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

Debate Paradigms:

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

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

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

Debate:

Being well versed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas in my high school career, I know how to flow pretty well and usually am good with understanding the verbiage of anything in that area. I will approve off-the-clock roadmaps, abide by the 30-second grace period for speeches, and as long as you know the difference between being assertive and aggressive, that will help the pace of the round.

I don't particularly care for super fast speakers and if I am having a hard time understanding you, know that you are probably going to be losing speaker points. There is a difference between speaking with diction and clarity at a fast pace OR going through a case at lightning speed that doesn't make any sense. If you are trying to cram evidence at the cost of sacrificing comprehension, that is something that needs to be restructuring before you are reading these paradigms :)

Finally, please know that arguments structured on the basis of having more cards or evidence than the opposition will not be a swaying factor for me in final speeches. That time is dedicated to you proving to me that your arguments should be upheld, and not making new attacks on your opponent. Unless this is a novice tournament, you should be aware of the key points in this speech and how it should be formatted in accordance of the rules.

ALSO, if you make a statement that the opponents never made a certain argument and my flow says otherwise, I will have to drop that voter. Please respect the "new arguments" rule too, it really shouldn't be something that is brought up in closing.

Interp. Events:

Doing these events requires a lot of structure already so know that I am not a stickler on formatting your speech a specific way. I've done many events under this umbrella so I will follow the rubric of what it calls for and know that if you can give a speech or a performance that allows me to follow along with your logic, opinion, or piece in a cohesive manner, that will work for me.

The only room for me to have an opinion should truly be on your ability to project, command the room and figure out how you were able to convey your topic in a manner that is memorable when compared to your competitors in the round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

Please put me on the email chain: jlfwillson@gmail.com

Updated 1/9/2024

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a 2nd year policy debater at the University of Wyoming and debate coach for Hot Springs County High School. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance.

LD

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for three years in high school. I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted. Debate is a space for students to do what they want, so "this isn't policy debate" isn't a real argument. Explain why what they have done is bad for LD, don't just assert that is. This is probably best done on the framework level of the debate, have a value that prioritizes theory over pragmatism and convince me that their focus on consequences is bad.

PF

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Case

Teams should have better case debates around a few, well-developed args in the 2NR. I like to see a bunch of stuff to test the AFF early and then boil down to one or two positions per sheet that have a really convincing story. Go in-depth and use examples and applications to show why it mitigates the solvency of the AFF and makes the DA/Alt more threatening. Teams go for too much in the 2NR/2AR, make the debate small and powerful.

Ks vs. Policy AFF

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts and how it solves the links. Make sure link packages are specific to the AFF and explain the links that were made in the round. Overviews are cool because they provide an opportunity to engage with the impacts of the AFF and solvency to create a presumption push.

FW vs. K AFF

FW is a T argument at its core, so you should provide me with impacts for why their model of debate is bad for topic engagement. I will evaluate both fairness and clash as impacts, although I tend to be more persuaded by clash and skills. TVAs help a lot, give me reasons it accesses their lit base and solves your offense. I will vote on AFF impact turns, but I like to see a well developed counter-interp. This should function like a counterplan/alt that solves the AFF and NEG offense. Debating about debate is one of the most fun parts about this activity, so enjoy your opportunity to have a meta discussion about the activity you are participating in!

T

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated. Explain why grounds and limits are important to the debate i.e. why they are internal links to your larger impacts. 2NRs should directly compare models of debate, what does debate look like under their interpretation, what's the case list, is there a TVA? These are all very important questions to answer.