Mustang Classic
2021
—
NSDA Campus,
WY/US
Judges (Debates & IES) Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Kimberly Archuleta
Hire
8 rounds
None
Alyssa Baedke
Hire
8 rounds
None
Ken Ball
Hire
8 rounds
None
Cara Bandalos
Kelly Walsh High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri December 10, 2021 at 5:57 AM MDT
Debates
Policy
Games player, mostly. If you run it, back it up and tell me why you win the round (and the other side loses).
Lincoln Douglas
Value/Criterion clash. V/C have to flow through the case for me to consider it. Again, tell me why the arguments you're making ensure you win the round (and the other side loses).
LD isn't a forum for Policy debaters looking for something fun to do. Run LD as it's meant to be run.
Public Forum
Make logical arguments and tell me why you win (and the other side loses). Also, please remember: PF isn't Policy Lite.
Congress
All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence. Analysis is great but evidence is better.
Make sure that you're truly cordial to the rest of the competitors in and out of the round.
Interps
Humor/Drama/Duo
Remember that you're interpreting your selection, not mimicking.
POI
POI is great because it not only allows for interpretation but allows the speaker to make a point about a topic that they believe is important. Use that flexibility to your advantage.
Poetry
Not all poetry rhymes and, more important, rhyming shouldn't be what moves your poem forward. Interpret what you've performing--make it matter to you.
Oratory
Persuasion is key: make me believe what you've written/what you're saying.
Informative
These are speeches designed to be info dumps that intrigue me; your visual aid shouldn't be the only part I'm interested in.
Extemp
Formatting is key: it gives you a good structure to work from and allows me to follow along easily.
Tresa Bandalos
Kelly Walsh High School
4 rounds
None
Jennifer Beagles
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:51 AM MDT
My top voting issues-
#1- Do not speak too fast and speak clearly! If I can’t understand you, how am I supposed to vote for you?
#2- Show respect to your competitors! If you ask a question, let them answer it. Your non-verbal language also shows respect, so be cautious of how you react.
#3- Give me voters- a summary of what took place shows me you know what you are talking about.
My Background-
My daughter did Policy (CX) debate and that is when I learned I do NOT like speed-reading cases. I have been coaching since 2017 and still feel like a new speech & debate coach.
If you want anything more specific, ask before the round starts.
Angelina Bellamy
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sarah Bessette
Campbell County
4 rounds
None
Tim Bessette
Campbell County
4 rounds
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:32 AM MDT
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.
Mike Bingle-Davis
Hire
8 rounds
None
Elizabeth Bleicher
Worland High School
8 rounds
None
Emily Bleicher
Hire
8 rounds
None
Taliah Blom
Hire
8 rounds
None
Eric Brinkerhoff
Hire
8 rounds
None
Ti Brooks
Hire
8 rounds
None
Bradon Bryngelson
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue February 27, 2024 at 12:31 AM MDT
Quick Notes
My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.
I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.
I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)
Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers
I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free
I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)
TRUTH OVER TECH!!!
Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous
Paradigms
-Speech Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)
The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)
How well you address your topic
I do not judge based off…
My personal interest of the topic
Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech
-Interp Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)
You will not be judged based off…
Which pieces you choose
-Debate Events
You will be judged and scored based off…
The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)
Your arguments
Your examples (including citations)
The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)
Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)
How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)
Speaker points
Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others
Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event
Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event
Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event
Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event
Hunter Bullard
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat January 30, 2021 at 2:57 AM MDT
Overall, I do not let my personal beliefs influence how I vote in a round. At any given tournament, I often vote for both aff and neg on the same topic, or give first place to an Extemp speaker I disagree with personally. I judge based on skill and in-round occurrences. Best of luck to all competitors.
Judging Debates
CX: I did CX for 3 years so you don't need to explain the debate to me. I am a very tabula rosa judge, with some basic exceptions. This is because I am also a gamemaker judge. Debate is a game and I want you to tell me legitimate impacts on your case, DAs, CPs, etc. Please don't tell me about nuke war. Please don't run topicality unless there's legitimately an abusive aff case. I do not flow questioning; if you make a good point during questioning bring it up in a speech. Oh, and I love K and theory-based debate-- when it's done right.
PF: I'm a flow judge, I did PF for a year so I understand the debate. Just make sure you cover the flow-- attack your opponent's case and defend your own. I do not flow questioning; if you make a good point during questioning bring it up in a speech.
LD: While I never did LD when I competed, I understand the debate well and have judged numerous rounds. Defend your value and criterion and tell me why it defeats your opponent's. As with the other debates, I am a flow judge and will listen to whatever you have to say. Although they are less common in LD, I do understand Ks and I am happy to hear them if they are run correctly. I do not flow questioning; if you make a good point during questioning bring it up in a speech.
Judging Speech Events
As a competitor, I had experience in Congress, Extemp, Oratory, and even a few rounds of Humor. I judge based on speaking skills, citations of evidence (where applicable), critical thinking/analysis (where applicable), and skills related to acting during speech events such as voices and character pops (where applicable).
Joni Bunce
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sarah Burger
Hire
8 rounds
None
Madelyn Burks
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rebecca Carpenter
Hire
8 rounds
None
Nicole Chitty
Hire
8 rounds
None
Adib Choudhury
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 27, 2021 at 9:04 AM CDT
I am a relatively flow judge. I value weighing, and extension of case that you want to be judged off of. I expect most delinks or turns to be addressed.
Amanda Christensen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Clarissa Cole
Evanston High School
8 rounds
None
Cole Collins
Hire
8 rounds
None
Shawndra Cooper
Hire
8 rounds
None
Judy Costalez
Hire
8 rounds
None
Stephanie Cozzens
Rock Springs
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 7:31 AM CDT
Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.
Policy:
I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.
I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.
If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.
A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -
I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.
PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.
Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.
I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.
IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.
Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.
And have fun.
Lincoln Douglas:
Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.
If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.
If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.
As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.
Public Forum:
I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!
More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.
Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.
Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.
I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.
I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?
Anyone, good luck, have fun.
Jeffrey Crouse
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sasha Davidson
Thunder Basin High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 7:49 AM MDT
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.
Gabriel DeGraeve
Hire
8 rounds
None
Grant Dillivan
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rick Dorn
Worland High School
6 rounds
None
Audrey Egan
Hire
8 rounds
None
Miriah Eisenman
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sarah Elston
Hire
8 rounds
None
Tiffanie Etcheverry
Rock Springs
2 rounds
None
Jessica Eusebio
Hire
8 rounds
None
Frank Falcon
Hire
8 rounds
None
Kim Ferguson
Sheridan HS
8 rounds
None
Kati Fink
Lovell High School
4 rounds
None
Marci Finnell
Wright High School
3 rounds
None
Diana Fittje
Hire
8 rounds
None
Emilie Fittje
Hire
8 rounds
None
Anthony Flores
Douglas HS (SD)
8 rounds
None
Irlonde Gagnon
Jackson Hole High School
8 rounds
None
Margaret Gagnon
Jackson Hole High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:17 AM MDT
You need to support assertions with analysis and evidence to make them into persuasive arguments. You need to listen to previous speakers in order to provide direct clash and expansion and to avoid mere repetition. You need to speak articulately and succinctly. Your speed needs to not preclude clarity.
Stephanie Gagnon
Jackson Hole High School
8 rounds
None
Kim Gasson
Hire
8 rounds
None
Walt Gasson
Hire
8 rounds
None
Michelle Giffin
Hire
8 rounds
None
Amber Gifford
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sean Gifford
Hire
8 rounds
None
Trinity Godwin
Hire
8 rounds
None
Zoe Gray
Hire
8 rounds
None
Mikayla Grinnell
Douglas HS (SD)
8 rounds
None
Annette Grochowski
Hire
8 rounds
None
Charlotte Gruner
Hire
8 rounds
None
Deborah Hansen
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri February 2, 2024 at 9:28 AM MDT
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!
Elizabeth Hansen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jerry Hansen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Roberta Hansen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Hamilton Hardy
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon December 25, 2023 at 2:48 PM EDT
Argumentation, Speaks
I weigh on theory
Impact Calculus
- Timeframe (when will the impact happen)
- Scope of Impact (How many people will be effected)
- Difficulty of recovery (How hard will it be get back to normal)
- Outright probability (how likely is this too happen)
- Intensity of impact (are the impacted individuals slightly hurt or seriously injured)
I respect pronouns. Just let me know.
Peyton Hatcher
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rebecca Haynes
Rawlins High School
8 rounds
None
Claire Heidel
Niobrara County High School
8 rounds
None
Saul Hernandez
Hire
8 rounds
None
Brian Hill
Evanston High School
8 rounds
None
Jeneen Hill
Hire
8 rounds
None
Carlie Hills
Hire
8 rounds
None
T. Aaron Hoffman
Hire
8 rounds
None
Heather Horne
Hire
8 rounds
None
Meagan Horne
Hire
8 rounds
None
Nick Hoskins
Green River High School
8 rounds
None
Hal Hutchinson
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jane Ifland
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rebecca Iron Cloud
Wyoming Indian High School
8 rounds
None
Jane Jach
Hire
8 rounds
None
Carolyn Jacobs
Hire
8 rounds
None
Chris Jeide
Powell High School
8 rounds
None
Sung Jun Jeon
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT
I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.
I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.
Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.
In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:
1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.
2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.
3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.
4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.
5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.
6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.
7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.
How I vote:
If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.
If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.
Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.
If you have any additional questions, let me know.
Eric Johnson
Hire
8 rounds
None
RaNae Johnson
Green River High School
8 rounds
None
Cathy Jozwik
Hire
8 rounds
None
Brendan Kachnowski
Hire
8 rounds
None
Perlene Keller
Hire
8 rounds
None
Emma Kellick
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 10:31 AM MDT
I competed in college forensics for four years, so I am very familiar with speech and debate. In high school, I competed in PF so don't break the rules, I'll know. You can talk quickly if it's understandable, however do not cross the line into spreading. If you spread in PF, I will stop flowing.
In PF and CX/policy, I vote on the flow, that is to say dropped argument, evidence, and the such.
I like clean debates so don't be rude to your opponents. Personal attacks will result in an automatic loss regardless of the rest of the flow.
In Ld debate I vote on the Value, Value Criterion, so make sure to carry that through.
If you are here because you are a policy debater... treat me kinda like a lay judge. I can follow complex arguments but I need you to clearly explain any lingo and give a good justification for why you are running a T or K over engaging with the resolution. If you choose to spread, make sure to clearly signpost everything and annunciate like your life depends on it. If I can’t understand and follow you then your arguments won’t make it to the flow.
Bethany Kelly
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jadyn Kiley
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 20, 2021 at 8:26 AM EDT
Clarity is very important to me. If you are speed reading and I can not understand you because you are mumbling. I will deduct points. It does not matter how good your argument is if I am unable to follow what you are saying. I also value organization in your delivery. When competitors are jumping around from argument to argument it is easy to get confused.
Matt Kim-Miller
Hire
8 rounds
None
Serenity Kinswoman
Hire
8 rounds
None
Stephen Koch
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 29, 2021 at 11:03 AM MDT
I was a 4 year high school debater and I carried that into college. In HS I competed in LD, PF, POLICY, Congress, Big Questions and humor so I can handle just about anything but I WILL NOT TOLERATE SPREADING! I am a Flow judge so stick to the flow and make sure you provide a roadmap and stick to it. Best of luck
Joel Kuper
Greybull High School
7 rounds
None
Oneva Kupka Spencer
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jeana Lam-Pickett
Hire
8 rounds
None
Esther Langhorn
Hire
8 rounds
None
Norma Langston
Niobrara County High School
8 rounds
None
Bill Lemonovich
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon May 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM EDT
Background for Bill Lemonovich
Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory
I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.
Email:lemonovich@verizon.net
High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.
I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.
Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms
~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !
~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !
~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !
~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing
~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'
IE Judging
~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a
'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?
Tony Lew
Rock Springs
8 rounds
None
Alex Lutz
Hire
8 rounds
None
Clarissa Lyle
Hire
8 rounds
None
Elizabel Macias
Hire
8 rounds
None
Nicole Madison-Garrett
Hire
8 rounds
None
Nicole Maier Reitz
Powell High School
6 rounds
None
Donna Mann
Wright High School
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:04 AM MDT
Debates
Lincoln Douglas
Value/Criterion clash and flow through the case. Tell me why your arguments win the round and the other side loses.
Public Forum
Make logical arguments with cited evidence and tell me why you win and the other side loses.
Congress
All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence.
Interps
Humor/Drama/Duo
Interpretation of your pieces doesn't mean copying the original. Give me insight into why this piece spoke to you.
Poetry
I like to understand what the piece(s) mean to you, so show me in your interpretation.
Oratory
Make me believe what you are saying.
Informative
Give me the information in a way that makes me want to learn more.
Extemp
Organization of your thoughts is important, as well as citing your sources (which should not be made up).
Alexander Marchal
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed April 26, 2023 at 7:51 AM EDT
I consider myself to be tabula rasa with the exception that I will insert myself into the ballot to prevent anything I view to be excessively abusive or factually incorrect. My history is primarily in policy debate but know all events well. I love impact calc/voters in all events- don't make me work the flow myself.
Gregory Marchal
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun April 19, 2020 at 5:01 AM MDT
I have plenty of experience with speech and debate in high school (I graduated in 2018), and I was fairly successful in policy and extemp at the state and national level. My experience has heavily influenced my paradigm. Here's what I'm looking for.
1. As a big picture, I like arguments that matter. This means I want to hear arguments that make sense and have importance beyond the context of winning this round. Make what you say relevant and something I should care about. You get my undivided attention for each round, so make sure I get something out of it.
2. Link work is key for me. Proving your impacts will exist with a high probability is crucial for me. Don't drop your links, and continuously extend them.
3. Once you've established your links, impact calc is big for me. Give me a good cost-benefit analysis.
4. Sign post. If you don't tell me where an argument goes on my flow, it's as good as dead to me. Make my job easy.
5. Quality over quantity. Particularly in policy, this is a strategic game, so I recognize you need to talk fast. I encourage talking fast; its necessary for the event. Please don't spread, though. Nothing upsets me more than to have my time wasted because the aff runs a terrible case with 9 advantages while the neg has 6 disads and two K's. You should make strategic decisions about which arguments to drop and extend to the 2ar/2nr, but please don't waste my time with worthless garbage.
6. I'm fine with all off case. On topicality, I won't vote down the neg because you drop it, so if you are losing the argument, then just concede and move on to something we all care about (obviously, though, I will vote down the aff because you drop it). Make sure all CPs are mutually exclusive and have a net benefit (which should be a prerequisite for a CP). For your K, make sure the link to the case is very strong and you do enough work to make your alt legit. Particularly with K's, if the link is weak or forced, just save me the time and don't run it.
7. No K Affs. If you run it, I will sign my ballot during the first speech for the other team.
8. I will vote on offense, not defense. For me, a good hearty case turn is good enough for me. A word of advice; don't drop any offensive arguments against you. If the other team drops an offensive argument, and you've done solid link work and impact development, extend it through and make it a voting issue.
9. Give me voting issues- and don't go for everything. Tell me what is most important and why. If you just say all arguments are equal and we won all arguments, that is a huge no go for me. Be strategic with your last speeches and really go for what you're winning.
Don't be jerks and disrespectful, but entertain me. Additionally, make sure I get something out of each round. Have fun!
Patrick Marchal
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue December 14, 2021 at 6:50 AM MDT
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.
Tina Mccarty
Hire
8 rounds
None
Brigitte McClintock
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 22, 2021 at 4:02 PM MDT
I have been an adjudicator for 9 years, although my experience in debate is more recent, I am adamant about constructive feedback. My sole purpose for being a judge is helping a student grow in their art form. Yes, a well debated topic is, in my opinion, an art.
I believe debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. Evidence is important but I prefer to hear your belief in your position.
LD for me is best debated with a strong value clash. Evidence is important but your ability to present and defend your value draws stronger speaker points. I give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I am more focused on the quality of argument and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you speed read in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. I don’t like speed reading unless you absolutely have to. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving into the other side of the flow or weighing. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me).
If you're one of the faster debaters on the national circuit, your top speed is probably not clear enough for me over the internet unless you are unusually clear. If I say "clear" more than once, please take the hint and slow down.
Any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions.
Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lacks professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points.
Even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.
Key things for me:
Speak clearly. Clarity is more important than speed.
2 - Have coherent arguments. I am more interested in your position and defense of it than why your opponent is lacking.
3 - Have fun! Be willing to take risks. I like creativity.
Ginger McCormick
Hire
8 rounds
None
SElizabeth McIntosh
Worland High School
8 rounds
None
Rhiannon McLean
Hire
8 rounds
None
Kevin Milburn
Laramie High School
2 rounds
None
Kaitlyn Miller
Riverside
4 rounds
None
Guillermina Monzón Paz
Hire
8 rounds
None
Adrienne M Morstad-Wyatt
Kelly Walsh High School
8 rounds
None
Tony Mraz
Douglas HS (SD)
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:46 AM MDT
Debate In General
Be Civil.
I prize good clash and Clear Arguments. I dont like speed.
Framework in PF is moot to me.
LD
I am a traditional LD judge. Value and Criteria Clash are paramount. Criteria should be ethos driven and provide a clear road to achive the value and measure the achievment of the value
I dont care for progrsssive LD.
Evidence in LD is lesss of a concern to me than reasoning.
Cross Examination is also very important to me.
I am a flow judge, so if you want it on the flow, speak clearly.
Obervations are moot to me.
Carl Myers
Hire
8 rounds
None
Emily Myers
Worland High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:09 AM MDT
Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.
What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.
Brenna Noble
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jackie O’briant
Hire
8 rounds
None
Daniel Parson
Green River High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 24, 2020 at 11:02 AM CDT
3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.
Brent Pickett
Hire
8 rounds
None
Paige Porter
Hire
8 rounds
None
Faith Powell
Hire
8 rounds
None
Megan Primus
Hire
8 rounds
None
Halley Purkey
Hire
8 rounds
None
Ki Radcliffe
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2023 at 2:03 AM MDT
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
Debra Rademacher
Glenrock JR/SR High School
8 rounds
None
Del Ramsey
Hire
8 rounds
None
Angelica Rasmussen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Monika Ratliff
Hire
8 rounds
None
Carter Reed
Cody High School
8 rounds
None
Natasha Reed
Green River High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat December 12, 2020 at 2:16 AM MDT
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.
Kaelan Rodriguez
Hire
8 rounds
None
Tricia Rosa
Jackson Hole High School
3 rounds
None
Andrew Rossi
Cody High School
8 rounds
None
Jodi Rudell
Hire
8 rounds
None
Shannon Ruiz
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sarah Schaeperkoetter
Hire
8 rounds
None
Joseph Scherden
Hire
8 rounds
None
Zach Schneider
Hire
8 rounds
None
Lisa Scroggins
Hire
8 rounds
None
Melanie Shutts
Hire
8 rounds
None
Patricia Smith
Laramie High School
2 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:43 AM MDT
I have coached and judged for over 20 years. I am willing to judge just about any event.
In debate I always wait until after the last speech to make a decision. Each speech is important and I like to hear the overall picture....the ideas...the research....how your ideas clash.
I don't have a checklist of arguments I like to see (or don't like to see) I prefer for debaters to set their own stage. I like it when debaters run advanced arguments, but in a way that supports civil discourse. Be nice to each other in round, professionalism is just as important as a well researched and presented argument.
Katrina Snyder
Hire
8 rounds
None
Peter Snyder
Hire
8 rounds
None
Melissa Sorenson
Hire
8 rounds
None
Tanya Southerland
Hire
8 rounds
None
Pamela Spitzer
Hire
8 rounds
None
James Stovall
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rosalee Swiger
Hire
8 rounds
None
Riley Talamantes
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 4:53 AM PDT
riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience
Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021
Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)
Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.
Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.
Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).
If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.
For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.
With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.
If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.
--- LD ---
While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.
Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:
1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).
2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "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...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."
3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.
4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.
6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.
Jacob Tarrant
Hire
8 rounds
None
Brian Taylor
Green River High School
8 rounds
None
Jesse Thompson
Cheyenne South High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat December 12, 2020 at 7:19 AM EDT
In debate I seek clarity and organization. Your arguments are ineffective if they are not clearly presented and linked to your case.
I prefer substance over presentation. If you have clearly stated arguments that get to the heart of your case and address the concerns of your opponents I will reward that over style or presentation.
Andrew Thornton
Riverton
8 rounds
None
Joe Thornton
Riverton
6 rounds
None
Debbie Timbers
Hire
8 rounds
None
Peter Timbers
Hire
8 rounds
None
Megan Toso
West Fargo Sheyenne High School
8 rounds
None
Shane True
Hire
8 rounds
None
Maleah Tuttle-Armajo
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 6:23 AM MST
My name is Maleah Tuttle. I did was on the Jackson Hole Debate team for 4 years in high school. I was predominantly LD debater.
I would say I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to debate.
I don't believe in the idea of spreading, if I cant hear you chances are I wont be able to judge your point well.
I don't tolerate exceptional rudeness in round.
You are welcome to do road maps on the clock but keep them brief.
Make sure to have good evidence on hand.
Non traditional arguments and aproches are more than welcome but I cant guarantee I will be convinced by them.
If you have any other questions in round please feel free to ask me.
Marvin Vinluan
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu February 22, 2024 at 8:10 AM MDT
I like to see the flow of the arguments, particularly your Value and Value Criterion throughout the debate.
Julie Volker
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jillian Wallace
Hire
8 rounds
None
Emily Walters
Hire
8 rounds
None
Trevor Warren
Hire
8 rounds
None
Heather Wetzel
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rachelle Weyerbacher
Thunder Basin High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM MDT
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
Tyler Will
Cheyenne South High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:33 AM MDT
LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.
PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....
Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.
Em Wilson
Greybull High School
7 rounds
None
Bailee Wistisen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Deena Wolf
Hire
8 rounds
None
Richard Wong
Hire
8 rounds
None
Beth Worthen
Hire
8 rounds
None
James Worthen
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 10:25 AM MDT
I debated for 8 years, both in high school and for the University of Wyoming. I have done policy, parliamentary debate, and LD. I may be a little out of practice, but I generally keep a pretty tight flow. Speed doesn’t bother me at all. So have fun, be creative, and don’t leave up to me to decide who wins an argument- tell me who wins and why.
Matt Young
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jason Zeller
Lovell High School
5 rounds
Last changed on
Mon March 8, 2021 at 9:23 AM MDT
The state of Wyoming has three very distinct debates. CX, LD and PF. PF is NOT CX-light. LD is NOT one person CX.
If you are doing CX, don't do speed. If you have to do speed, hit you taglines. If i don't get those, you lose your case. Is it worth it to speed, but end up losing?
If you are doing LD, don't do CX. Do LD. Don't give me plans, advantages to plan, counter plans and dis ads to plan. It is not a plan debate. Convince me with morals why i should vote for you, not plans and evidence.
If you are doing PF, don't do CX do PF. Make it short and concise. Very easy to listen to. PF should be the debate everyone wants to do, because anyone can understand it. If you bring in CX jargon you will lose half of your judges.
No matter what debate you do, don't do speed.
Thank you for doing your part and not spreading covid-CX.
Sophia Zettl
Hire
8 rounds
None
Collin Zoeller
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon January 25, 2021 at 2:07 PM MDT
I am currently studying Economics at a distinguished university. I understand all of the LD, PF, CX, and Congress vocabulary, and I can follow speed-reading just fine. I have competed and judged nearly all debate types, and as a competitor competed on the TOC and National circuits.
Things I look for in all debate formats:
Flow. Please guide me through your argument and make sure there are links. A tossed-argument salad is not at all appetizing. Also, if I don't hear or understand your argument I am not writing it down.
"Clash" Dropped arguments, points, cards, etc do not always result in a loss, but I definitely will not hold your side in very high regard.
Impacts. This should (howbeit briefly) include scope and magnitude. In economics terms, a case without impacts is just a positive analysis-- just a boring book report.
Civility. We are not in D.C. No debate is worth your integrity.
Kritiks, critiques, Ks, etc (for LD and CX) as well as counter plans (in CX) are fine and even encouraged.
Given Economics incorporates statistics, data analysis, and political science, I can and will call BS when I see it. Remember your integrity.
I am generally lenient with timing for prep, tech issues, data transfer, etc. Don't milk my goodwill.
Lastly, please have fun and enjoy the round!
Danielle Zoeller
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 29, 2021 at 7:05 AM EDT
CX:
No spreading please.
I would like to see impact analysis on both sides.
I am open to any type of negative argument as long as it is well supported. This includes stock issues, Kritiks, CPs, DAs, Theory, ect. I am not a huge fan of topicality arguments because they reduce clash in a round, but if the plan clearly does not fall under the topic, I will weigh them heavily.
Please cite cards every time you reference them for clarity.
LD/PF/BQ:
I like to see clash, as long as it is respectful. All evidence should be cited appropriately, at the very least with the author and year.
I would like to see impact analysis of all major arguments made on both sides.