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.

I did speech and debate through all of high school, so I have a basic knowledge of how things work. I did mainly extemporaneous speaking and public forum debate, but I've also competed several times in lincoln douglas debate.

Debate Paradigms:

General- I want to be able to understand what you're saying. Speaking in a manner that makes it harder for your opponents to understand you also makes it harder for me to understand you. Speaking louder than your opponent does not make you automatically correct. Being assertive is perfectly fine, but I will vote against you if you are rude to another competitor. I will be flowing all speeches, so I will know if contentions have been dropped or attacked.

Public Forum- I know public forum best, so feel free to run more complex arguments. In the round, I will allow anything within the rules, but keep in mind that by the end I will rely mostly on weighing and impacts. If the teams agree to a different framework, I will decide by that. I do not expect either side to finish the debate with every contention standing, but if you need to drop a contention make it clear it's on purpose. Vice versa, just because your opponent dropped a contention does not necessarily mean you've won the round. I want to hear the reasoning for the contention's importance and it's impact in either the pro or con world. I want to see a team prove, with solid reasoning and evidence, that they've won the round.

Lincoln Douglas- I haven't debated in this event for several years, but I do still know how it works. Values should be the core of this debate, and I want to hear your value often. I do not want to only hear your value in your introduction speech and then have it dropped until the conclusion. Tie in your contentions to your value; I want your argument to be cohesive. If your opponent takes down your value, and therefore your entire case, early in the debate and you never defend it, that is enough to lose the debate. It is important to note however that I do not accept simply saying one value is more important than the other; it is a debate for a reason. Evidence is still important and can be used in weighing, but remember to focus on the moral aspect of the debate.

I did primarily LD and Poetry in High School, but also participated in Humor, POI, Informative, Extemp, and Duo.

Pronouns: They/Them

Graduation Year: 2018

It has been a bit since I participated in debate, so make sure you explain your arguments. The information you provide in your arguments is what I know about the topic you are debating. Acronyms and shorthand around the topic will not help you- I need to understand your points to judge them well. Make sure I know enough to understand your arguments and why what you're saying is relevant and something I should vote for.

Having a strong Value and Value Criterion and backing them up with your points is very important. If you do not support your Value and Value criterion, you will not win.

Please signpost to help me follow your arguments. I can't vote on things I don't catch.

If you go the philosophy route, please make sure to explain and make it understandable. I am not a philosopher.

LD is a morals debate- Should we or should we not support and follow through with the resolution. As such, the reasoning behind your values is important. However, evidence supporting your values and points will strengthen your argument. Essentially, balance theory/postulation with evidence supporting your claims. Yes this is a debate about morals, but we live in a real world- the way things actually play out is more important than an 'in a perfect world' scenario.

If you speak incredibly quickly, I will likely miss things. This is not to say you have to talk incredibly slowly, either, but make sure you are still understandable.

This is a debate in which each person builds a case and debates the cases. Thus, arguments should only be about the cases and not about your opponent in any way. Be respectful and courteous. Attacks on opponents, rudeness, being condescending, are not acceptable.

I have different paradigms for every debate event, so they are as follows:

Public Forum-

This was my high school event. I have the most experience debating and judging Public Forum than the other events. With that being said, I have the most specific PF paradigm. PF is meant to be a traditional style of debate, so I want a logical flow of arguments that point directly to the the resolution. I don't expect the winning team to win every single point, but it is a debate of weighing. Prove why your impacts, contentions, and evidence outweighs your opponents'. Which brings me to my next paradigm- EVIDENCE. Please don't just dump 100 cards and link none of them- I would rather you have less evidence with equal impacts, linking, and framework than tons of evidence with no explanations. PF is NOT Policy light, so don't spread. I can handle speed, but I value speaking ability, enunciation, and intelligent linking in PF above speaking fast & overloading evidence. (But don't misinterpret that to mean don't use evidence- because it is certainly still necessary.) No plans, CP's, K's, Topicalities, etc. Once again, this is NOT Policy light. If you're going to make an evidence validity argument, pair it with another argument- evidence arguments alone don't win arguments for me. Make sure to signpost attacks and defenses. Set up each speech with quick off-time roadmap.

Lincoln-Douglas-

I dabbled in LD, so once again I have a traditional approach to judging LD. This is supposed to be a moral debate, so let's keep it that way. Defend your value at all costs, and use minimal evidence strategically to prove this value as being of greater importance than your opponent's. While I am okay with a little speed in PF and Policy, LD should NOT be a spread event. Enunciate everything and articulate the morality of your case. If you can persuade me of your case's ethics, you'll win my vote. VC should support the value, and explain the measurability of it. If you're going to make an evidence validity argument, make sure you pair it with another argument on the same point- evidence arguments don't win a point for me. Signpost attacks & defenses. Set up every speech with a quick off-time roadmap.

Policy-

With me, anything goes in policy- as long as it makes sense. I can follow speed, link chains, impact turns, etc, but if they don't make logical sense I can't give you the ballot. Just be sure your plan is achievable, your impacts link, and your sources aren't non-sequiturs.

Be civil, respectful, and articulate. I'm okay with intense and semi-aggressive debating, but don't cross the threshold into rudeness. Good luck.

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. 

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Update for BFHS 2024: I don't have experience judging PF but will do my best if you have me in the back. Because of my background in policy, I will flow and try to evaluate which team did the better debating. Any theory arguments or technical jargon specific to PF will probably be lost on me.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LASA 20

Emory 24

I'd like to be on the email chain: meleckel[at]gmail[dot]com.

K Things:

1. Neg K v. Policy:

A. I generally think the aff should get to weigh the aff and the neg gets links to the plan.

B. Links to reps are OK but it's important you explain how the aff's representations produce XYZ impact. Too often, teams say "Reps bad" and say "Extinction" with zero connection or explanation. Just as the aff has defended an impact to their plan and not the entirety of policymaking, the negative must win an impact to the aff's reps, not the entire history of how those reps have been used.

2. Aff K v. Policy:

A. I think fairness is an impact. Debate is an activity that is driven by competitive incentives with winners and losers. Most every decision we make in a round is shaped by the desire to gain a ballot. I think both sides, regardless of their argumentative preference, have voluntarily subscribed to this activity. Regardless of what model of debate is desirable, most everyone agrees that debate itself is desirable, to which fairness is a precursor.

To beat fairness, the affirmative needs to forward a counter-interpretation that mitigates the risk of a predictable limits DA with an external impact that outweighs "fair debate". Impact calculus in these debates are very important.

B. I'm not a fan of jargon. Too often teams say "Neuroplasticity DA" or "Pathologization DA" without an explanation of what this means. I am much more interested in the aff explaining their argument and how it interacts with the neg's offense than throwing words at me and hoping 1 sticks.

C. I'm not persuaded by the variant of arguments that say framework is violent.

For all debates: Sign post your arguments and be polite to one another. Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

CX: I am a stock issues voter. I have a high threshold on topicality and kritiks. There must be a substantial disadvantage for a team that is impacted out if a team wants to win the round solely on topicality. If the aff is truly untopical, then run topicality. Otherwise, if it is for a time-suck I would avoid this. The weirder the kritik the more work needs to be done developing the argument. Also, please use a roadmap to cover what part of the flow you will be on before you start.

LD: The value / value criterion clash is critical. Please go over this throughout the debate and use it as a mechanism to weigh the round with, rather than trying to solely win on the value / value criterion debate. Make sure to clash on the relevant issues in the debate and weigh the impacts on both sides. I look for arguments that are not just evidence based but also have a good tie to philosophy. In your final speech, I prefer that you use some of the time going over voters.

PF: Clash is critical in public forum. You should be weighing all arguments in the debate and bring new evidence in the round to support your position. If you have a framework, make sure to use it throughout your speeches and don't wait until the final focus to use your framework. You need to spend time utilizing your framework throughout. In your final speech, I prefer some voters.

Experience:

4 years of local/national LD+congress

2nd year of college policy at the University of Wyoming

Put me on the chain: calvin.gilmer@gmail.com

I’ll flow any arguments you make as long as:

1. They’re not disrespectful/problematic/dehumanizing. Please make the debate space one that’s welcome to everyone.

2. They’re structured in some way (warrants, links, impacts).

I enjoy nontraditional/kritikal debate so feel free to utilize it. I am not as deep in the lit as I'd like to be for the majority of K's, so tailor your speeches accordingly. Make sure that you clearly link whatever argument you’re making to your opponent’s position.

Condo is neither good or bad in and of itself, so debate it! I haven't voted on condo bad in the past but that doesn't mean I won't in future rounds given the affirmative can prove that, in the context of the round, the negative has done something terrible. I believe judge kick is a thing, but I won't kick the CP for you if the 2nr doesn't tell me I can/should.

Speak clear enough that I can flow. If I’m flowing you’re good (I know these instructions are hard with online debate, so if there's any major issues with my hearing of the round/arguments I'll speak up. The vast majority of the time it seems like people are 100% fine.)

Speaker points: perform well and you'll get good speaks. If you get higher than a 29 I considered your performance excellent and was impressed.

Things that will definitely tank your speaks:

- Furthering oppression in the debate space (sexism, racism, homophobia...)

- Being condescending to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being condescending

Please don’t behave in an unkind matter…

If you have any questions email me!

Have fun and debate smart!

Hi, all. I couldn't be more excited to be joining you for this tournament. I competed for 3 years in a number of events (including LD) and was the 1999 Wyoming state champion in Dramatic Interpretation. That same year I qualified for Nationals in both Dramatic Interpretation and Student Congress, so I know the pressure that comes with competition. But, don't forget to have fun! That's the best advice I can give to you, generally.

Specifically, as it relates to LD, I do not come into this with a particular style philosophy. Debate in the style you are most comfortable and use the tools that make the most sense to you. When you're comfortable you are more likely to present a clearly defined argument. Which is what I'm looking for.

Spell it out for me. Don't assume I am familiar with the topic or your contentions. I don't need a dissertation outlining the history of any given topic, but a rough overview is helpful. Define your thesis early, support it continuously, and conclude by identifying how you've supported and proven it. No one else at the podium is going to defend it. That's *your* job. Never forget the thesis. Never leave an argument/counterargument unanswered. CLASH!

Speak clearly. I am going to flow your speeches so I need to hear your argument. Too fast? Too soft? Too mumbled? How do I flow that? I won't necessarily take points for those styles, but I can't judge what I can't understand.

Don't present new arguments in final rebuttals. They won't be considered. Neither will contentions made after time is called.

Beyond that, the floor is yours. Relax. Present and defend your thesis. Clash. And have fun!

email -- hunti058@umn.edu

hi im syd (they/them)! i am a phil/cscl major at the umn.

spectators need to ask if every student is okay with being watched. same goes for recording rounds. i will double check before the round starts, and intervene if necessary.

please set up chains/get to the round on time, its a latent pet peeve (won't effect ur speaks, will make me grouchy).

i don't really care about speaks. i pretty much give out 28.8-30, although i don't think i've given out a 30 yet? the breakdown generally results in winning 2N/2A being the highest, winning 1A/1N second, etc. but i will lower for the usual reasons. mnudl kids i tend to follow the guidelines given by the udl for udl tournaments, this may result in slight discrepancies.

u need to be slower than ur top speed. tags+analytics need to be like an 8, fw/t like a 6 (which goes ESPECIALLY for k vs fw. i have the hardest time adjudicating these kinds of rounds if the debaters are flying through blocks). i flow speeches not docs, and i will vote based on the arguments i can flow. this means my decisions are better the more clear you keep your speeches.

stolen from rose larson's paradigm -- "An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not 'dropped an argument' until you have actually MADE one."

my policy knowledge is always limited on any topic, you need to explain your acronyms and internal link scenarios, especially on aff. i will vote on presumption (if introduced by the neg) if i do not understand the world of the aff by the end of the debate. usually also makes me bad for t debates, since i don't have enough knowledge to make global decisions on the topic. i leave that one to the pros and love to vote on reasonability.

condo is fine until the other team wins via tech that its not. perf con to a certain extent is fine, but if your k is premised on epistemological claims i will be super willing to vote for perf con.

very tech over truth these days. dead inside etc. i will read cards after the round if there is obvious judge direction to do so, but i don't like looking at docs during speeches unless i need to for more complex debates (or when i miss an author).

i like kritiks more than any other argument in debate. these rounds are always more fun for me than policy rounds.

addendum to this -- i am dissuaded by generic kritiks. to be successful in front of me you need to have specific and clear links to the affirmative. you should be including quotes from cards or cx, the blocks should be somewhat tailored. do not fiat your alts, i do not know how that became a trend.

another kritik addendum -- you should absolutely authenticity test your opponents, especially in rounds where the argument in question is pessimistic about the future of groups of people. i do not want to hear arguments about black people being ontologically dead from a nonblack person, i do not want to hear arguments about trans people being ontologically dead from a cis person.

i like all affs, but i am also as good for fw as any other off case. these debates should be slower toward the end of the debate, and kept very narrow if possible. please overexplain interps/we meets/counter interps, this is where i get lost the most. impact framing really matters in this kind of debate.

I was WY state champ for LD in 2020; I do policy at the University of Wyoming now (go pokes!) under instruction of Lawrence Zhou, Matt Liu and Brent Lamb. I also help coach LD voluntarily at Rock Springs High School (WY)

If there's a chain, please add me: knickknackmack@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns

Last updated for the Bobcat Invitational

~~~

Summary for prefs (CX and LD)

Approach the debate however you like, just make sure you focus around the topic; I'll totally vote for K affs if they provide specific warrants to the topic's wording/content/epistemology and why it's harmful, and do this throughout the round.

I'm not apt to vote for tricks or arguments that are contingent on your opponent missing them.

I'll, of course, vote on any argument if it's not responded to well regardless of paradigm. That said, my paradigm does lower the threshold your opponent needs to meet for them to win/not lose on that particular arg.

For LD: I generally think Nebel T is true, but as always tech > truth. I do lean towards reasonability (if the aff is actually reasonable) but an undercovered T is an undercovered T, y'all.

Notes for all debates

1.) I'll vote by evaluating what the winning framework was (if this was a point of contention; if it wasn't I'll probably assume standard util) and then taking the most straightforward route to the ballot through that framework.

2.) Tech > truth, but very obviously untrue arguments have a much lower threshold to overcome, especially if they're analytics

3.) You don't need to ask me if I'm ready, I'll tell you if I'm not

4.) This should go without saying, but I'll vote you down for making the debate space unsafe. Slurs, intentionally misgendering someone after being corrected, mocking someone in a way that undermines their identity or personhood, those are all no bueno.

~~~~~

Policy paradigm

Pre-paradigm note: Don't assume I know the topic very well. I do college policy and help a bit with high school LD -- I know a workable amount of argumentation, not nearly as much content.

Counterplans

Condo in policy is way more justifiable than it is in LD. I'll usually side neg with conditionality in the average debate (5 off with two counterplans will 9/10 times be fine). Judge kick is also fine. Of course, I'll still vote on condo bad if there's evidence of significant time skew on CPs that get kicked in the block, or if aff doesn't do a sufficient job at proving no abuse. I'm a 2A so I'm sympathetic to it, y'all

CPs must have a net benefit and be competitive (duh). Lots of CPs (agent and process specifically) don't do one of those very well. You don't need to read (and I'd prefer you not read) "Agent CPs bad" or "Process CPs bad" theory, just defend your mechanism via solvency deficits and use perms to test competition.

Impacts

Advantages/disads with nuclear war impacts that have an arbitrary mention of "extinction" in the tags but no mention of it in the internals are likely to work against you. Often people forget that their card does not, in fact, frame nuclear war as existential, in which case they lose impact calc

On the CJR topic in particular I will probably find myself leaning towards probability more than magnitude; I think the link story on either side is particularly tenuous when trying to connect the aff's domestic CJR action to extinction.

K affs

As always, it is the negative's job to prove the aff wrong. The aff needs to offer some point of predictable stasis so the neg can be prepared to prove the aff wrong. I will vote aff on kritikal affirmatives that a) are related enough to the topic to allow for enough neg prep, and b) are debated better than the negative on a technical level. A is a prerequisite to B; if you debate net better on a technical level but still don't prove sufficient points of clash I probably won't vote for you.

Ks

I really like Ks, however, I tend to find many difficult to vote for. Please tell me what the alternative does without obfuscating the discussion until the 2NR. This includes both the action and the actor

I find the "serial policy failure" argument powerful in the CJR topic because I think it is particularly true in this context. The aff should be aware of this and allocate time accordingly.

I would prefer K debates stay away from broad, overarching claims and narrow in on the nitty-gritty in terms of how the aff links, why this matters, and how the alt solves this specific problem. Example, one saying "Their epistemology legitimizes oppression and we solve by rejecting the state" versus "Their Smith 20 card talks about reform being good. This is a link -- reform is a tool of cruel optimism by the state, used as a smokescreen to hide its illegitimacy -- that's our Nguyen 20 card. This means as long as there is narrative around reform, the state can stay in power. The alt solves by disintegrating that narrative because the alt rejects reform in favor of abolition." Specificity is key in K debates, especially when they're often so broad that nobody knows what's going on.

~~~

Trad LD (if you're competing at the Bobcat Invitational, this is probably you)

I'm gonna keep it real with y'all, framework is not helpful in, like, 99/100 debates (that being said, it probably will be a bit more helpful with the LAWS topic.) Still, if both of you run util, please don't spend a minute on it in the 1AR. It is a) painful, but also b) doesn't help you get phat dubs. The only time I really see value clash as having any sort of... value (heheh) is when someone runs deontology and the other runs consequentialism.

One thing I've learned from college policy that can help with trad LD: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. Let me repeat, for emphasis: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. You can collapse down to a single one and just be like "This is incredibly important and makes the rest of the debate moot," and then explain why that contention matters so much. I will absolutely adore this and give you v high speaks.

~~~

Circuit LD Paradigm

ctrl+F Policy paradigm for policy stuff.

K Affs

The aff should be related in some way or another to the topic. Shifting the debate to something entirely inapplicable to the resolution is very likely to lose to T-FW.

If the K has an application to the topic that they explain well and with warranting (e.g. saying "Predictive policing and this specific rhetoric around it are used in these specific ways to uphold the state which is bad for these specific warrants" instead of "The neg supports the state"), I'll be more apt to dismiss neg FW args.

Phil

I am completely fine with philosophically based arguments, but if they are something I'm not familiar with (below), you will need to explain them knowing I don't have as much background on them.

Phil that's often used in LD that I'm familiar with (in order of most to least): Mill's util, Rawlsian justice, Kant's deontology, Baudrillard/simulation theory, a very small bit of Nietzsche, everything else

Tricks

I don't particularly like tricks, or any argument that is dependent on your opponent missing or misunderstanding it for you to win. I'll vote on them if you win them and they're warranted but I'm not a fan and would prefer you make other arguments.

Some tricks are so sneaky that they lose the opponent but also the judge. If you blow up a trick in your last speech, but it's not on my flow, I'm going to assume it's a new argument.

Counterplans

I love counterplans. In LD, I lean towards condo bad but can be convinced otherwise depending on how the aff handles the argument. If aff doesn't breathe a word about conditionality until the 2AR I, of course, won't vote on condo bad.

I reflect Jacob Nails' paradigm in that "perm do the counterplan" is almost always a better option than "process (or whatever) CPs bad." Any type of CP that has its competition resting on a single Merriam-Webster definition of "Resolved" is pretty shaky and will more often lose to tests of competition than to theoretical arguments.

Agent CPs need to clearly demonstrate a net benefit to the aff. Most of them don't do this unless they have an explicit solvency advocate with carded evidence on why "courts are key" or whatever the CP is.

Topicality

No preference. If you're neg and you legitimately think the aff is untopical, you're probably not the only one. If you're neg and you're running it to waste time on a very topical plan, the aff saying "we meet" is sufficient.

Inclusivity

It's good. If your opponent is trad please make it educational for them. As someone who was against progressive LD for a while because of opponents that were condescending and wouldn't explain what anything meant, I can tell you for sure that your behavior matters. More people and interactions with different styles of debate is net good for education and the inclusivity of small circuits.

~~~~~

Public Forum

PF is the debate I've admittedly done the least of. I do adore judge instruction, so if you tell me what to vote for and why, your chances of winning and/or achieving high speaks are pretty good.

Tech > truth, but the more untrue an argument is, the less your opponent will have to say about it to beat it.

Progressive arguments are totally fine as long as you keep them accessible to the opponent (explain them, answer questions about them straightforwardly, etc.)

You can read the rest of my paradigm to get a feel for me as a judge but it's not very PF-specific. I'm not very picky. Just have fun and don't be a dingus.

· 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.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Hi!

I am a Colorado debate judge. My main events are LD and Policy but I can judge any debate offered by the NSDA.

LD: I judge heavily on the value structure debate, the flow, and key voters. The core value/criterion clash should be the most important argument in the debate. If you do those things in your speeches then you should be able to win the round.

CX: I am a traditional policy judge. I like stock issue debate, the flow, and policy-based arguments. I can follow a kritik debate from either side but I'd rather not. I'd also rather you didn't spread; again, if you do I can follow and won't automatically downvote your team but I prefer clear taglines and cards. NO OPEN CX.

PF: I judge primarily on the flow. It is important to me that crossfire periods stay civil and focused on questions rather than arguments. A specific framework is not required in PF but I do enjoy key voter issues or some measure of how I should judge the round.

I am a Business Analyst for a major Air Line, developing technology solutions for reservations and customer care. I'm a graduate of Weber Sate University with a degree in communications and public relations. I was a Speech and Debate participant in High school and was a Student Congress alternate to nationals in 1999 and 2000.

For extemporaneous speeches, I look for well structured arguments supported with evidence and data driven insights. I will not be judging based on your position on the topic but by how well you support your position as well as how you address any rebuttals.

For Congressional speeches, I again look for well structured arguments with supporting evidence. Speakers should be familiar with parliamentary procedure and should adhere to the rules established for the session. The speeches should be substantial in length and contain at minimum 3 evidentiary talking points which support their position on legislation and/or amendments.

For other performances, I judge based off of the speaker's connection and interpretation of the material. Speaker should show good character development and present their material to convey the unspoken emotion, subtext and rhythm of the piece.

For all speakers, I do like to provide thorough feedback so that you can continue to improve your performances and speaking skills.

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

Howdy! My name is Breeze (she/they) and I am very excited to be judging whatever it is you are competing in.

A little about me I attend Hamilton College in Clinton, NY where I am a major in International Relations.

I did speech and debate for four years in High School. I did almost every event under the sun (PF, LD, Congress, OO, Info, DUO, PO, Impromptu). I like to think I was pretty good. I've got two national tournaments under my belt and a top 24 in congressional debate at the 2020 nat tourney.

If you are looking at this I'm gonna assume you are here because you are a debater so let's get to the good stuff.

All Debaters: Please, on-time road maps (With the exception of CX). I will be timing you, any speaking past a 10 second grace period will not be considered in the debate. This should be obvious and a standard at this point but hate speech and disrespectful debate are never tolerable. Got a chain? Add me breezepetty@gmail.com

LD: Clash is super important obviously, but that includes value, value criterion, and contention clash. Don't get too caught up on one versus the other. I will be flowing so make sure you do your best to cover the entire flow in every speech. Evidence is good but philosophic debate is it's equal I just ask that every new argument you make is supported by one or the other, otherwise, it gets challenging to weigh it accurately in the debate.

PF: Clash is important, duh. I want to see evidence supporting every argument made in the debate and validity of evidence is a welcome point of contention in the event it is necessary.

CX: Not a big fan of spreading but if you speak clearly I will probably follow. Stock issues are important.

Congress: Wow I didn't think congress kids looked at paradigms, I'm impressed if you are here. I like to see good concise speeches with structure and evidence. If you are speaking later in the debate on a bill don't waste everyone's time arguing the same thing that's been argued before.

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. However, teams calling out the reading of an author and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker) is totally fair game.

Prefer debates where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that the AFF is bad. What this means is open to interpretation.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not.

Enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and uses that story to implicate other portions of the debate.

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts.

Hidden Aspec is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding Aspec will have a speaker point implosion.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (I go by my initials if that helps with pronunciation.)

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

please add me to the email chain 26kirura@gmail.com

--Experience--

3 years of high school local/national LD and Policy

4th year of college policy for the University of Wyoming

NDT twice

--Quick Notes--

- my email is 26kirura@gmail.com if you have questions about the RFD. If you're confused about a result feel free to reach out to me

- tech > truth

- I won't do work for you (aka extend unique offense speech to speech, I won't cross-apply arguments if you don't tell me to, etc).

- this is a shared space, so help make it enjoyable & safe for everyone!

Important stuff:

- impact out your arguments

- do impact & evidence comparison

- the only work I will ever do impact calc if I'm forced to.

- speak clearly. This is especially important with online debate. I can handle speed if you articulate and signpost. I will not say clear if you don't see me flowing I can't understand you

Kritiks:

- I have gone for k's on the aff and neg as well as policy arguments

-I like Kritiks but you need to explain your alt and the links in a way that makes sense because you are the one that has done all the research on it and I haven't

-how does the world of the alternative function and how does it compete with the world of the AFF

-you need a specific link to the aff and impact out your links

Topicality:

-make sure that you have clear impacts for T though why is it a voter?

-don't just say limits and ground but give examples and explain why limits are important and contextualize your interp

Theory:

- I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, on conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will judge kick unless the aff tells me not to and has a good reason why I shouldn't

CPs and DAs:

-nothing special here run what you are good at

-as far as CPs go I don't care how many you have or if the planks are conditional

I'm open to changing my mind on anything here, except for the things indicated with ????. My advice is ALWAYS: Debate with your best strategy despite my judging preferences. I have no problem giving out low point wins, but if you want a win AND higher points, check out below. However, if you completely ignore my LIMITED gripes about debate listed below, it would almost take a verbal forfeit from the opponent for me to vote for you.

HunterRadfordDebate@gmail.com

Traditional LD:
-I judge off of the flow only, unless directed otherwise. Your speaker points are 100% correlated to the arguments you make, not how you say them. Speaking style means almost nothing to me.
-I am very very framework heavy. You will have an uphill battle if you read 20 seconds of framework and 5:40 of case in the 1AC. Rawls is my favorite LD philosopher. Justice debates are my favorite topic of nuance.
-Clear signposting is obviously a key to higher speaker points. Do the work for me when it comes to explaining your access to your impacts/ why your opponent doesn't have access to theirs. I will almost certainly not flow line-by-line debate in the last minute of the 1NR/the entirety of the 2AR.
Flow debate:

Truth>tech

I enjoy hearing stock Affs. I have been out of the scene for so long that I guarantee you: I don't know whats popular. I don't know what your author believes in. I don't know how your author answers other authors. So running a K aff is not an auto loss, but there better be good reason for it and defendable in the round why we should be talking about it. As long as the K on neg operates as a DA to case, go for it. I still dont know who your author is though.

-I did college debate but I'm still not the fastest flower. If you know you are one of the fastest speakers at the tournament, please go like 80% speed. (I have now been out of debate for about 5 years. I have the experience but not the ear for high speed anymore.)
-????My threshold for theory is pretty low. I liked going for theory in a lot of rounds. With that in mind, I will reject the arg (but might as well reject the team since you undercover case) if you go for theory and case in the last rebuttal. This indicates you only halfway support your theory being a voter.
-????I don't think an RVI is a thing. I won't vote for one.
-Extend offense as much as possible (of course). You probably won't like my RFD if you go into the last speech with defense.
-I think the AFF always has the ability to extend from case, even if that means extending something from the 1AC in the 2AR. I'm open to changing my mind if the neg wishes.

-I typically enjoy a nuanced debate between the 1AC and 1-3 off-case positions. The more off-case you decide to read, the less interested I'll be.

-After being out of debate for a while, many things have turned me off about it. (while keeping in mind my advice to stick with your best strategy if you must),
1. Try your best to sell me any impact that isn't human lives unless it is a genuine argument backed by actual evidence, i.e global warming causes extinction.
2.???? As a coach from a small school, I think the "debate is a game" argument is awful. I don't hold my students afterschool for 2 hours a day to talk about Baudrillard or tell them to run whatever is most fun for them when debating other teams that seemingly have no chance on paper. Please refrain from turning debate into a joke. If debate is a game for you and you enjoy crazy arguments, more power to you. I would ask that you strike me.

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.

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Glenbrook South '19 | University of Michigan '23

kellymskoulikaris@gmail.com

General

Be organized. Do line-by-line, impact calc, judge instruction, and evidence comparison. Do not just read evidence in the 2AC/2NC/1NR. Smart analytics can overcome bad evidence.

Inserting rehighlightings is okay as long as the rehighlightings are short and the implication is explained in the speeches.

For everything below, I can be convinced otherwise through good debating. Feel free to ask clarification questions pre-round!

Case/DAs

I love good case debating. No, this does not just mean yes/no impact. Yes, this means debating the internal link to advantages (and disadvantages). Debates can easily be won or lost here, and internal link comparison in the final rebuttals is underutilized.

Case-specific DAs are preferable, but politics can be good with decent evidence and persuasive spin.

Rider DAs are not DAs.

CPs

Advantage CPs are preferable to Agent CPs/Process CPs. PDCP definitions (from both sides) should have specific standards/theoretical justifications.

Condo is (probably) good, kicking planks is (probably) good, and judge kick is the default unless debated otherwise.

2NC CPs are good against new affirmatives, but against non-new affirmatives, the 2NC should justify their new planks. The 1AR can convince me this is abusive (especially if the 2NC is adding new planks to get out of a straight-turned DA).

Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team unless debated otherwise.

T

It is important for both sides to map out what topics look like under their interpretations, especially at the beginning of the season. What affirmatives are included? What negative argument are guaranteed? What does each interpretation exclude? Examples help frame the round!

Evidence quality matters much more in these rounds!

T vs K Affs

Debate is a game, and competition/winning drives our participation in debate. The strongest impacts to T are fairness and clash (iterative testing, testing etc). Negative teams have had success in front of me when they utilize clash to link turn affirmative offense.

Specific TVAs are good. You do not need evidence as long as you have a plan text and explain what debate rounds would look like under the TVAs.

Ks

I am most familiar with Anti-Blackness, Capitalism, and Settler Colonialism literature, and not as familiar with Baudrillard, Bataille etc.

Please do not give extremely long overviews. Root cause claims, impact comparisons at the top are smart and strategic, but the rest of the "overview" can be incorporated into the line-by-line later on the flow.

Impact out each link!

(Paradigm Updated as of March 22, 2022)

Dear Competitors:

Hello all! I am glad to be your judge at this tournament. I have competed for Green River High School in Wyoming for 4 years. My best event was in Extemporaneous Speaking; however, I also had success in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking. I did 2 debates in my high school years: Public Forum (3 years) and Lincoln-Douglas (1 year). I had a decent success record in debate, but I was much better in the realms of Speech.

These are my updated paradigms for the 2022-2023 Speech Season:

General Debate Paradigms:

In debate, I was that edgy traditionalist/progressive debater. Arguably, I was a bit more progressive than I was traditionalist; thus, either form of debate is fine with me. I do ask that if the speaker chooses to be progressive that they do not push the limits of what progressive debate is. There is a point in time where debate does become irrational in nature. Please try to avoid that.

1 - Offense over Defense

This is the number one thing that I look for in rounds, as a flow judge. This is basically assuming that debate is a sport; the more arguments you get across the finish line leads to the more arguments that win the round. The person that wins the round has the most arguments won on the flow, whether the argument is factually correct or not. (Note: I would prefer that you are factually correct, but my job as a judge is not to judge whether or not the information provided is correct. I try to be an impartial judge.)

An "offensive" argument is an argument that is either a cross-application, a turn, or any form of impact calculus. Typically, anything other than this is considered defensive on the flow. If possible, I would urge you to use the technical terms to help me on the flow; otherwise, I will make an assumption based on the argument that is presented to me.

2 - Impact Calculus

As mentioned above, I love to hear impact calculus. I believe that you can win an entire debate by just weighing the consequences of impacts against one another. Any form of impact calculus is good: timeframe, probability, magnitude, scope, irreversibility, pre-requisite, and root cause.

The best part of impact calculus is when you can make a reasonable assumption between the two impacts. Even though I prefer evidence, it is safe to assume the importance of some impacts. (i.e. The effects of climate change are irreversible.)

3 - Framework Debate

If a side wishes to run a framework, I am fair game for it. If no framework is presented on the round, assume that I will vote on cost-benefit analysis. This is the typical voting of your judges. Cost-benefit analysis should not be ran as a framework as most judges already vote on it.

If both sides propose frameworks, I would love to hear the framework clash. As mentioned earlier, offense over defense is preferred in the framework debate.

4 - Cross-Examination

I am not one of those judges that says that everyone should be nice in debate; however, there is an imperative to uphold some sort of debate etiquette. Thus, I prefer a "tense" cross-examination. What this means is that you are not being excessively rude, but having your opponent get to the point is perfectly acceptable. I am fine with people cutting others off to get to the next question.

If you are excessively rude in questioning or in debate, it will result in a significant cut in speaker points. I believe that a cut in speaker points is appropriate versus a complete loss in the round.

5 - Clarity/Signposting

All debaters, before every speech, must give me an off-the-clock road map. I need to know where we are going on the flow. If you jump around, it will be harder for me to follow your arguments and I will be more likely to miss an argument that you are making. Remember, it is my flow that counts toward your ballot.

I am pretty good with speed. My general rule is that if you are too fast, I will stop flowing and look at you.

6 - Tech over Truth

More evidence is always better. If one team has 14 pieces of evidence versus the opposing team's 1 piece of evidence, I will likely vote for the 14 pieces of evidence. This is because there will likely be more offensive arguments. The evidence debate constitutes the best form of debate, in my opinion.

With this philosophy, credibility does not matter (unless if you provide me evidence or logistical arguments as to why, of course). If the 1 source is from a Ph.D. who is well known and the 14 sources are from a variety of journalists, then I view this in favor of the 14 journalists. If credibility should be viewed as important, I ask that you run it as a framework to override this paradigm.

7 - Overview/Underview Debate

This is a unique paradigm of mine, but one that does not have to be implemented. I am a fan of people running overviews and underviews; they act as extra arguments in the round and are burdens that are placed on opponent's cases (or your own, if you choose). With these, please tell me where on the flow you would like me to put them.

With this type of debate, you can run a framework. Because there are no rules on where a framework can be stated in the round, you are certainly allowed to run a framework in your second to last speech and put it on the flow as an overview. Setting the debate up like this allows me to see how arguments narrow down, as the debate furthers.

Specific Debate Paradigms:

1 - Stock Issues (CX)

I consider myself to be a stock issues judge, but on a more traditional level. For clarity, the burden of stock issues is for the Affirmative to uphold all five and the Negation to prove that the Affirmative cannot uphold one of them. If the Affirmative upholds all five stock issues, then the debate proceeds to the argument level (advantages versus disadvantages, counterplans, etc.).

The reason why this is important: If the Aff cannot prove how the plan essentially would work, then I cannot vote for the plan. If the plan cannot solve the problem that it illustrates that it can, there is no reason for me to consider the arguments presented in the round. I also believe that this allows for a fair debate for the Neg, as I feel in CX, the Neg has a much more difficult job.

2 - Topicalities (CX)

In recent years, I have grown more accustomed to the idea of Topicality arguments. If you wish to run these, please make sure that it follows the normal debate argument structure (claim, warrant, and impact). I understand why a Topicality may be important for a team to run, but make sure that you can explain to me the importance of why they are ran.

An important note about Topicality - oftentimes, teams put Topicality at the top of the flow, which can be problematic. Topicality sometimes becomes the central focus of the debate and can result in the debate becoming indecisive. If the team wishes to run a Topicality, ensure that you have time to run the Topicality with your other arguments. As mentioned in a later paradigm, if you do not cover a specific advantage, disadvantage, etc. in the following attack speech, I regard the argument as dropped. If the Topicality takes too much time, it may be in the team's best interest to either kick arguments or have the Topicality kicked.

3 - Ks/Theory Debate (CX)

The National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level, has typically frowned upon this type of debate. Historically at this tournament, these arguments are voted down, not because of the argument, but because they wish to keep the etiquette of CX. For this reason, I will vote down any K or Theory that is presented in the round. If it is unlikely to succeed at the national level, there is no reason for me to vote for it.

*Note: If this changes in future tournaments, this paradigm will be updated to reflect the results of the National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level.

4 - Dropped Arguments (CX, LD)

An argument becomes dropped on the flow if it is not directly addressed in the corresponding speech. In LD, if the Neg does not attack any of the Aff arguments in the NC, then the arguments automatically flow to the Affirmative. This rule applies to each speech, in this debate (the 2AR in LD should only be voters, or a wrap-up of arguments).

For CX, this rule applies starting in the 2AC. Any dropped arguments from the Negation's proposal in the 2AC will be automatically flowed to the Negation. In the 2NC, this rule applies to the Affirmative, as well as the Negative's arguments.

If both teams do not discuss an argument, after it has been introduced, the argument flows to neither team.

5 - Value/Criterion (LD)

I find that Value/Criterion debate is the biggest misconception in LD. LD Debaters receive about 20% of their ballots being focused on this. For this reason, Value/Criterion is not a voting issue for me.

Value/Criterion is the mechanism in which the debate is bounded by. This is not a framework. With this being said, Aff can win the Value while Neg can win the Criterion and vice versa. Once a Value and Criterion has been determined on the flow, I will judge the offensive arguments based to that Value/Criterion and make a ballot decision. A framework can be added to the debate to ensure that a specific type of voting does occur, in addition to Value/Criterion.

6 - Progressive Criterion Debate (LD)

This is something that I do accept. This is where the sides spend less time discussing Values, but more time discussing Criterions. Effectively, what this does is it says that the Criterion best upholds both Values presented in the round rather than having a specific focus on the Values that are accepted.

An example of this would be a Value of Life versus Morality. A debater can run a Criterion of Teleology and claim that it fits under both Values; thus, there is no need to promote one value over another. If the debater convinces me that both Values shall be viewed equally in the round, then I will uphold two Values and the corresponding Criterion that sets the debate. An important note: If you run this, make sure that your case and your arguments fall under both values. Otherwise, I may have to vote for the other team.

7 - Voters (LD, PF, BQ)

Voters are important for me to see what offensive arguments took place in the round. When crafting the voter speech, make sure to tackle the most important points that you (or your team) won. A voter is not winning on "impact." A voter is winning on "my opponent's Contention 2."

8 - Logistical Argumentation (LD, PF, BQ)

While I prefer tech over truth, I understand that logic is sometimes the best for these debates. Just remember, if your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that says the opposite, then I will be more likely to believe that argument.

Logistical arguments are typically defensive, but are great setups for offensive arguments. If you want to claim that an argument is non-unique, then keep it short and set up a turn or cross-application to put more weight as to why you should vote for your side.

9 - Dropped Arguments (PF, BQ)

Since these debates have a different structure than CX and LD, the rule for dropped arguments is quite different. Typically, it is a case constructive, an attack speech, a summary speech, and a final focus. Since the 1st speaker can only attack in the corresponding speech, I find it unfair to call drops to their arguments. Thus, drops on arguments begin in the 3rd speech of this debate (for PF, this would be the Summary speech).

The final focus should remain focused on voters and basically should extend what was brought out by your partner (or yourself for BQ). If the final focus does not establish what was stated in the previous speech, I will assume that those arguments are dropped.

I am happy to be your judge and good luck in this round and your future rounds!

Cheers,

Spencer Travis

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.

Debated policy at Boston College.

Email: nwwong1234[at]gmail[dot]com

I know nothing about the topic. This will be the first time that I judge LD so I will not be well versed on core generics and acronyms. Please explain clearly what you're arguing. This also means that I have a very limited perspective on topicality so please keep that in mind.

I will listen to any argument with the exception of things that happened outside the round. Just make sure to impact out your arguments and be very clear on what I am supposed to be voting for.

Speed: fine with spreading, make sure you're clear. Slow down when you go through your analytics though.

Tech > Truth

Kritiks/K-affs/Framework: I will happily vote for all of these. I am only familiar with the generic K ground like colonialism, cap, security, identity, etc but am excited to listen to anything else. For framework, I believe that fairness is an impact and TVA's can be incredibly potent.

Conditionality: I have a low threshold for voting against teams reading multiple conditional arguments. You should be able to point out the in-round abuse.