Background: I debated for Jackson for four years, went on to debate in college for an additional four years, and am currently a law student at Pepperdine. Since 2015 I have periodically judged tournaments in WA state.

Do's:

- I am fine with speed and clash is welcome, if not encouraged.

- Progressive LD is fine.

- Link impacts, link impacts, link impacts! This can win and lose a debate so quickly.

- In college I studied philosophy with a concentration in ethics, so go wild with your references but be wary of misusing a theory. Also cite your philosophers, "I'm using utilitarianism as my weighing mechanism" is insufficient, every moral philosopher has a slightly different take on an ethical theory and I want to know exactly which theory you are using.

- I appreciate arguments that focus on solvency and pragmatism. Show me how your side of the debate will either lead to a better world or how the status quo is preferable.

- I will check your cards.

- I do factor in the difficulty of arguing on one side of the debate.

- A particularly strong moral framework could win a debate for me.

- Weigh your arguments clearly.

Dont's:

- I do not find topicality arguments to be particularly persuasive.

- I generally do not like generic Ks. If you are going to run a K, link it clearly to the round and avoid generalizations.

- If you fail to address an issue I will assume it has been conceded.

- Do not forget your framework in rebuttals.

- I will not extend your arguments for you.

I am looking forward to seeing you debate, and feel free to reach out to me after rounds.

TL:DR, I'm a progressive flow judge (in the debate sense), that believes all events should be educational above all else.

Quickly about me; I competed in PF, extemp, OO, and congress in high school for all 4 years. I competed in college CX and extemp for 2 years, as well as coached almost every other event for those 2 years as well. Since then, I have judged at a tournament at least once a year for like the past 8 or so years. Overall, I'm a very technical focused judged across the board and I tend to lean towards more progressive debate and presentation styles, as well as what is more nationally competitive than what is Wyoming Competitive.

Debates: I'm a flow heavy judge. I can handle just about any kind of argument in any format. So run your Ks, your Ts, etc. and you can even run them in LD if you want and feel free to speed, as long as it's clear. If it gets too hard to understand I will just say "CLEAR" while you're speaking. Don't stop, just adjust. I like clean line by lines with clear tagging and a good spread of arguments. I also feel underviews are important, they help make debate a bit more accessible. Dropped points do matter to an extent, but tell me why that matters. In CX, I feel like solvency is an important issue along with having a good fleshed out impact scenario. In LD, I prefer a good value criterion debate since it frames all other arguments in the round. In PF, I do believe it's a bit more of a conversational debate than CX, so really focus on summarizing the debate, but that doesn't mean you can't have CX elements like speed and being heavy on the evidence.

I.Es: Same deal, I'm a fairly technical judge, but have a big appreciation to pieces having purpose and being educational. So I appreciate good structure, but I also value innovative takes on existing structures, especially if it's connected to piece. Topic selection to me is highly important. Your topic should matter, or at least, you should be able to explain why your topic matters, especially in prepared speech events like OO and Info (much less so in ext and imp, though some analysis on this is still appreciated). In general, everything should happen for a reason. So your VA in info should have a reason for being what it is, your hand gestures should have intent, and when you move or pace.

Interps: I will probably be one of your stricter technical judges. For me, piece selection and how it's cut matters a little bit less than how that piece is presented. A badly cut piece that has incredible blocking, interaction with setting, pops, vocal and facial control will likely score better than the inverse. Also your blocking should serve a variety of purposes ranging from world building, story telling, and characterizations.

I participated in debate and speech when I was in high school and have judged several times since. As for my type of judging, I want you to speak clearly and if you choose to speak quickly, please do so with enunciation and expression. I want to be persuaded to believe you not only based on your facts, but by your belief in your words. Just don't ramble out references and statistics with no emotion attached. I want you to show patience and respect towards all members of the team, as well as to me. Don't talk to me assuming I already know both sides of your topic(s). I would like you to think of me as a lay person, a non-debater when explaining things. I don't do well with 'over the top' language.

When doing cross examination, counter your opponent's contentions with clear arguments. Don't talk past or over each other.

Most of all - have fun and enjoy yourself!

LD: I am a flow judge. Rarely do I vote on anything that is not on the flow for the round. Sound reasoning and logic are really important. I do not buy arguments ad absurdum. So, even if there is an argument on the flow, it must logically follow for me to find it persuasive. Debate is also a speaking event. Proper presentation is almost equally important as substance; though a reliance on rhetoric will not win my ballot. Breadth does not equal depth.

Congress: The event is called "Congressional Debate" for a reason. That being, while the format is different than a traditional debate round, it is still debate nonetheless. Logic and reasoning are important. Sources are very important to me. While we all think that we are experts on a given subject, none of us are. Rebuttals (just like traditional debate) are very important. Arguments must flow with the standing arguments for or against the legislation.

I am looking for strong crosses. I look for voters and reasons why to vote for your side, noting the quality of your speeches. Clear volume, rate, and clarity in your speeches. Respectfulness of the competitors is a must and will be judged appropriately

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.

I've been judging for several years. I was on my high school speech team about a hundred years ago in Sheridan. (For the record, I don't know any teachers or students from there.)

I judged Congress at the District tournament in Worland several years ago and have been judging it ever since. I also judge individual events. My favorites are POI and Extemp, and I also like Oratory. I think it's very interesting to hear what high school students are thinking about.

As far as judging, a couple of things I look for:

1. Clear speaking that's not super fast (why I don't judge CX);

2. Reasoned, logical arguments (I know that seems like a redundancy but unfortunately it's not always so) that are based on facts and evidence;

3. Evidence;

4. More evidence.

Seriously, just because you -- or a paid talking head -- said it, does not make it true.

In all events, I'm looking for critical and NEW or novel thinking. Backed by, yes that word again, evidence.

I am an evidence-based judge. That being said, I also look for the following:

* Organization,

* Clearly stated main points

* clear and strong speaking style with eye contact and persuasive ability

* Debate that is not aggressive. Persuade me with your evidence and points; with your case. Don't tell me what I am or am not going to find relevant. "Judge, you must not let that point stand" doesn't really persuade me of anything, especially if your case is weak.

* Debate is not a speed reading event - I don't like to see someone who is speaking so fast that no one can really understand what they are saying. How can I then be persuaded by their speech? Excessive speed is distracting, and will always find you behind an opponent that I can understand and listen to.

I have judged for many years, at State, District, and National levels. I enjoy helping the debate community by judging tournaments. I believe it is a judge's responsibility to understand the event being judged, understand the rules, and judge fairly. I carry the national rules with me to all rounds, and if there is any question, I consult that, and then also consult tournament staff.

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.

The state of Wyoming has three very distinct debates. CX, LD and PF. PF is NOT CX-light. LD is NOT one person CX.

If you are doing CX, don't do speed. If you have to do speed, hit you taglines. If i don't get those, you lose your case. Is it worth it to speed, but end up losing?

If you are doing LD, don't do CX. Do LD. Don't give me plans, advantages to plan, counter plans and dis ads to plan. It is not a plan debate. Convince me with morals why i should vote for you, not plans and evidence.

If you are doing PF, don't do CX do PF. Make it short and concise. Very easy to listen to. PF should be the debate everyone wants to do, because anyone can understand it. If you bring in CX jargon you will lose half of your judges.

No matter what debate you do, don't do speed.

Thank you for doing your part and not spreading covid-CX.