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.

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'm a tab judge. Debated Policy through high school, BP in college, now I coach for the Denver Urban Debate League. I don't feel any particular way about theoretical positions or certain authors. I'm fine with speed. I am not likely to vote on tiny technical drops unless they have been seriously impacted out by the opposite team. I think debate is a game, and we are trying to make thoughtful and strategic moves to best our opponent, so I will reward analytical steps taken towards that objective. I vote on K affs, including affs that don't defend a plan text and pretty much anything you're willing to throw at me. My pet peeve is poorly extended warrants. At the end of the day, you should be telling me why you win. Your rebuttals should write my RFD for me. More than happy to provide additional feedback or advice outside of rounds, contact me by email.

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.

Travis Cram

Director of Debate, Western Washington University

Years Judging: several

Email chain/contact: traviscram@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate, but I have been most involved the past 6 years through developing CARD (https://www.westerndebateunion.org/pnwdebate). I do not often judge debates these days, but every now and then I have the chance. Here are things about my approach that I think are significant:

1. I flow closely, and I think you should too.
2. I work hard to keep an open mind about the issues and arguments that are offered throughout a debate. I believe my purpose is to consider how effective you were at communicatingandarguingrather than evaluating the actual, empirical truth of a statement. At the same time, that purpose often asks me to consider how effective you were in convincing me that your argumentative content istrue or desirable. I will inevitably, as is true for everyone, have to resort to my own filters and experiences in making those assessments. However, I will always work to keep what was said or argued in a debate in focus as I decide and critique.
3. I provide post-round feedback that seeks to provide instruction and lessons for future debates, rather than reporting the (dry) details of how I decided this debate. I thus often discuss better paths taken, or ask you to think about how arguments, evidence, or perspectives interact in a larger sense. If you want more detailed explanations for how I resolved minutiae on the flow, please ask. I find my time is better spent providing future-thinking advice (my training in education tells me it is also in your interest), and so that is how I will couch my feedback.
4. Debate is about communication. It is also about research, advance preparation, and strategy. However, there is not a day I wake up where I am not going to be mostly concerned with the communicative, rhetorical, and argumentative elements of debate. The values and standards of communication may vary based on the format and participants, and I will work to meet participants (and the format) where they are at. However, I hold the expectation that the primary purpose behind debate is to learn how to communicate and argue well, particularly through oral communication.
5. The affirmative has the burden to prove a comprehensive case for change, and everyone has the burden to prove any single individual argument offered by them. The debate should focus on the topic, with the affirmative endorsing it. I do not provide a deeper theory beyond that. It is your debate; I expect you to provide those things. They are known as arguments.

There are a few things that I am increasingly not willing to compromise on. Those are important to know as well:

1. Value people.I believe you should show everyone who participates a basic level of respect even as you work through serious disagreements with them. Everyone has an obligation to promote community, or at the very least not actively undermine it.
2. Value debate, especially at the collegiate level. A considerable amount of resources are constantly expended to create the opportunity for people to debate. Seize and honor the opportunity, regardless of your goal or experience level.

I am happy to answer questions for those who ask in good faith.

I was a high school debater for Rock Springs High School, one time national attendee. I have debated Public Forum and World's Schools, but I spent the most time in Policy debate.

add me to the email chain, x.hannacrockett.x@gmail.com

feel free to email me after the round if you have questions

POLICY

I will vote on just about any well-articulated argument. If someone brings up an outlandish argument but the other team drops it, that argument wins, so long as it is properly structured.

I vote on impacts, even if they're theoretical. Impact calculus is big.

I believe that the merits of arguments should be debated in round, by which I mean, I won't vote you down because I think XYZ is unfair. That is an argument to be made in round by the other team. Again, there must be impacts for the argument to be weighed (I tend to not vote on "fairness" arguments. Education is a much more compelling in-round impact).

I'm well versed in speed, but if clarity is sacrificed, you'll lose speaks (yes, even if you put me on the email chain).

I'm comfortable with any kind of argument, so go ahead and run your K's and theory args.

I won't vote you down for being impolite in cross, but if things are blatantly aggressive, you'll lose speaks.

Faking/misrepresenting evidence will lose you the round, but it's up to the other team to point that out.

Open cross is fine, but if both teams prefer it to be closed, that's also fine.

I won't do the work of extending arguments for you. I will only flow what you tell me to.

I'm not directly familiar with this year's topic, keep that in mind.

PF

I support progressive PF, so try it out if you'd like, but I'm also very familiar with trad style. The point of this event is to show that you are an exceptional communicator, so I expect clarity and in depth explanations.

The team that better handles clash, and best articulates the superiority of their case, wins.

LD

I am the least familiar with LD as a debate, but I am well versed in the philosophy that is often used, and am familiar with most values/criteria.

I have the most experience with traditional LD, but I will not hold you to the traditional standard. Feel free to run progressive arguments or use progressive styles.

I lean heavily on provided frameworks when judging LD, but please for the love of everything, give me good clash.

As with any debate, I judge mainly on impact calculus. In this particular style of debate, creating a narrative that displays your impacts will serve you well.

I am not familiar with this topic, clarity is expected.

OVERALL

I will not vote for a team that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise makes the debate space unsafe. I will give you the loss, zero speaks, and I will inform your coach.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

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

Previous policy debater. I will vote on theory or anything traditional as long as you present it well. Put impacts and voters on your arguments. Don't shy away from probability impacts, we do not always need high magnitude climate/nuclear extinction impacts. Your tags should be clear, presenting the argument of the evidence. Think of your case through your tag lines, does it make sense if the cards are not included? If not, you should ake the outline structure of your case logical and it will do wonders for the case.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

I am a former PF debater, I am flow judge. Don't forget to Weigh arguments. I will flow logic arguments, cards aren't needed for anything.

I am first and foremost a tabula rasa judge. I will vote on your framework and impacts, so please give them to me. Please save enough time and do an excellent job on providing your voting issues.

I don't like topicality unless it is actually warranted, but you can go for it if you like. I prefer real-world impacts and debate, but if you run a K or anything else correctly and well I will consider it the same as anything else. I am a state champion policy and congressional debater. Speed is totally fine with me. Please be cordial with your opponents, as I place high priority on being professional and kind.

Experience: I competed for four years in policy debate at Green River HS. I won State once and qualified for Nationals twice in World Schools Debate. I competed in IPDA for two years at Eastern Wyoming College and did another year of Policy at UNLV.

Overview: I'll buy whatever you say if you give me enough of a reason to. Want to blow up the moon? Cool! I'm down for that. A boring policy debate can be excruating. I want to see debaters bring something to the table that I haven't seen before and get my attention. Get heated, but don't personally insult anyone or cause any bodily harm. Otherwise, you can swear, you can yell. I'm comfortable with K debates. I'm comfortable with speed, but I'll stop you if you become inarticulate.

Please signpost along the way so I know where to be on the flow.

Roadmaps are off the clock if you can be timely about them.

You WILL get bonus speaker points if you can make a meaningful reference to Space Jam.

PF:

I've never done PF in my life and I've only watched a handful of rounds. With that being said though, I think it's one of the most straightforward styles of debate I've ever seen. It's a raw debate without any of the jargon that comes with the other styles, and I'm about that. I know my way around an argument so I'm confident that I can judge your arguments with the same degree of effort that you put into them.

LD:

Like PF, I have never done LD, and I've only watched a handful of rounds in my life. With that, I know argumentation. You just may have to break down the LD jargon for me during the round. Like my CX paradigm though, I'm still looking to be entertained and I want to see something different.

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).

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.

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

I am a college student who debated for four years of high school in mainly PF and Congress with a dash of policy in the west. The following are my paradigms:

PF: I will vote 99% on the voters you give me, so make them obvious and make them count. I know debate vocabulary changes regionally, so no need to call them voters exactly but I will always be grateful to teams that say something to the tune of, "The three essential voting issues of today's debate are x, y, and z and we win them for the following reasons...." in the final focus particularly and often in the summary speech. If your opponents do this and you don't, then more often than not you WILL lose the round. It makes my job much easier when you tell me what to vote on; if you make me figure out what your strongest arguments are instead of telling me them, then all of your winning chances fall on which arguments I pick, which will not always be the same ones you would choose. BOTTOM LINE: I will vote on (almost) anything as long as you tell me to, and not telling me what to vote on can result in a loss. The remaining 1% is me willing to vote you down for being unsportsmanlike or otherwise toxic to debate; be careful to walk the fine line between aggressive debate and disrespectful debate. In PF, I strongly encourage debaters to speak persuasively as if to a general audience. I will flow the round, but I will vote up a team that sensibly persuades me over a team that spreads 20 contentions into one speech so that their opponents drop one. I discourage speed in PF; it distracts from proper and in-depth argumentation. Evidence is important, but be prepared to back up statistics with logical conclusions, impacts, etc. In 7 years of being involved in debate, I've not once heard a useful roadmap in PF, so anything more than telling me where you are going to start is not recommended (unless other judges in a panel particularly DO call for road maps, of course).

On a final note, don't be scared by the somewhat harsh asks and ~all-caps~ text above. I like competitors who have fun with it, so don't feel pressured to take everything too seriously.

LD: See PF paradigm. Coming from a traditional PF background, I tend to give more weight to practical arguments, but I will vote on any well-thought out and well-explained argument, practical, moral, or otherwise.

Policy/CX: I have limited experience with policy debate, but am willing to vote on any argument, regardless of complexity, if it is well supported and you give me enough reasoning as to WHY that argument merits a vote. I was never formally taught what a kritik is or the anatomy of a topicality, but I will vote on either if you spend enough time telling me the significance of each element being argued. Evidence is big and will often decide close rounds on important points like solvency. Speed is fine here, but if I've put down my pen I've stopped following. Roadmaps and clear signposting are a must.

Congress: Above all, I will award congressional debaters who progress the round in some fashion. Every point discussed should either combat a previously made point, create a new argument, or point out a novel development in a previously made point. I try my hardest to reward a good, efficient chairperson.

Thank you for reading! I'm more than happy to answer any questions about anything above before the round.

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.

(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

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.

I am a speech and debate couch in Wyoming, I am a former Policy Debator and now coach it for my team. I enjoy speed so long as I can understand you, if you are slurring your words and it is not able to be heard well I find this is not good debate practice. Clash is the biggest part of a debate and thus needs to occur if there is no debate or clash that is actually presented then the highest speaker will win.

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.

Wyoming 2021 Paradigm:

I am currently a law student at Penn State Law and former high school CX/Policy debater and extemporaneous speaker. I don't keep up with resolutions and judge infrequently, so it is always a good idea to fill me in on the latest developments in debate. Pronouns: he/him/his.

CX: I qualified for Nationals and won State and Districts in high school, so speed and argumentation aren't an issue (beware that internet issues may keep me from receiving all you have to say if you decide to speed-read.) I'll try to let you know if it becomes a major issue, but once some things are in the void, there is no getting them back. I am a fairly traditional judge that will default stock issues/policy maker. However, if you feel it would be advantageous to have me view the round differently, persuade me in-round. I'll hear you out.

I will flow and will base my decision largely on the argumentation you tell me to put there. I'll listen to your analytics, but evidence wins, so make sure you are clear on your sources, signpost, and flow through important arguments. Teams that make me do less work, (politely) take control of the round, and keep things organized generally have an advantage when it comes time for me to sign the ballot. Taking time in your rebuttals to establish the arguments and voters for the round- and then sticking to those- will earn you speaker points and improve your chances of winning. That being said, don't try to force arguments or waste time repeating yourselves again and again. I will stop flowing when things get too mundane.

Run your arguments well- I love legit K/T/CPs, but if you are running them as a time suck or just because your opponent won't understand them, I'd rather you stick to well structured DAs and stock issues so we have clash and I keep flowing beyond the 2AC. It may not be perfect, but have meaningful links and impacts for your positions. The x = global nuclear war (and similar) structure has been around since before my time, and unless argued well, will be hard to win me on.

Off the clock roadmaps are fine, don't drag them out, make them clear and concise, and stick to them by signposting in your speech.

Feel free to ask me about anything else in-round. I'll generally side with state or tournament rules on more administrative and procedural issues (timing and prep, evidence sharing, argumentation for novices), but I try to be laid back and accommodating for all.

PF/LD: I've judged these events at upper levels but never competed in them personally. It will be easiest for you to consider me a layman, but I will be judging the quality of argumentation and basing my decision in large part off my flow. Make sure you are rebutting your opponent's arguments, defending your own. Feel free to ask me anything more specific in-round.

I really hope IEs don't read this looking for insight .

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.