I am a parent judge with five years of experience judging traditional debate.

I appreciate clearly developed arguments and good judge instruction (explain why you've won the round). I take thorough notes throughout the debate but don't keep a rigorous flow. The most convincing arguments in the round are the ones that will win my ballot.

Please provide a clear framework (including definitions) and explain how your offense functions under that framework.

My name is Michael Goodwyn, I went through 4 years of speech and debate for the Buhach Colony team. I was primarily LD, with impromptu just for fun, however I have experienced almost every event offered in YFL.

I like debaters who use proper logic over flat statistics, this does NOT mean to leave out any information that would back up your points, just make sure there is some path of logic when arguing. I prefer traditional styles of debate, and hold a negative opinion about spreading. Other than that, just be sure to be courteous to your competitor(s), and I will see you in round.

When it comes to speaking, there isn't much to say other than to pay attention to your fellow speakers without disruptions. I don't think anybody in speech would check this, but I would like to think this is common sense anyway.

Good Luck

I’m an IPDA judge through and through. Honestly I’ll follow pretty much any argument. I don’t like spreading, I think it can kill the debate when your opponent can’t follow. I’ve got a pretty extensive debate background, I was third in the nation in IPDA a couple years ago, that being said I’m not a fan of debate lingo for debate lingo sake. Explain to me as if I’m your buddy’s mom who got asked to judge yesterday. Meaning don’t just say they dropped solvency or something like that explain to me why it matters that they dropped solvency, that’s true argumentation. If you have other questions about my paradigm feel free to ask me before the round, I don’t mind that.

If you’re here for I.Es, I like those.

When Linking out to Nuclear war make sure to have a strong, evidenced-based link chain.

Tell me what you want me to do. Give me voters. You won't get credit for things you don't say.

Competitive Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Extemp, OA, PuFo, LD

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Coaching Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Assistant (Alumni) Coach; Head Coach/Program Coordinator

Judging Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - All events

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Background

I have been involved in speech & debate in some capacity since high school and competed at the collegiate level. My emphasis has namely been geared towards extemporaneous speaking and debate (namely PuFo, LD, and Policy/CX). Though I'm new to coaching, I've been in this community of wall takers for over 10 years and love every minute of it!

In terms of my general judging philosophy I'd say two phrases should be considered, those being "tabula rasa" (clean slate) and "sell me!". My perspective is that it's the competitors burden to prove to the judge or show why their performance is equipped to pick up the ballot. Certainly I can make the connection and piece together the narrative/story, but the more you ask me to intervene the more I have to implement my biases into the round. Long-story short it's disheartening to see competitors lose rounds because they leave ambiguity to be pieced together, and as a former competitor who has lost more than one round to this - I don't want to do the same to other speakers/debaters.

In general, from a technique standpoint if you act as though your judges are lay judges it's easier to ramp up than it is to tone back.

Debate Cues

1) Procedures - Card quals, roadmapping, and signposting

These make for a smooth round and much more efficient! Do your judge a favor and get things moving the longer the day, the less quality the adjudication- we get tired too haha

2) Arguments - Impact Calculus, Topicality, and Solvency

I generally am pretty open to what is brought forth, hence my "tabula rasa" spiel, but need to see a clear end result from either team in the debate. Whoever has the more believable and impact narrative will pick up the ballot.

3) Evidence - Needs to be there, this is debate...

No matter the style of debate, if you make an argument it needs to be proven in some way. If not then you ask me to be an "activist judge" where bias takes precedence over argumentation, in my view this is unfair to the competitors and bad for debate.

4) Sportsmanship - We all want to learn from this experience

Compete with honest intent and assertion, but not to cause harm. Too many a time debates get ugly and personal, that's not why we're here. This is a learning opportunity and academically stimulating. Let's keep it civil and competitive.

Speech Cues

1) Structure - Clear and concise

My coach taught me this rule and it's what I teach unto others: a) Tell them what you're gonna tell them; b) Tell them; c) Tell them what you told them. There should be a logical pattern in your speech.

2) Impact - Make it personable

Cultural competency is a really big aspect of public speaking that goes unsung. Find someway to connect with your audience and give us something tangible to take away from the speech, once completed.

3) Creativity - Bring it to life

I have a really special place for Interps and OPP because it brings forth the creative energy and so too can other speeches. Make this speech an experience for us to enjoy!

4) Authentic - You are the centerpiece

With speaking you are the epicenter, give the audience a reason to divert their attention to you! Also, bring some creativity to the forefront this makes for a more compelling speech.

Email: wildes.adam5@gmail.com for any email chain, please.

Speed: If I have the document go as fast as you please if I can't get a document, anything over the slightest spreading I will struggle to flow, so I will say "clear" and after 2-3 times if you still don't slow down I will put my pen down until you slow down.

I have competed in most debates, but mainly CX, Parli, and congress. I have experience watching and doing a light competition in PF, and LD, so I am comfortable to judge them.

I vote tech over truth, as even a bad point is better than no argument, but I do take validity into account, so if I think the argument holds no validity at all, and you don't prove to me that it should, I will prefer basically any defense made over the original argument.

For me, more policy-based arguments, logistical arguments, and impact weighting are things I tend to vote on. That being said, any good argument I will clearly weigh and feel comfortable voting for.

Finally, please be generous during cross ex or crossfire, I want both teams to have time to answer questions and ask them, feel free to stop them after you get an answer, but don't try to bully them during cross. Most importantly don't be rude, and respect me, other judges, and your opponents, and we should have no issues.