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.

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.

CX: Please do not spread; I want to understand and be able to focus on what you have to say.

Impromptu: Maximum 20 seconds to choose topic after prompts are drawn.

Congress: Speakers: Please state your school code and spell your last name every time you speak. Chair: Please state school code and spell your last name after you've been voted in.

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.

Please do not spread. I appreciate that you have a lot to say in a limited time, but if I cannot understand you, or if you make it to where I don't want to understand you, then you might as well say nothing at all.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

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

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

literateliz at gmail.com

Worlds:

The main thing I judge on is a deeper level of debate. If you are just repeating your points I'm less likely to vote for your team. Make sure to take your arguments to the next level and actually debate what the other team says- essentially, I like to see clash.

Please support your teammates and cheer them on! I love to see the knocking when someone makes a good point :)

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

>>> Short version:

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

>>> Way too long version:

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

Policy:

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

PF and LD:

In PF and LD, truth>tech.

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.