- I understand that Congress can get boring sometimes, especially when rounds go on for hours, but try to maintain your composure as much as possible. Try to limit silly and unnecessary motions and stay on track

- Rankings will be decided on several different factors. I expect the speaker to be engaged as well as show good decorum. Examples of this include: giving speeches and asking questions, making motions, understanding the rules, and not sitting on your phone/being distracted the whole time

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.

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.

Please speak slowly -- While I have been judging for two seasons, I am a lay judge who did not debate in my youth. I love off-clock road maps! I listen for strong evidence vs. hypotheticals.

Please remain civil, and do your best not to interrupt each other. Good luck!

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.