Hi!

2x Worlds Debate Competitor for NSDA Nationals, octafinalist in some big parli tournaments and at nationals in 2022.

tech>truth mostly, can be swayed

For theory, I don't prefer friv but will hesitantly evaluate. Assume I'm not familiar with your lit. base.

Have fun, clash well!

Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).

PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

Please be normal. If you are not civil, I will not vote for you. I value truth over tech and I will take any

Jaice Williamson (he/him)

Background: I've done Parli and WS for 2 years, Elims at various tournaments and state once. I know the ins and outs of Parli and WS well, not so much the others. In regards to speech, I've done Info and Impromptu as well as being familiar with POI

Etiquette: No excessive POIs or question spamming, I will deduct speaker points for doing this in either form. Do not excessively claim POOs in final speeches, if it gets to that point just ask me to protect the flow. If you're actively attacking your opponents outside of the round, you will be automatically dropped. Debate should be an inclusive and welcoming activity.

General: I honestly don't really prefer truth or tech, but if I had to pick one I guess I would say tech, though I'm partial to anti-tech arguments if they're made well. Debate, don't argue. Trying to flow a genuine fight is not super fun or easy for me to judge. I will protect the flow as well as possible in final speeches, but still call a POO if needed in case I missed something. I will buy arguments on good faith unless it is cited as weak by your opponents, though it will not weigh nearly as highly on my flow if its clearly sketchy or not logical. I try to look for an actually meaningful discussion about the resolution, so unless it is really skewed I will generally prefer logical arguments to any definition or tech tricks that are often used. Have strong links or uniqueness for your major args, I will appreciate this (or your opponents attacking the lack of them) since Parli folks often have trouble with it. Please try to talk at a reasonable pace, or give me fair warning before talking extremely fast so I can prepare.

For Novices: I generally look for good weighing from both sides, as I find it a bit unfair to judge rounds based on my own personal weighing mechanisms. Please try to specify one in the 1ac. As far as I'm concerned, you must establish your definitions in your first speeches. Trying to bring in new definitions after this will basically be disregarded unless you provide a very good reason as to why you did not do it previously.

Regarding Theory: By all means, run it, but I'll be less inclined to buy theory if it's a very clear longshot or meant to catch your opponents off guard. In addition, for really gritty tech theory, slow down and explain yourself clearly so I can understand fully what your argument implies. I will judge on reasonability unless explicitly told not to do so by the team running the shell. In addition, I do allow friv theory, but if you run it, expect me to drop it easily unless it goes near completely undefended. Any theory that is clearly pre-prepped or canned will weigh less compared to round-specific theory by default, but I will weigh differently based on what each side tells me. I may deduct speaker points if I end up encountering multiple teams running the same pre-prepped argument.

Anything involving external sources (literature, philosophy, news): Assume I'm not familiar with your sources or bases. Try to give at least a bit of context to news and lit. and try to explain any philosophy or literature connections thoroughly.

K: I am less familiar with Kritiks in general than with theory, so if you do decide to run them, be very clear about what you're arguing and why (ROB and such), but feel free to talk fast on anything that isn't critical for me to understand your K. I am generally less experienced with actually watching K rounds, so I will prefer Theory or traditional case styles by default, though I am always open to persuasion and do not want to lock out this genre of case. However, as they are inherently pre-prepped, make sure your links to this round are strong for me to buy the ROB. Also please no form of K that does not go for the ballot or advocates a double bye, I am very inexperienced with tournament admin and do not want to get into a spat with them over a round. Though I find these generally impactful, I really do not want to be put in a situation where I have no clue what I'm doing.

Speech (in general): I want to see generally smooth speaking, good gestures, the usual. Regarding actual content, try to make the speech unique in some way (obviously this depends on the event). I won't really enjoy watching a speech about a topic I've heard 1000 times, even if the presentation is excellent. Obviously same standards of equity apply here, if you're in the round waiting be respectful and such. Small Note: I don't really find crying or other extremely emotional gestures super impactful, plenty of people can cry on command and unless your topic area actually warrants it usually this just muddles the speech.