If you can add a relevant Game of Thrones quote or reference to your speech, that could get you an extra speaker point. Also, use all your prep time.

I did LD for three years, and PF for one year, as well as Extemp and OO. I can handle some speed, but when online, be aware of the limits of the internet connection.

Framework:

Even with PF I want to be told what wins the round. What policy goal is the most important, how do I weigh competing impacts against each other? Teams are most successful when you incorporate this analysis into your impact analysis.

Contentions:

Arguments that go unresponded to will be weighed on their merits. Clash will be evaluated based on the quality of evidence presented by each side, and the feasibility of your mechanisms and impacts, as demonstrated through analysis. Don't just reread cards when there is clash, reframe your arguments, provide new evidence, or tell me why your evidence is better than your opponents.

Flow:

I am not a strictly flow judge, meaning that I will not vote on an argument just because it is dropped. You still must convince me that the argument dropped has impacts that weigh above your opponent's in the round. That being said, clean debates are preferable. If I don't know where to record an argument on the flow, I will have a hard time weighing it. I will flow cross-x/cross-fire when there are explicit impacts on the round, but do not automatically assume something said in cross-fire will be weighed if it is not apparent how to weigh it in the round.

Theory:

I am not a fan of theory arguments, that being said, I will vote on them if you can successfully tell me why it is the most important element of the round and links to both your advocacy and your opponent's case.

Please attach me to any email chains you start to exchange evidence, lancebrightmire@gmail.com

Falsifying evidence or intentionally misrepresenting its source is a big red flag for me, please don't do it.

Competitor 2009-2013

Judge 2013-

Paradigms are silly. Rules and guidelines exist for a reason.

LD - I'm a traditional LD judge. It's philosophy debate. Listen to what your opponent is saying, and tell me why their points are silly. I don't want to hear that they dropped your subpoint 1.a.x, I'm flowing the round, I know they did or didn't. I want to know why them dropping the point matters to me. Why should I care about that one point?

On time - I keep official time, but if I'm listening to you speak, flowing, and keeping notes, I'm not going to be good at giving you time signals. Please keep your time too.

Also, don't spread. It's like when you go to a restaurant and they have 3000 things on the menu -- I'm going to assume that none of those things are amazing, and they're all mid, they just have a lot of them to distract me. I'd rather you have 2 solid arguments you know well. If I can't keep up on flowing, you're doing too much.

PF -There's four of you. Stop yelling at me. Stop yelling at each other.

Speech - Your movements, voice, face, mannerisms matter. You don't get props so you are the prop. Use it. Also, negative emotions are shown by more characteristics than "Sad yelling" -- please. Please stop sad yelling and please explore more of the emotional options.

In general, I like to think I'm not a regular judge, I'm a cool judge. That is to say -- just don't be rude, and we're probably chill.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

I am a 4-year LD debater and a 7-year debate coach. I have been the debate coach in Joplin and am now the assistant at Broken Arrow.

If you are doing LD/PF, you do not need an off-the-clock roadmap as I am actively flowing your round and know what you should be doing next.

LD - The debate should have a heavy focus on the V/VC - this is a values debate, not a policy debate. However, I would vote for a K if the debater is in fact better.

CX - I vote heavily on stock issues.

please include me on the email chain: hayley.ortwein@outlook.com

Jenks '22, KU '26

I'll vote you down if you're rude or creepy

I debated 4 years of hs and I now debate in college

i have debated both policy and kritical stuff but definitely have way more policy experience, so make sure you explain well. i will listen to any style though

i have mostly been a 2n so i understand reading some weird stuff on neg just don't make a bigoted argument and ill hear it out

judge instruction and impact calc are really important to me

Last updated: September 28, 2023

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

Hi, I'm Miles. I did LD in HS (BTW c/o2022) and now sorta-coach PF in NYC. I study Philosophy and Intellectual History at Columbia (sorta pretentious); LDers, that does mean I probably will be pretty familiar with your frameworks...beware. Please don't assume I'm too familiar with the current resolutions, bc I'm not.

If you have any q's email me at miles.udwin@gmail.com :)

LD: I'm most familiar with trad LD, but you can debate however you want (though Iprobably won't vote on a K). I'm a pretty standard flow judge: win the flow and you'll win the round. That said, please do the impact calc for me, I hate having to do any weighing or extentions myself (I actually think it's kinda unfair if I do have to). I'm ok with speed, just know that I am off caffein rn and might fall asleep (if you do speed, speech dox are greatly appreciated).

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

I am a traditional PF judge. I don't really do kritiks or speed. Win me with strong arguments and impacts.