Background:

Hey! My name is Jose Atilano, and I have done speech and debate throughout my high school years in Greybull, WY, and am currently doing it in college. In high school, I qualified for the National Tournament Junior and Senior Year in International Extemp and Original Oratory. Still, I have competed in Informative, Public Forum, and Congress during the regular season. 

I go in-depth on judging each event, so I would Control-F to find your event. 

ALL Debates:

Speed - I don't mind speed reading cases, and if anything, I'm a fan, but if it comes to the point where I don't understand what you're saying, you will lose speaker points.

Evidence - It's crucial that you cite the sources of studies. I prefer that you note the author's credentials and the year the studies were published. 

Voters - If you give these, you've become my favorite person. It makes judging easier and helps me keep track of the arguments dropped in the debate.

Spreading - DO NOT SPREAD!! Spreading takes away from the value of the debate, and it wastes my time, particularly in LD and PF. I'm more lenient with CX.

Crossfire - I've taken part and seen some pretty ugly crossfires. I understand that it's hard not to get heated during this part of the debate, but being unnecessarily aggressive is unbearable to your opponents and judges.

Arguments - I expect every single argument made to benefit your case and do no harm. I will NOT TOLERATE racist, homophobic, or degrading remarks against anyone. 

Time - I will be keeping track of time on my side. If you speak past your time limit, anything said after the time mark will not be considered.

(PF) PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

Make sure you can back up your arguments and tell me why I should vote for you! (FYI, This isn't policy)

(LD) LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Value and criterion must flow through the case for me to consider it thoroughly. Also, tell me why I should vote for you! 

(CX) POLICY DEBATE:

If you make an argument be ready to back it up, and tell me why I should vote for you!

(STUCO/CD) CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE: 

Delivery, analysis, arguments, and even chamber participation will bump you up in the rankings but don't belittle your fellow representatives/senators.

(BQ) BIG QUESTIONS DEBATE: 

If you make an argument be ready to back it up, and tell me why I should vote for you!

ALL Interps:

Relevance - I rank those who interpret an important message higher than those who just interpret a piece. Although, I tend to bend this rule quite often.

Volume - please, please make sure you're loud enough for me to hear throughout the performance. But also, remember that screaming or yelling should not be the piece's highlight. 

Pausing - I firmly believe that pausing at the correct times enhances your speech's emotions, whether to break my heart or for comical relief. But don't have pauses run too long as it makes everyone uncomfortable.

Scripts - Using scripts will ensure a lower ranking as all interps are supposed to be memorized. except for POI and Poetry

(DI) DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION: 

I want your piece to pull at my heartstrings and see you connect with your performance. Interpret don't mimic.

(HI) HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION:

I want to have a good laugh, but I also want to see you connect with your piece. Interpret don't mimic

(DUO) DUO INTERPRETATION:

Partner chemistry enhances your performance drastically. But also timing with the movement is essential.

(POI) PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION:

Using your binder is important, but the overall performance and how your POI is put together are just as important.

ALL Platforms:

Structure - I can't stress this enough. Structure in all platform events is extremely important! Not only does it enhance the speech, but it also helps me understand your topics.

Volume - Make sure you're loud enough for me to hear you. 

Politics - Mentioning politics in your speech can be controversial, but not to me. Just as long as you use it to make a point in an effective manner

Examples - Sometimes, it's hard for me to understand what you're trying to present. If you're presenting hard-hitting information, ensure you provide examples to help me understand the material you're giving me. 

Triangle - Doing your triangle helps me track what point you're on. It also cleans up the overall presentation. If you're doing the triangle, DO NOT WANDER.

Scripts - Using scripts will ensure a lower ranking as all platform events are supposed to be memorized.

Roadmap - Give me one! It helps me track your speech and argument, but it also gives me a heads up on what to expect. (the more creative, the better)

(IX/DX) INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC EXTEMP:

Don't be afraid to take a political stance. I won't rank you low or high whether you take a democratic or republican view. However, I'm ranking you based on whether you Cite your sources (ex. NPR 2022), present from memory, validate your answer/arguments, delivery, and the overall value of the speech. 

(INFO) INFORMATIVE SPEAKING:

It's effortless to lose the judges' attention, so keep me entertained while informing me. I want to be intrigued by your research and not be overwhelmed. While visual aids enhance a presentation, they shouldn't be the focus of your speech. It should also be strictly informative. IT'S NOT AN ORATORY

(OO) ORIGINAL ORATORY: 

I want to be persuaded and exposed to another point of view when listening to a speech. Ensure you provide examples or backup your statements, whether that is statistics, stories, or even your own experiences. Also, keep in mind that oratory is NOT AN INFORMATIVE.

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me via email

• jose.rosalesatilano@gmail.com

Happy Competing & Good Luck, 

Jose Atilano

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.

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

I value a good mix of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in a debate. Lincoln-Douglas debate is about the value clash; I expect to see debtors using philosophy and moral arguments.

Quick Notes

My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.

I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.

I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)

Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers

I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free

I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!

Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous

Paradigms

-Speech Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)

How well you address your topic

I do not judge based off…

My personal interest of the topic

Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech

-Interp Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)

You will not be judged based off…

Which pieces you choose

-Debate Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

Your arguments

Your examples (including citations)

The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)

Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)

How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)

Speaker points

Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others

Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event

Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event

Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event

Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event

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.

Hello,

Experience: I competed for Worland from 2014-2017 (mostly in IE), then I competed at NWC for 2 years as a nationally ranked parliamentary debater, making it into the silver devision. I have judged on and off ever since 2017 but have only recently added myself to Tabroom.

Run whatever arguments you want. That being said, here's some things I take into account when judging.

1. I AM LAZY: I am not going to do work for you unless I have too. Extend your arguments, weigh the impacts, spiral out, any argument you want on the ballot needs to be made by YOU. If you don't make those arguments, or don't bring up what happened in CX, it's not on the ballot.
2. Signpost, and flow: How you direct me through the arguments is very important to your points being on the correct parts of the case, Number your arguments 1, 2, 3, or a, b, c, and reference back to them when flowing them through.
3. SPEED: Slow down on tag lines, once again this is a flow situation. Speed is welcome in the Debate space so use it accordingly. Do NOT try to speed someone out of a round. If a competitor or myself say "speed!" or "clear!" please listen to these requests. If i cant understand you, because you arent speaking clearly I WILL NOT FLOW YOU! This being said, I do NOT think speed is necessary to win a round, I rarely spread in my time debating, it is only another tool we can choose to use or not use.
4. Be respectful: The main reason we are all here is because we love speech and debate. It is a place that we are safe and comfortable in no matter our race, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. I will mark down speaker points if you are rude, crude, or unprofessional to me or your opponents.
5. Have fun and be creative: This is YOUR speech, and YOUR round, be competitive, be creative, but most of all have fun!

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.

You need to support assertions with analysis and evidence to make them into persuasive arguments. You need to listen to previous speakers in order to provide direct clash and expansion and to avoid mere repetition. You need to speak articulately and succinctly. Your speed needs to not preclude clarity.

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.

LD

I'm looking for strong, value-based arguments in LD. I want to hear clear link stories between claim-warrants-impacts and want to hear clear connections to the framework. I will listen to most positions but I'm definitely listening for those link stories. No project Ks

Policy

While I typically deplore spreading, I do understand that it is a convention of Policy debate. I will do my best to flow, but if your rate is beyond my abilities I can't promise all of your arguments will make the flow. Be a good communicator. See LD about hearing positions and link stories. I want to see constructive partner communication.

PF

Really don't love spreading in LD or PF. Condense your arguments to fit the confines of the speaking times. If I can't reasonably flow it, it won't be on the flow. I want to see constructive partner communication.

Generally:

- Communicate effectively and ethically

- Treat each other with respect

Stock issues judge. Background in CX debate. Not big on K affs or theory. Speed/ spreading is acceptable.

Interp:

Memorization is important. I'll usually vote on Body language, eye contact and as long as you're having fun and It's enjoyable to watch I'll have a good time :)

LD:

This is LD, not CX, please (please) don't spread, If I can't understand your arguments, I wont consider them in the debate. Kindness matter, I understand that you have to cut people off in cross, but there's good ways and bad ways to do it. Absolutely no personal attacks on your opponent. Truth over tech, just because you made an argument and your opponent didn't touch it doesn't mean it's true.

PF:

Same as LD

Interpretation Events Paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking Events Paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate Events Paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

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.

I competed in college forensics for four years, so I am very familiar with speech and debate. In high school, I competed in PF so don't break the rules, I'll know. You can talk quickly if it's understandable, however do not cross the line into spreading. If you spread in PF, I will stop flowing.

In PF and CX/policy, I vote on the flow, that is to say dropped argument, evidence, and the such.

I like clean debates so don't be rude to your opponents. Personal attacks will result in an automatic loss regardless of the rest of the flow.

In Ld debate I vote on the Value, Value Criterion, so make sure to carry that through.

If you are here because you are a policy debater... treat me kinda like a lay judge. I can follow complex arguments but I need you to clearly explain any lingo and give a good justification for why you are running a T or K over engaging with the resolution. If you choose to spread, make sure to clearly signpost everything and annunciate like your life depends on it. If I can’t understand and follow you then your arguments won’t make it to the flow.

Speech & Debate Judging Paradigm

As a judge with limited experience in debate events but a background in platform events, my primary focus remains on content and engagement. I prioritize effective communication and the ability to convey ideas compellingly. In exempt and informative speaking, I value substance, clarity, and the speaker's ability to connect with the audience.

Extemp & Informative Speaking:

• Content: I seek well-researched, informative content that is relevant and engaging. Speakers should demonstrate a thorough understanding of their topic and provide valuable insights or perspectives.
• Engagement: I look for speakers who can captivate the audience through compelling delivery, including vocal variety, appropriate gestures, and effective use of visual aids if permitted. Engaging the audience through storytelling, humor, or personal anecdotes is highly valued.
• Clarity & Organization: Clear structure and organization are essential for effective communication. I expect speakers to present their ideas coherently, with logical transitions between main points and supporting evidence.
• Connection with Audience: The ability to establish a connection with the audience is crucial. Speakers should demonstrate empathy, authenticity, and a genuine interest in communicating their message to the audience.

Oratory:

• Influence & Persuasiveness: In oratory, I prioritize the speaker's ability to influence and persuade the audience. This includes the use of persuasive techniques such as emotional appeals, rhetorical devices, and compelling storytelling.
• Content & Substance: While persuasion is paramount, the content must also be substantive and well-supported. I expect speakers to provide credible evidence, relevant examples, and logical reasoning to support their arguments.
• Delivery & Style: Delivery plays a significant role in persuasiveness. I look for speakers who command attention through confident delivery, strong vocal presence, and effective use of body language. Passion and enthusiasm can enhance the persuasive impact of the speech.
• Memorability & Impact: Memorable speeches leave a lasting impression on the audience. I appreciate speakers who craft speeches with memorable phrases, powerful imagery, and a compelling call to action that resonates with the audience long after the speech has ended.

Debate Events:

• Content & Argumentation: While my experience with debate events may be limited, I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. I expect debaters to present clear, concise arguments and effectively refute opposing points.
• Engagement & Rebuttal: Engaging with opponents' arguments and providing effective rebuttals is essential. I look for debaters who actively listen to their opponents, address counterarguments, and adapt their strategies accordingly. As a sidenote, however, I do not have extensive experience with tracking the whole flow of a debate, and this might leave some debaters feeling frustrated if I miss a piece of their case flow. Please just recognize that debate is not in my wheelhouse generally speaking.
• Clarity & Organization: Clarity and organization are crucial for effective communication in debates. Debaters should structure their arguments logically, signpost key points, and maintain coherence throughout the round.
• Professionalism & Respect: I expect debaters to conduct themselves professionally, treating their opponents, judges, and audience with respect. While passion and conviction are admirable, debaters should avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

In summary, whether evaluating exempt and informative speaking, oratory, or debate events, my judging criteria prioritize content, engagement, influence, and persuasiveness. I appreciate speakers and debaters who demonstrate a deep understanding of their topic, connect with their audience, and effectively communicate their message with clarity and conviction.

Hi,

I'm Caius Krupp, A college student in Political Science. Before that i was a CX/Policy debater for 4 years in high school, and a congressional debater as well. I enjoy debates with a lot of clear clash between the aff and neg case. Below I've separated my paradigms based on events. In general however if you are found to be rude or disrespectful outside of a round, or in anyway sexist/racist then I will change my ballot to reflect that.

CX

I am no stranger to K, Theory, Topicality, and other nuanced CX debate styles. However K's should have a direct link into the case, that increases clash and provides a productive round. Using K's of communities you are not impacted by is also a bit of a red flag, Do not be reading me Set col or Afro pes as a full white team as these arguments poorly reflect on you as an individual. Nothing is off the table, but think with some foresight on how you look debating this case.

PF

Anything goes, But please do not waste CX time asking if you may ask a question or a follow up. Please keep the clash heavy and strong. Join CX its a better debate platform and you will use its skills to improve yourself.
LD

As a former CX debater I have little care for heavy value criterion and definition debate, keep the focus on the cases and the round.

Congressional Debate

anything goes

Extempt

anything goes

Info/Oratory

just be memorized

Inter (Drama, Duo, POI)

anything goes

I do not like spreading. Please slow down.

I expect you to treat your opponent with dignity and respect.

I am looking for a good mix of fact base and anecdotal evidence to support your position.

Good luck!!

· 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.

Debates

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion clash and flow through the case. Tell me why your arguments win the round and the other side loses.

Public Forum

Make logical arguments with cited evidence and tell me why you win and the other side loses.

Congress

All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence.

Interps

Humor/Drama/Duo

Interpretation of your pieces doesn't mean copying the original. Give me insight into why this piece spoke to you.

Poetry

I like to understand what the piece(s) mean to you, so show me in your interpretation.

Oratory

Make me believe what you are saying.

Informative

Give me the information in a way that makes me want to learn more.

Extemp

Organization of your thoughts is important, as well as citing your sources (which should not be made up).

I am a platform speech and debate coach with experience coaching kids in oratory, informative, extemporaneous speaking, and congressional debate. I also have past experience helping kids write cases for debates and cut literature for poetry, drama, and poi.

As a platform or interpretive events judge, I try to follow the recommended rubric and rate speakers on the quality of their logic, their development, their delivery, and their physical presence.

The one event you absolutely do not want me to judge is humor. However, I would be best suited to judging oratory or extemporaneous speaking.

As a debate judge, I pay attention to the logical flow of arguments and prefer to hear sound logic without reliance on logical fallacies. I can judge any of the debate formats, but my personal preference is Lincoln-Douglas due to the added requirement of adhering to a value and criterion throughout the debate.

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.

I believe that it is necessary to respect your opponent. Remember that it is a debate round not a “fight club”. We are here to exchange our experience, opinion and of course having fun. I highly value when a student is not speeding to exclude the opponent. Try to provide the arguments and reasons why I should vote for your team rather than the opponents. I want to see that you personally believe for what you are saying, this what makes a decent public speaker.

Hi y'all

This page will be mostly geared toward CX debate and LD debate.

LD

What sets Lincoln-Douglas debate apart from other formats is its emphasis on values and value criteria. This aspect of Lincoln-Douglas debate holds the most importance for me as a judge. As you construct your case, ensure that every argument and contention directly relates to your chosen value and value criteria. This not only strengthens your position but also facilitates a more coherent and persuasive presentation. Your case should be a reflection of your value and criteria. If not, to me thats reason enough for me to vote for your opponent.

Many of the principles outlined in the Cross-Examination (CX) section are equally relevant here. Debate is fundamentally a persuasive event that leverages ethos, logos, and pathos. As a judge, I am primarily assessing your critical thinking abilities and how effectively you utilize your case to persuade me to your side over your opponents'. I value substantial clash between arguments (I like to see clash and lots of it). Inexperience competitiors can get in the habit of just reading evidence just for the sake of reading evidence please don't do that.

CX

I usually default to a policymaker (Is the aff a good or bad idea). However, I think one of the most transformative parts of debate is educating the public about issues and topics that should be and need to be addressed. Therefore I view everything through the lens of education. There are rounds that I have judged that I still think about from previous years because I personally took something away from it, and hopefully, everyone in the room did as well. Thus, I'm open to evaluating the round through a different lens other than a policymaker.

I'm okay with any form of argument (Kritik, counterplan, politics DA, theory, etc.) that either the aff or neg makes. However, forms of bigotry aren't tolerated in the round.

Things to consider for CX

1. Debate, to me, is akin to any persuasive speech event. I assess arguments based on ethos, pathos, and logos.
2. I'm going to be one of the few judges that that will admit that they don't know everything. I'm sorry, but in my free time, I do not read postmodern philosophy or have a PhD-level understanding of geopolitics. Therefore, I value debaters who take the time to explain their arguments thoroughly.
3. From the debates, I have judged speed reading does a disservice to both the aff and neg teams. Speed reading often undermines the quality of arguments presented by both teams. I prioritize clarity over speed, as it facilitates better understanding and engagement. The only reason people do it, from my perspective, is so they can read more off-case positions that don't link or have a framework position that doesn't get talked about except for the 1AC.
4. I prefer clear and concise arguments that don't require me to do excessive mental gymnastics to decide a winner. You should give me clear reasons why you should win a round.
5. Think! So many rounds can be won if either side takes the time to think critically about the topics at hand, especially when it comes to impact cal. and the link chain.
6. You don't need a piece of evidence to talk. You have a brain! This piece of advice applies to the above point. It will save you so much time.
7. Quality over quantity.I prefer substantive arguments that are directly relevant to the case over generic, poorly linked arguments. If your link is the aff makes the government do something, and now the government is going to have a conniption and start nuking everyone, I'm going to tune out.
8. Please don't try to "roast" (bully) your opponent in the round. It comes off as cringy, and only your debate friends will think you are cool. I have voted people down in the past based on this issue alone. Also, your coaches don't scare me, FYI, so just be professional. Debate should be a welcoming environment. It takes a lot for a person to put themselves out there.

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.

For CX - I am a Stock Issues judge. I like to see a lot of on case being debated. I like to see policy being debated. I do not like blatant lies in a debate. I want to see direct clash. I have no problem giving a low point win. If the argument is better that is what will win you the debate. While I can flow spreading I’m not impressed by it. Speak well, work well with your partner, and debate the policy.

WS:

I have coached World Schools for five years now. I look for a good oratory speaking style paired with a strong, common theme that unities what point you are trying to make. I want your 3rd substantive to be a more interesting argument. Your team needs to work together well to create a strategy to win. Do not be too aggressive, be kind, be respectful, and don’t just say “they are wrong”. Back up all arguments with a reason why they are wrong.

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.

Judge Paradigm for Jeff Pope

I would describe myself as a policymaker. I also enjoy good in-depth topicality debates..But I am open to all arguments, including Kritiks. Although I have a higher threshold for voting critical arguments, including a requirement for the neg to read an alternative. Speed is fine, provided you are clear. Theory is also fine, but to win on theory requires that you do work to explain the impacts.

I also expect competitors to display good sportsmanship. Rudeness will impact speaker points.

If anyone has specific questions, please let me know.

General guidelines:

1. Please do not stress over how I judge an event based on my paradigm. You should focus on your event and how you deliver your speech/debate, instead of my judging style

2. I appreciate the attention to time; however, I need to understand you. Please speak at a rate that is clear and coherent..

3. I appreciate when you speak to others in a courteous and respectful manner.

4. It is evident to me when you use your prep time effectively.

Drama:

1. Make me laugh, cry, or get angry with your piece. I want to feel the passion in your message.

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.

I appreciate all the hard work you do! Go speech and debate.

>>> 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.

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

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.

I like to see the flow of the arguments, particularly your Value and Value Criterion throughout the debate.

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.

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.

LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.

PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....

Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.

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.

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.