When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

Do not speak too quickly as it does not allow me to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that sometimes a lot of information needs to be shared, but not at the expense of understanding for those listening.

Pretend that I know nothing (but I do, I have a lot of judging experience) about your topic, which sometimes may be true, and explain what you think I may not know for clarity (i.e. abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc). Then convince me why your side should win.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Leo Doctorman

He/Him

Yes email chain(and questions): leodoctorman@gmail.com

Affiliated with Rowland Hall Debate(Asst. Coach)/John R. Park Debate Society

Experience: 4+ years policy @ Roho

Currently Debating @ University of Utah

Tl/dr:

You do you. I vote off the flow but have lost of opinions.

Background:

• 4 years national circuit policy at Roho

• Currently debating LD and BP collegiately

• I was a 2N

My beliefs about debate:

• Efficiency/Clarity>Speed

• Clash over tricks

• Kritik is a verb

• Engage, don’t exclude

• Case debate = undervalued

• Cross X = binding and important

• Debates are won before they begin

• Truth is important, but tech can define it

• There is inherent value in research and discourse

• Debate is game!

Overview:

I have a deep appreciation of debate as an activity and as a community. I will strive to do everything I can to ensure a equitable debate. Debate is a game, and games are fun.

I will try to not intervene with my decision. I vote off the flow. All that I ask is that the 2NR/2AR slows down(a bit) and works to write my ballot. If I can’t flow it, it’s not in the RFD.

Don’t ask just put me on the chain. If you don’t flash analytics then slow down on them. In addition, generally slow down on tags. Otherwise I’m cool with speed so long as you’re clear. In fact, speed is good. Emailing is not prep if you are quick about it.

Some truth claims are non-negotiably false, dropped or not. Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, etc. claims are always false.

My Voting Process: After the round I will reread all evidence I view as pertinent to my decision. I will probably take a while to decide. I will write the easiest ballot possible and won’t do work for you if I don’t have to. Disclosure and critiques are good for everyone and I will always try to provide these.

What my ballot does: My role as a judge is to determine the winner and loser. That’s it.

My ballot probably isn’t the link to upending debate norms. There is no narrative or radical argumentation that gets tied to my ballot. You need to win a spillover argument to change my mind. Judge instruction is good. If you want me to do a certain thing with a ballot, make the argument.

General:

(I’m stealing this format but I personally found it helpful)

Policy-----------x--------------K

Tech--------x------------------Truth

Fiat is good-x----------------------------------Fiat is bad

Cross-X is a speech------------x-------------------Cross-X is prep time

K affs: I don’t mind K affs. But they need to do something. It should also be tangentially related to the topic. I think K affs are ideologically good for debate, they are also pretty strategic.

K affs that have clear, strong advocacies that are well developed and backed up will make for an excellent aff round. Inability to access your discussion through the USFG is convincing. Justify everything you do.

Performance is an ends to a means. If you read a poem but don’t attach it to an argument you’ll probably lose. Same goes for narratives.

T-USFG: At the end of the day, the T-USFG debate is less about if ‘rules are broken’ and more about if the K aff ruins the fairness/education/etc. A well run T versus a K aff is very convincing. T with a TVA is even more convincing.

Fairness----------x-------------------------Dm/skills

1 off T----------------------------x--------Diverse strat

Theory(Non-T): Meh. Not really my schtick. If its dropped, I’ll vote on it. Don’t replace answers with theory. Don’t plan on going for theory before round. I’m probably sympathetic to a Neg’s multiple worlds, but I think condo is a good arg if a team is truly skewed out of the round. Theory is a check on abuse, use it for that. Nothing more.

Condo good-x--------------------------- Condo bad

T: It’s cool. Being on topic is important. Go for it if you need to. I will scrutinize your interpretations as a means of determining reasonability. I believe that in-round impacts definitely exist. Impact it out. Tell me where the abuse stems from. The most important part of T, next to your interp, is the internal link to your impact. Why does not defaulting to your interp explode limits? Even if you lose that your interp isn’t as good, it can still garner impacts if you win that it is uniquely key to limits. 2NR/2AR needs to slow down a bit and delineate standards.

Limits good(depth)----------x-------------------Overlimiting bad(breadth)

Reasonability-------------------x-------------Competing interps

Kritiks:

After I started doing Parli in college, I have shifted to the K pretty dramatically. I have a pretty good knowledge of many lit bases and I love the K debate.

Kritik is a verb. You should be doing something with the argument, not simply describing why “cap is bad”. You should provide a stable alternative, preferably not just rejecting the aff.

Framework is underutilized by both the aff and neg. I start my judging process on every K debate here. I’m probably willing to frame out a team that doesn’t have an interp, or looses that they get to weigh their arguments.

I believe strongly in kritical specificity. The more specific, the better. Contextualization is key.

If you can’t explain your alt, you’re in trouble. Be ready to define what the world of your alt looks like. It’ll make your life easier on the perm debate. Mechanisms to deploy your alternative(i.e thought experiment, rejection, counter-methodology, fiat, etc.) are very important.

Yes floating piks----------x--------------------Tell me why not

Perms--x------------------------------obviously

VTL is inherent------x----------------------------Sometimes No VTL

Reading a K you don’t understand-------------------------------x--Reading a disad

CPs: CPs are great. A good CP debate is awesome. CP specificity is important, and should probably have a solvency advocate. I’ll vote on a perm if the aff beats the net benefit and/or proves it’s not mutually exclusive. Solvency deficits won’t necessarily lose you the CP if you explain how you solve sufficiently. Solvency is a net benefit.

Explain your perms

I’ll judge kick if you can justify it

2NC CPs are probably abusive.

Lit=legit----x-------------------------------- “I don’t like weird CPs”

DAs: Specific DAs are good. Generic links usually kill uniqueness. Overbroad uniqueness usually overwhelms the link. This being said, very few disads are ‘true’, but they can be true enough. Impact calculus is important and undervalued. I also think that ‘topic DAs’ are a good fall back and can be debated very well. A creative politics disad will impress me. The newer the cards, the better the disad is.

Case: Case debate is undervalued. I think it’s a perfectly fair strategy to read fewer off and incorporate a higher level of clash on case. Turns, such as dedev, can end up being strategic 2NRs. Circumvention arguments can turn into NBs for a CP. One thing that’s difficult to judge is the brightline for presumption. This being said, never go for defense unless you think it’s a clear cut win.

Pet Peeves:

• Old politics cards

• Not knowing your K

• Excluding opponents

• Too many buzzwords

• Extending cards not warrants

• Not disclosing. Lacking a wiki page or at the very least disclosing past 2nrs/ the aff will go very, very poorly in front of me. It is good for big and small schools. The exception is new affs.

• Miscut/cited evidence: If you aren’t giving cites, I’ll ignore the cards. If you’re doing anything more sketch than that, I’ll drop you.

• Not having evidence: Obviously not for obscure/new args. Analytics are still cool. But for topic disads/CPs, or common affs, it just doesn’t make sense. The wiki is a thing. Go recut some evidence. There are thousands of well-cut cards coming out of camps. No excuses.

Speaker Points:

I will award good speaking with good speaker points. I will award wittiness, passion, efficiency, strategy, clarity and boldness with good speaks. I appreciate aggressive debate, but not overtly rude debate. I will detract speaks for exclusionary language, unintelligibility and strategic issues. My speaks reflect strategy and execution as much as speaking. If I can’t understand I’ll say clear maybe twice and then stop flowing.

My speaks reflect the tournament.

Misc:

Baudrillard---------------------------x-Balsas

Death Good-------------------------x-Death Bad

My daughter is a debater and has taught me well.

I prefer if you don't speed through like a maniac (concentrate on quality, not quantity).

Keep your arguments logical with an empirical basis.

I am a college professor, and I am not dumb. Make me believe what you are saying is true, everything on the internet is not simply true just because your opponents don't argue it. I want your sources read in speeches, and prove why you consider it to be a reliable source.

Act in a professional manner and treat your opponents with respect. Leave the drama in the hallway. I do not appreciate yelling or bickering, my 7 kids do enough of that.

Speaks:

30 = PERFECT.. not too much speed and intelligent.

29 = Too fast, but I understood. OR Some stumbling throughout your speeches.

28 = Great.

27 and below = Excessive use of "ums", filler words, or long pauses.

I appreciate a respectful and clean debate. I'm okay with a little speed but keep it understandable. I am a lay judge, so what's key for me is being able to follow your arguments. Good luck!

Hello! I'm an assistant coach at woods cross high school. I am mostly a PF judge, however, I love judging LD as well.

Beyond debating well, to win my ballot you must keep the following in mind:

-Good debaters provide analysis beyond just reading evidence.

-Clash is extremely valuable important to any debate.

-I love everything from simple solutions, to complex progressive arguments.

-Speed is alright, but make sure your opponents and I can comprehend what you are saying.

-I always vote based on the arguments, speech quality will only gain you speaker points.

My Personal Experience: 3 years public forum debate, 2018 5A PF State Champion.

About Me:

I did Public Forum for two years at Woods Cross High School (2016-2018), ending my career at the National tournament in Florida in World Schools Debate as a triple octofinalist, with the NSDA seal of Superior Distinction at 839 NSDA points. I graduated from the University of Utah, majoring in Political Science with an emphasis on International Policy, with an Honors certificate. I'm currently a photographer. I would love to give you feedback about your round, if you can't find me afterwards shoot me an email, victoriahhills@gmail.com and I'd be happy to chat.

Public Forum:

I can keep up with spreading, but if I can't understand what you're saying I won't flow it. I haven't judged debate in a couple years, so I expect I'll have a learning curve, though quick. Flow oriented,weigh your impacts; impact calc is necessary. Don't drop arguments and bring them back in the final focus; make sure you're consistent. Framework needs to be upheld throughout the round otherwise I won't consider it as a voter. Logical arguments can be just as strong as empirical arguments; explain your links or how your opponents links fail to uphold the resolution, or vice versa. We love a clear link chain. Don't assume I know why something's important, tell me if it matters in the round, especially with evidence <3

Off time road maps are fine, but please keep them brief. If you go past 10 seconds I will start your speech time. I don't care if you sit or stand during cross, just make sure you're on the same page as your opponents. Time yourselves. I'll keep time if I need to, but ya'll should be able to time yourselves.

Lincoln Douglas:

I know the format, I've judged LD before. Make sure to carry your Value and Criterion throughout the round. Weigh your impacts, flow your contentions through, make clear link chains. I'm not afraid to ask for evidence if it sounds sketch, but so should y'all. Don't let sketchy evidence lose you rounds, call that stuffout.

Off time road maps are fine; keep them brief. Time yourselves.

Policy:

Didn't do policy in high school, but I've been judging policy for the past two years. Flash me your cases before the round pls and thanks. I know most of the policy jargon; if I look confused then use your best judgement to clarify.

Everyone:

SIGN POST. PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

Traditional or Progressive, I will weigh your arguments objectively, but it's your job to tell me how.

I appreciate civility in round, especially in crossfire. It's perfectly fine for things to get heated, but it's not okay to make personal attacks. Debate should be a safe space for meaningful discourse.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". I default to a "better debater" standard. Be sure to provide evidence for how the ballot will create change.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge to intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

I believe that a professional, intellectual, logically cohesive approach is superior to all other tactics employed within debate, including but not limited to, unprofessional conduct, excessive emotional displays, attempts at confusion (e.g., fast talking, excessive/irrelevant points/facts/pillars/etc.), over-reliance on dominance techniques, etc.

In short, I will extract the essence of how well you filled-out/completed your affirmation or negation framework and judge based upon that. All other factors will either be discarded or reflect negatively on your score.

Philosophy

I completed my undergraduate degree in computer science as well as graduate work. Therefore, I am intensely attuned to logical progressions within the overall debate flows, within the aff and neg frameworks, and particularly in rebuttals and summations.

Statements, assertions, arguments, rebuttals that I perceive to be non-sequitur will have a pronounced negative effect on your score. Unsupported or poorly supported "facts" will not bode well.

since Updated: 2/25/2020
Background: As you may have guessed, my name is Shaylee Lawrence (Formally known as Shaylee Tulane). I graduated from Viewmont High in UT in 2012. I competed in LD for four years, and I competed for the University of Utah for four years. I have coached off and on since 2017. I have taken a break since March of 2019. I graduated from the U in May 2017.

General Overview: I am honestly down to listen to any argument as long as it is accessible to your opponent. I try to judge solely off of the flow. If the flow doesn't tell me who won, then I will first turn to the framework debate for LD. For policy, I will usually default to a risk type paradigm. Meaning what the risk of either the advantages and or disadvantages is. From there, I typically default to impact calculus. I am good with theory, critics, CP's, advantage counter-plans, etc. Run what you want. That being said, don't try and kitchen sink someone just for kicks and giggles. Be accessible and reasonable.


Important things:
I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment (this includes targeting comments towards the other team or me)in the round.

I WILL CONSIDER dropping any new arguments in the rebuttals.

Slow down between tag lines, interps, plan texts, alt texts, etc. If you can have a written copy of any plan or counterplan text, that would be preferable. But I know that may not always happen. It won't hurt you if you don't do it.

Speed: I am ok with most speeds. I have been out of the debate for the past year. Also, I have developed severe carpal tunnel. So that being said, while I can understand most speeds, it is sometimes hard for me to flow as fast as I use to.

Theory: I like ethical theory debates. Please don't throw just any theory at me and expect a win. For me, you need to do a couple of things:

• I do not vote on the potential for abuse by default. If you are going for theory, you need to prove the violation of your interpretation. If you want to run potential abuse, then please articulate why I prefer it.
• Theory, for me, usually comes down to competing interpretations. But reasonability arguments are fine, but I need some articulation on what I should prefer.
• Voters are a must! Please give me an a priori voter at the very least. I default to competing interpretations when evaluating the interpretation. So if you want me to vote for or against theory for a particular reason, then please say so.
• Also, please have some different standards. Education/fairness for me are more of impacts to standards.
• If you drop the T [if an A priori argument is made (which please do)], I will look there first in my decision.

CP's, Perms, Plans, and DAs: If you have them, then go for it.

• Politics DAs NEED to provide a clear link that is unique and intrinsic to the plan text or the resolution. I think it makes the link scenario cleaner. I find it harder to vote on politics if I do not have a clear link to the plan text.
• Perms. Slow down for the perm text. Clear net bens. Also, some argumentation on how the perm functions.

K's: I love them. Some things I like:

• I believe all critics need a robust framework.
• If you run a reject alt, please tell me why this is unique and how it solves. I don't really like reject alts. I feel like they are kindof of a cop-out. But I mean, if you have the evidence to back it up, then go for it.
• As I said, I am down for any literature you want to run. But make sure the Links, impacts, and the Alt are clear.
• Case-specific links are preferable.

Philosophy: I love philosophy. That is what I focused on most of my high school career. You should be linking how/why this ideology affects how we should perceive the resolution. I love some good philosophy/value rounds.

What to do to earn low speaks:

• Being rude
• Any ism. As I said, I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment in the round. And by dropping, I mean both dropping you in the round, and I will not give you above a 15 in speaks.
• Spreading to spread. What I mean is I can understand to put out 2-4 sheets of paper. But when you are presenting 7-12 ( I have seen it done before) pieces of paper, you are not debating.
• No signposting. I have seen this way too much. If you don't signpost, then I can't flow, which means I get to play the guessing game, and you might not like where I put your arguments.

Values/Criterions:
As I stated above, I was a traditional debater in high school. So when it comes to judging LD, I turn to the Value and Criterions first. Somethings to be aware of:

• I don't find the standard values like life, morality, etc. very interesting. I have voted on those values in the past, however. Please provide me a good articulation on why they matter other than "because you would be dead."
• Please have a criterion. I get annoyed when the neg says, "Yay, I accept their value and criterion." That kind of defeats the purpose of LD in my mind. However, I find it necessary to clarify that you can still argue that you uphold your opponents value better. I want to see some clash on the value criterion debate.
• Also, please impact the value and criterion. I think this is something that people ignore; if your value/criterion doesn't affect society at large, then why are we even talking about it.

My background:

I did debate for 3 years in high school. (LD, policy, Pf) I am currently on a college debate team. I am completely fine with speed & “progressive” cases in all three events.

Ways to impress me

•Don’t say “umm”

•If you are spreading & I can’t understand you... I will say clear 3x. After that read at a normal pace.

•Clear flow. GO LINE BY LINE.

• Be clear & specific about your arguments. I will ask to see cards if necessary.

•Be polite. Everyone loves a salty round but the brightline is set between being a smarty pants & a total jerk.

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.