I’m more of a policy maker judge. I prefer to see good policy passed and i want it to be reasonable. Ks are ok for Cx and i like to see a civil round.

CPFL

I like big impacts and critical arguments. I need the impact to have a realistic logic chain and to heavy link. Make sure you do impact calc in your closing speeches and to tell me where to vote. 

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.

I am a traditional LD judge with 35 years of experience in the event. V and VC are important to me as well as use of evidence, logic, flow of the debate, as well as speaker quality. No games please, no new fangled theory attacks and/or maneuvering. Just debate straight up and let the best person win. In summery if I were to hire a lawyer, I would pick the debater who I would feel most comfortable representing me in court. I would not pick the debater who wasn't respectful or who might sway the jury against me due to their speed or overly aggressive style.

The only request I have is to speak clearly and be kind to your opponents.

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

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.

For policy: My biggest pet peeve I have is a debate with no clash. If there is no clash, there is no debate. On that note, tell me where you are arguing. The judge should have to do the least work in the round, so make sure to be very clear where your arguments should go, which arguments you win, and why. With that, tell me why to prefer your evidence. What makes it better than your opponents? I consider myself a traditional STOCK issues judge. This is flexible if you give me voters, but I prefer STOCK issues. That said, I love a good impact debate. Impact calcs are huge for me. See below for specific arguments.

DAs: Run them. Make the link very clear. In the impact debate, I hate terminal impacts. I usually want debaters to focus on probability rather than magnitude.

CPs: Make it clear why the CP is mutually exclusive, otherwise the Perm will probably win.

Topicality: I don't care as much if you run these as time sucks, as that hurts you the most. Just make sure to properly structure the argument. Properly structured topicality debates can be a lot of fun.

Ks: These are more dangerous. The more complex the K, the harder it is to win. Simple Ks are fine, but a good explanation at the end never hurt. I will not vote for a K if the alt is 'Do Nothing'. This isn't an alt. The only way you can win a K with this alt is if you make very clear why this is necessary and will fix an issue in the SQUO.

K affs: Please don't run these. I really hate them. There is a good chance I will sign the ballot against the K aff by the end of the 1AC. Remember, I'm a traditional judge. It has to be incredible for me to vote for it. These usually hurt the quality of debate, so this has to be the best Aff I've ever seen, K or not.

Speed: I am usually fine with it. Given the special circumstances, this is really at your own risk. If I am struggling hearing you, I will say 'Clear' once before I stop flowing. Make sure to really enunciate.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round starts! This is the only time to clear my paradigm up before starting. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. If you do an email chain, please include me at: marchap2@gmail.com with the subject line being your speech (1AC, 1NC, etc).

For PF: I did PF a couple times, but I am no expert. As you can see, I know policy much better. Because of that, I love clash. I understand there is less emphasis on evidence so I don't require it for arguments. However, if I have to weigh evidence vs analyticals, I will weigh the evidence higher. Tell me why to prefer your framework over your opponent's.

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.

Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.

I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.

I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.

PF Debate: I would like to see an easy, organized flow throughout the round. Cards and logics must also be presented throughout your arguments

LD Debate: Your framework (V/VC) is very essential as a weighing mechanism throughout the debate. If both sides upheld this effectively, I will be basing my decision on philosophies, logic, and the flow of the debate.

Policy Debate: I want an effective policy, and a civilized debate.

Hello all! Just wanted to get a few official things out of the way first!

I will be weighing your arguments based on the evidence that you provide with them (if you give me 6 statistics but do not explain how that corresponds to your argument, that argument will stand as if there was no evidence provided). Correlating your evidence with your argument should be a skill set you already have.

Please do not falsify statements and actions made by the opposing side. I will know and I will mark you down for it, so just don't do it.

During your final focus, I expect everyone to explain to me why they have won this debate. Advocate for yourself, tell me why you deserve the 1. It can be anything from "My points are better" to simply providing me better reasons to prioritize your plan above your opponents. All I want to see is some form of self-advocation.

Keep things clean and professional! Abusive tactics are a huge no no. We are here to have fun, not to beat someone else down. With that being said, I want all of you to have fun! Enjoy the nature of the debate. It should be a good time for all parties involved.

Good luck, and have fun!

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I vote mostly off of the flow. Strong warrants are appreciated.

(Paradigm Updated November 14, 2024)

Hello, Speech and Debaters! I am excited to be your judge for this upcoming round, and I look forward to hearing your speeches and debate arguments.

I participated in Speech and Debate in High School with four years of debate experience. Three of those years were spent in Public Forum Debate and my final year was in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I was lucky enough to have made it to Quarter-Finals in LD during my Senior Year at the Wyoming State Speech and Debate tournament. Additionally, I participated in Extemp for four years and had finished 3rd and 5th at Wyoming State in my Junior and Senior Years of High School, respectively. I am also a one-time qualifier in Extemp to the National Speech and Debate Tournament. I also participated in a little bit of Congress, Oratory, and Informative Speaking. Nowadays, I still continue my public speaking path by participating in Toastmasters International where I have learned new public speaking strategies and ways to improve my presentation skills. In Toastmasters, I have made my way to the District level in their public speaking contest.

In the past, I used to have pretty tough paradigms for debaters, but I have changed to be a bit more flexible. I understand that debaters have many different sides/perspectives of arguments and that they may use different strategies/approaches as to making their case stand out versus the other's. Generally speaking, however, I will make a decision directly on the debate flow and which side tends to have the more "offensive" arguments instead of the defensive arguments. This means that I am looking for how you plan to attack your opponents case via cross-applications, impact calculus, argument turns, etc. While I understand the need to have your points pushed across, I do ask that debaters speak a little slower that way I can catch all of your points. The main thing to know is that if I don't catch your point, it may not be an argument that I consider (especially if it ends up being dropped on my flow).

I try to provide the best feedback that I possibly can based on my past experience. If there is anything that you are not certain of or you would like more clarification as to why I thought one way or another, you are always free to send me an email to spence0310@gmail.com! I will read through it and provide a response back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you and good luck in your rounds!

Spencer Travis

As a judge, my primary focus is on who demonstrates the best command of the round, which I evaluate based on three main criteria: content, organization, and delivery.

1. Content: The strength of the arguments presented is critical. I am looking for arguments that are well-researched, logically sound, and thoroughly explained. It’s not enough just to present a lot of information; I need clear, well-supported points that directly address the issues in the round.

2. Organization: Clear structure is essential. I expect debaters to present their arguments in an organized way, with each point flowing logically to the next. Strong debaters will make it easy for me to follow their case and respond to the opposing side. This includes not only the initial arguments but also how well rebuttals are organized and how each speaker builds on or refines the arguments as the round progresses.

3. Delivery: Debate is a public speaking activity, so effective presentation matters. I will pay attention to how well you communicate, including clarity of speech, pacing, and your ability to engage with the audience (or judge). A confident, composed delivery enhances the strength of your arguments.

4. Weighing: In your final speech, I expect you to weigh the arguments you've made and explain clearly why your side should win the round. This includes identifying the most important issues and showing why your arguments outweigh the opposing team’s points. A clear reason for decision is extremely helpful in guiding me towards the winner.

Overall, I am swayed by the debater who wins the substance of the debate, presents it in a structured and engaging way, and clearly explains why they should win in the final speech. If both sides present strong content, organization, and delivery, I will lean toward the one that demonstrates stronger and clearer reasoning inweighing the arguments.

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

All Events:

-On the clock roadmaps

-Speak at a speed/rate that the judge and audience can understand

LD Debate:

-Value/Value Clash is Prioritized

-Use of analytical and empirical evidence

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.

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.