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.

This is my first year debating on the collegiate circuit, however, I competed for two years in high school as well. I am currently competing in PF, but I have experience in LD and Oratory as well (I have also dabbled in Extemp debate, Impromptu, and Storytelling).

Overall be respectful, please ensure that your arguments make sense and come from valid sources. In high school, speaker points are kinda weird and, in my opinion, superficial so don’t really take them to heart, however, I will try to award them justly. If you drop arguments, it will make it significantly more difficult for you to win the round, so please signpost so I know that you are responding to arguments.

LD: This is my favorite event, I love competing in LD, and as such I am a flow judge. Off time roadmaps are okay with me. Please follow the flow and try to signpost, it makes for a higher level debate. I will be writing down arguments, and I will come to my decision based on what is on the flow and the voters you provide me with. I am slightly biased towards a more traditional style as that is the way I debate, but I am open to other styles of debate as well. I am okay with spreading, I understand how difficult it can be to make all the arguments you need in the time that you need. Just make sure I can understand your arguments, if I can’t flow it, I can’t judge it. I will also be timing you, so please let me know when you are using prep. I will prompt you with times, if you go over you have a 30 second grace period. When this ends, I will cut you off to respect your opponent's time. Make sure the debate remains respectful, do not ask personal questions in CX. Target arguments not your opponent. Some quick tips for those less experienced, impact calc is helpful, also the framework debate is important but it doesn't need to be a voter, it can but I don't think it is always necessary. Overall just be respectful, follow the flow, and keep me in the loop.

PF: I am currently debating PF on the collegiate level and although I do not have a ton of experience, I do understand it fairly well. Please be respectful, especially during cross examination. If you want a follow up question, please don't just take one, ask your opponent for one. I will be flowing and subsequently judging the round based on which arguments still stand in the round as well as which case is best supported in round. I will take into account impact calc and other arguments that you make to prove why your side is better. A helpful tip is to spend time reaffirming your case, if neither side does this and spends all of their time refuting their opponents it makes the round significantly more difficult to decide. Make sure to spend time telling me why you're right, not just why your opponent is wrong.

CX: I have not competed in this event and as a result, I will judge the debate based upon how you tell me to judge it i.e. impact calc, voters, etc. I will also be trying to flow so make sure to follow the flow. As I said above, I am okay with spreading, just make sure I can understand your arguments, if I can’t flow it, I can’t judge it. Please be respectful. And I will hopefully be timing but I may not know the speech times so, please keep me in the loop.

Debate can be difficult, good luck!

Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest Champion 2023

add me to the email chain -wyomingjaden@gmail.com

General Info

I am a college Policy debater for Wyoming

Debate is fun, you should make it safe and enjoyable for everyone. Please do not turn CX into a screaming match, that is not enjoyable for anybody.

Good warrants always beat out bad cards.

Impact and evidence comparison is great - write my ballot for me.

Cross-x is a speech, I flow the arguments made here. Once the timer goes off CX is over -if you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me, your speech time is up.

Please get to your room as early as possible - I don't want to be the one to have to track you down right before a round starts.

Please do not refer to me as "judge." I think it is a bit too formal - just call me Jaden :)

Policy

Theory Stuff:

Any theory but condo is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Infinite condo is probably good, but the aff can definitely win condo bad. Uniform 50 state fiat seems to be illogical. Process counterplans are mostly legitimate - but the neg needs to present a depth of evidence that they are germane to the plan/topic.

Topicality is fun - make sure you contextualize impacts - offense is everything in these debates. Tell me why your vision for debate is best. Please don't just be a definition robot.

I think case debate is great and that people don't do it enough :).

I evaluate non-trad affs like any other argument - run whatever you want! I am not super familiar with a bunch of K lit bases, so I would appreciate it if you explain the arguments in depth and their importance like you would any other policy argument.

LD

Infinite condo is less good for LD. The aff is still served well by pointing out specific time/strat skew that occurred in round.

LARP > K > phil >>>> tricks

Disclosure theory is silly. Unless you are an incredibly small school or it was a blatant violation I am almost never persuaded by this.

PF

Please create an email chain. This will make it easier for everyone involved. Add your opponents to the email chain as well.

I do not consider urls evidence, you need to provide the cite as well as a cut card.

Every piece of evidence that you don't share is something I assume you made up and is a -0.5 in speaks.

"Correlation not causation" is not a real argument. Explain to me why this is true - indict their evidence, don't just say this and move on.

A lot of PF is two-ships passing in the night. Try to narrow down as much as possible in the final speeches and do as much comparison as you can. Even if your evidence is good, it is hard for me to vote if I don't have some explanation on how it outweighs/why it might be better than that of your opponents.

Please add me to the email chain - wyokaitlyn@gmail.com

--General Stuff--

I'm a second year policy debater for University of Wyoming and two time qualifier to the NDT.

Debate is fun, you should make it safe and enjoyable for everyone.

Good warrants beat out bad cards.

Impact and evidence comparison is great - write my ballot for me.

Be clear in transitioning from cards to tags to analytics - monotone makes it harder to flow and will hurt your speaks.

Cross-x is a speech, I flow the arguments made here. Prep time is not CX time - asking questions outside of small clarifications during prep time is not what prep time is for and I will not flow those arguments.

Please do not send cards in the body of the email chain. Please use an email chain instead of speech drop.

Don't need to call me judge - just Kaitlyn is fine.

--Policy Stuff--

Any theory but condo is a reason to reject the argument not the team. Infinite condo is probably good, but the aff can win condo bad. Best neg offense is neg flex, affs should point out specific conditionality abuse in round. Hard debate is good debate.

Case debate is great - people don't do it enough. Love creative turns, innovation is good.

Topicality is fun - make sure you contextualize impacts - offense is everything in these debates. Tell me why your vision for debate is best - don't just be a definition robot.

For clash debates, give me a reason the aff is bad. The cap K vs K affs is probably not a reason the aff is bad - it will lose to the perm unless you have a hyper specific link. Same is true for Ks v. policy affs - need a reason why the aff's scholarship, impact, ideas, etc. is bad - or it will lose to the perm.

Fairness is an internal link not an impact on framework. Clash, skills, etc. are impacts - and they are often good ones.

Not sold on out of round spillup for K affs - give me a reason why your aff is good besides more people will talk about it out of round.

I've only judged a few debates on this topic - don't assume I know what you're talking about or the acronyms used.

--LD Stuff--

LARP > K > phil > tricks

Infinite condo is less good for LD - aff is still served well by pointing out specific time/strat skew that occurred in round.

I am a University of Wyoming CPFL debater and judge, I also compete in collegiate speech in POI and Persuasive Speaking (OO). For Debate: I value signposting, On-the-clock roadmaps, line-by-line clashing, and link work. I like facts and figures but relate it to something easier to picture, there can be TOO MANY stats if it is not tied back to the central issue, or simplified. Respect in CX goes a long way, and being passionate in your speech tends to amplify your impact.

Pace is prized, if you are going so fast I can’t flow it, you lose arguments as I can’t track them all. Don’t let your mouth get ahead of your brain, it’s okay to pause and breathe.

For Speech Events: Make me feel and understand your topics, if you have no passion in your topic chances are neither will I as the judge. I am easy to please in speech events, I love a good emotional tug in OO, POI, POE, Drama, etc. Don't be afraid to stick out from the pack, make me remember you and left thinking about your piece/topic.

Judging history includes LD, PF, Congress, Oratory, EXT, Humor, and Drama, DUO. I have judged invitationals and High School National Qualifiers, and State.

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.

I’m more of a policy maker judge. I prefer to see good policy passed and i want it to be reasonable. Ks are ok for Cx and i like to see a civil round.

CPFL

I like big impacts and critical arguments. I need the impact to have a realistic logic chain and to heavy link. Make sure you do impact calc in your closing speeches and to tell me where to vote. 

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.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

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.

Experience:

2 Years High School Congressional Debate

Two Years Collegiate Public Forum Debate

One Year Collegiate Extemporaneous Speaking and Persuasive Speaking

LD Debate:

By my own admittance, my experience in LD is limited. However, I do have a few main things that I favor when judging. I like to see clash, so make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. Make sure that you are using both offensive and defensive strategies, as I will ultimately judge based on which side has more arguments still standing. However, keep in mind that not all arguments are equal. If you can prove that your argument bears more significance, or that your opponents' have less, I will count that in your favor. If your opponent drops a point, call them out on it. You can speak fast, I can keep up, but make sure you are still speaking clearly- I can't give you points for things I didn't hear or understand properly. Finally, don't outright lie about what your opponents have said. Misunderstandings happen, and it's fine to attempt to underplay what your opponents have said as well (if they don't call you on it), but do not claim that your opponents have made an argument that they clearly have not, or that they have not made a certain argument that they clearly have. You will lose lots of points from me if you do this.

Congressional Debate:

Speakers- For your speeches, as long as you deliver your points well and make your case clearly, I don't really care what conventions you break for the most part. However, I do have a few things I want to see:

• Make your arguments clearly, and in a way that is easy to understand. Additionally, don't make assumptions about what I know, lay everything out
• I'm here to hear your arguments, not other people's words. Relevant quotes and direct quotes from evidence both are useful and have their uses, but if that's all you have to say in your speech, then I'm not hearing you speaking. I value logic and chaining evidence together to create a full argument much more than just quoting a bunch of sources and letting them do the talking.
• Please speak clearly, structure your speech, and signpost. If I can't understand what you're saying, or I miss how things connect in your speech or where you transition to different points, I can't properly judge those parts of your speech.
• Having several points is good, but I do prefer more in-depth analysis of a few key points than a vague overview of a lot (quality over quantity)
• Finally, be respectful to your fellow competitors. I like to see clashes between speeches, but be respectful and courteous while doing so

Chairs- I respect chairing a lot, and I know how difficult it is to do, so I'm not going to place you low in the chamber just because you made a mess-up or two, as long as they are fairly minor and you handle them well. At the end of the day, as long as you keep the chamber moving smoothly and make good decisions when needed, I'll rank you fairly high. However, I will rank an excellent job chairing much more highly, and on the flipside, if you really mess up, I will rank you much lower.

Public Forum Debate:

In Public Forum debate, my judging is fairly straight-forward. Clash with your opponent, make sure that you're attacking and defending instead of just one or the other, I value how you connect evidence more than the evidence on its own so make sure that you're clearly connecting all your evidence to your argument and not just reading off a bunch of cards, and make sure to be courteous to your opponent. In addition, however, I do have a few things that I do not want to see in rounds:

• Please do tell me why you win and your opponents lose, but don't outright lie to me about what has or hasn't been said in the round. If your opponents didn't make an argument, don't tell me that they made that argument. If your opponents attacked one of your points, don't tell me that they didn't address that point. Instead, in the former case, tell me why your opponents' stance leads to that conclusion, and in the latter, tell me why their attacks/defenses weren't sufficient.
• In crossfire, don't dominate the time, and keep questions and answers brief and to the point. Also don't get off topic, or use crossfire as just more speech time, I will mark you down severely for this. Furthermore, once again,be courteous. Don't interrupt others during crossfire unless they are taking far too much time.
• Additionally, regarding crossfire, don't use loaded or leading questions (loaded questions being ones that have an assumption built in to them, and leading questions being questions framed to force a certain answer that is disingenuous). I will dock points for such questions, and you are within your rights to refuse answering a question that seems to be of either type. However, I do also commend debaters that are clever enough to turn these questions to their benefit.
• I am fine with roadmaps either on the clock or off the clock, whichever the competing teams would prefer. However, if both teams disagree, my default will beon the clock.
• Don't talk a-mile-a-minute. If I can't understand you or can't keep track of your argument, I can't tell how good of a job you actually did. Slow down a bit, focus on enunciation, and make sure I can follow what you're saying.

Also of note, I will be flowing debates, and I will be keeping track of where arguments go and what is countered where. If you drop points, I will notice, however it is still the duty of the opposing team to point out what points have been dropped. Basically, I'll flow the debate so I can properly judge it and so that I know if someone is disingenuous, but it's still up to the debaters to give effective summary and final focus speeches that tell me what points stand and why they win and their opponents lose.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

My criteria for limited preparation events is simple: structure, presentation, persuasiveness, and content. If you can do each of those well, and be within time, you're golden.

I look forward to judging for you, and here's to some great debate rounds!

Experience:

Did Congressional debate, duo, POI, drama (briefly), World Schools Debate at 2 nationals

Currently competing in CPFL (College PF)

Debate:

I'll buy any argument but unethical ones (ie. sexist, racist, etc...) if you provide necessary evidence or explanation. I want to see clash and weighing. I want to see arguments responded to, if they aren't I'll consider that you conceded.

Please have good debate etiquette! - Respectful of opponent, etc.

Congress:

I'll buy any argument but unethical ones if you provide evidence. I want to see evidence in your speeches. Keep in mind, this is congressional debate and you have to consider your 'constituents' so don't just blow hot air.

I would like to see response and rebuttal to other representative/senators points. If not you are giving the same speech as those other like three people and what's the point in that then?

Speech:

I'll judge on your presentation (this includes but is not limited to: blocking, memorization, presentation overall, etc.)

Note for Poety and POI: If you have VA (visual aids) in any form in your performance in your book and show them to me, you will be docked :/ Simply, just follow the rules.

Note for Duo: If you touch each other, you'll be docked. If you look directly at each other, other than scanning, you'll be docked. Simply, just follow the rules.

CONTACT:

If you have any questions regarding your round, feedback, etc. contact me: clayton.keasling@gmail.com. If you reach out, please include some information so I know whom I'm addressing since you judge many people as once. Thanks!

Have fun and Good luck!

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.

Updated Nov 14th for John Lewis LD Tournament:

Please don't dox me with this paradigm I'm literally just trying to judge debate rounds

I'm a Policy debater for UW I've only debated policy but I've judged policy/PF/LD and speech events. Pronouns: he/him Put me on the email chain please rknopp68@gmail.com

I feel comfortable evaluating and voting for Prog and Trad args, I will listen to any arg you make, but I do not tolerate Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Transphobia, or anything of the like. Besides that all arguments are valuable and I will treat them as such and I expect yall to do the same.

CX is a speech and I flow it. Because I've had this problem before: questions after CX can be clarifying but not argumentative prep time is prep time.

Clarity > Over Speed: Spreading is fine and probably necessary to get through your case but when you're making theory/analytics (anything thats not on the doc) slow down a bit. Online debate means you should be going at 85(ish)% speed and when you're doing analytics should be like 75-80%. I need to be able to hear/understand your args to flow/vote for them.

I NEED to see your ev. your arguments based on ev lose a lot (if not all) of their credibility if your opponent asks to see the ev and you dont have it.

More specifically:

I /Love/ K debate-Links to the aff probably make the K more legit but discourse links and reps are also solid links but you need to win why they are important. K affs for LD seem pretty cool too. Im familiar with queer/fem lit as well as discourse shapes reality args but I always love seeing new Kritiks so yeah. I think that PIKs are generally cool and the nicher the better :)

Process CPs are cheater CPs that justify Intrinsic Perms.

T/FW: Generally split the difference Aff should get to weigh the plan and the Neg should get links to scholarship and reps. K affs should also get to weigh their advocacy and needs to defend why and how they operate outside the res. K affs are affs too and dont auto lose to T/FW if neg is gonna go for this arg it needs to be really well explained.

DAs are fine uniqueness and link work are the biggest concerns.

Hi,

I'm Caius Krupp, A college student in Political Science. Before that i was a CX/Policy debater for 4 years in high school, and a congressional debater as well. I enjoy debates with a lot of clear clash between the aff and neg case. Below I've separated my paradigms based on events. In general however if you are found to be rude or disrespectful outside of a round, or in anyway sexist/racist then I will change my ballot to reflect that.

CX

I am no stranger to K, Theory, Topicality, and other nuanced CX debate styles. However K's should have a direct link into the case, that increases clash and provides a productive round. Using K's of communities you are not impacted by is also a bit of a red flag, Do not be reading me Set col or Afro pes as a full white team as these arguments poorly reflect on you as an individual. Nothing is off the table, but think with some foresight on how you look debating this case.

PF

Anything goes, But please do not waste CX time asking if you may ask a question or a follow up. Please keep the clash heavy and strong. Join CX its a better debate platform and you will use its skills to improve yourself.
LD

As a former CX debater I have little care for heavy value criterion and definition debate, keep the focus on the cases and the round.

Congressional Debate

anything goes

Extempt

anything goes

Info/Oratory

just be memorized

Inter (Drama, Duo, POI)

anything goes

My email is lorileiml@gmail.com please add me to the email chain! Don't be a terrible person!! Thank you

Winner of the 2023 Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest

Debater at University of Wyoming

Meadows Assistant Coach

K affs - should have a tie to the topic in some way, well explained affs are important - how do you solve x issue?

K - I think block dependency is high in these debates too - i want nuance arguments tell me why the aff is bad, on the aff side i want reasons the aff is good idea, other than that these debates are enjoyable to watch!!

Fw- Could go either way, i find myself in a bit of these debates where both sides just read their blocks at each other and don’t engage with the other person - i’ll reward someone who engages with the nuance of the arguments being made -- you can win a counter interp or an impact turn -- justify why you get to read FW - i’d rather vote for clash than fairness

Case- I love a good case debate. I think this part of debate is under utilized and can get good wins if you have a good case neg.

Da- Disad’s can take out an aff and I love turns case stuff. If you don’t know who switches their votes on a politics da that’s a little sad. you should explain the story of the da.

Cp- Counterplans are cool! Adv cp’s are not being used enough - a lot of people write affs that can be beat by a simple counter plan. Explain the process of the counter plan please :)

T- Im not a big fan of broad t definitions but I know they have to be used sometimes. T debates are also super messy so keep it clean. Tell me why them being untopical is bad. I haven’t judged a lot of T debates on this topic so explain it well.

Tech over truth :)

Clipping - I want video or recording otherwise this can be hard to verify unless i already know it’s happening

Other events- I enjoy judging other events besides policy! Please don’t worry about me being your judge I love all events of speech and debate and would love to learn more about them.

She/They pronouns please!

Last updated for the Holiday Classic

Add me to the email chain - MeliaLever@gmail.com

Don’t ask me if I’m ready, ill tell you if I’m not.

All debate summary

This is your show and run it how you want. Don’t be problematic in in round. If you are I'll vote you down independent of the rest of the debate, that’s about as much judge intervention I'll ever do. Tell me why you win the debate at the end. Lots of impact calc, lots of judge instruction. I don't like to do work for either side but will if I'm not given anything by the debaters. Ill vote for K affs if they’re topic specific and there's warrants as to why the K aff should be allowed.

Tech over Truth

Any reference to Brian David Gilbert and his series on polygon, "unraveled", or Dimension 20 fantasy high will make me like you more.

The winner gets a 30 for speaks and the loser gets the closest value to 30 the tournament will let me assign.

CX - This is my main event. I know the most about it (tech wise) and can track anything you read. I'm good on speed, dont go 100% online. Don’t assume I know the topic. Meaning with T debates you should spend some time explaining why the aff isn't topical.

Counterplans

Condo is the only reason to reject a team, all other theory arguments (assuming you win them) are reasons to make the argument go away

K’s

The bar for a K is high, but not impossible to reach. If your opponents drop arguments or just ignore it then it’s the same as every other dropped argument so long as its properly extended. Otherwise, lots of work needs to go into the alt debate to explain to me why it does solve. I’m compelled by the argument that “discourse does nothing” so if you’re alt is “reject the aff and talk about the problem” that’s gonna be a hard debate to win (assuming the aff has the evidence). But if the alt results in material action in the world (I.E., revolution to overthrow a capitalist system), then it’s easier for me to vote on. Mindset K's are also a hard one for me to vote on. I struggle to believe that reading the K in front of just the room will eventually spillover to the rest of the world.

K aff's need to relate to the topic, otherwise the threshold for T is low. So long as you relate to the topic and can explain how (even if its tangentially) then I'm willing to vote for you.

For both I would also prefer if you kept the K’s away from broad, overreaching topics and narrowed it down to the nitty gritty of the debate. I understand that’s not always possible, but the more you explain the links, impacts, etc. then the easier it is for me to vote on.

PF and LD

I have judged these debates but know very little about them. I’m not totally sure how either works, or the theory behind arguments. You shouldn’t treat me as a lay judge, but don’t assume I’m going to be the single greatest judge you’ve ever had either. I know and understand debate. Lots of what I said for policy applies. Make sure you extend arguments, explain warrants, etc. Otherwise, you can do whatever.

Pronous: she/they

Email: pmedina2@uwyo.edu (for the email chains)

Debate:

• condo is chill. If you run a condo K, I'll interpret that as you using a K only to win and not for social critique and that's bad in book, but you do you.
• I LOVE spreading as long as you're enunciating while doing it. Speaking fast and not being understandable is not spreading
• CPs NEED to me MU
• Do your impact calc, but soft left impacts are cool. Everything can become nuclear war
• For the 2NCs, do whatever you want EXCEPT run a CP. You'll lose a lot of ethos with that and general cheating isn't cool
• Extend your arguments, but don't add new arguments in rebuttals. Remember that it's always cool to concede things as long as your DAs or ADs are strong enough. Explain why your concession doesn't matter on a wider scale
• LDers your whole thing is value really drill that. Why should I care? How does it link?

HOPE

• I love good and realistic blocking
• Emotion is good when it's prompted. Really consider how your character would act and react to things

Topshelf -

Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.

Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.

Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.

The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long

I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.

Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com

I believe debate is a communication event, so I'm not too fond of speeding through cases and using too much jargon. You can have off-the-clock road maps and can use your phones as timers. Cross-examinations need to be respectful and thoughtful. Please provide voters with your final speech.

Updated Jan 18 2022.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

literateliz at gmail.com

Worlds:

The main thing I judge on is a deeper level of debate. If you are just repeating your points I'm less likely to vote for your team. Make sure to take your arguments to the next level and actually debate what the other team says- essentially, I like to see clash.

Please support your teammates and cheer them on! I love to see the knocking when someone makes a good point :)

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

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

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

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

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

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

--Experience--

3 years of high school local/national LD and Policy

4th year of college policy for the University of Wyoming

NDT twice

--Quick Notes--

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

- tech > truth

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

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

Important stuff:

- impact out your arguments

- do impact & evidence comparison

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

Theory:

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

CPs and DAs:

-nothing special here run what you are good at

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

About me:

swideckimichael1@gmail.com (include on email chain please)

8 years and counting policy debate experience. Current University of Kansas Graduate Assistant Coach.

High School specific thoughts for your pref sheets:
1. Yes Speed
2. Yes theory
3. Yes K's (Aff and Neg)
4. Yes evidence sharing
5. Yes off-time roadmaps
6. No grace periods (we have time limits for a reason)
6. No judge intervention
7. Tech over Truth (unless in extreme circumstances as outlined below in point 1)

Some thoughts and useful insights for all debaters (an ever growing list):

1. Familiar with mostly all types of argumentation, I'm down with reading whatever argument suits you, just defend it well. There are very few args I will not vote on. If you say racism/sexism/transphobia/ableism are good you will lose. Everything else is up for debate. I am particularly partial to clever impact turns that catch opponents off guard.

2. I'm becoming increasingly familiar with K literature, I debated as a flex K debater my senior year of college reading args about Queerness and Feminism. Although I assume I'll understand what you are talking about, you should probably not trust me. Thus, if you are going to be relying on some super complex K terms, I would appreciate a well explained extension just to ensure we are all on the same page in subsequent speeches. I do my best to keep up, but there will always be something that I didn't have time to learn.

3. I like clever counterplans that use the aff against itself (within reason of course, I'm not afraid to vote on theory so be careful with your "creativity"), unless you have really good evidence, I'm not likely to vote on generic CP's that copy and paste the plan text from every round. If the CP is unique to the aff or a small section of affs, that's ideal.

4. 2AC addons are underrated.

5. Nothing in your speeches should go unjustified, every piece of evidence and every analytic you forward needs to exist for a strategic reason. Chess players (who want to win) don't just move random pieces. Everything is purposeful, strategic, and thoughtful. Your speeches are a piece of art and you should treat them with that respect!

6. Cross-ex is a speech, give it well.

7. Be kind, prep well, debate smart, have fun, good luck.

Hello I am Jeremy Waller and I am most experienced in Congress and Public Forum.

Experience:

3 years in congress

3 years in PF

1 year in Info

Currently debating PF

Congress:

Debate aspect:

Personally for me evidence is important but using logical arguments are also a great way to gain points. Though if you rely on logic arguments don’t use fallacies as they come with strong penalties from me. These can include Ad hominem attacks, “Slippery Slope”, and the straw-man argument. I like to see clash but bringing in new points are important when people keep using the same points over and over again. Make sure if you use an argument someone else has brought up to bring something unique with it.

Speech Aspect:

Humor in your speeches are a great way to win points from me. When doing this either make sure you don’t rely on humor; or just make a joke speech because those can still be a lot of fun, remember you don’t need to win the debate to win congress, you just need to be a good speaker so if you use a joke speech it is not a loss if it is done well. Though remember if it falls flat you can’t get any points from the debate aspect and you wont get many points for it so it can be very risky.

PF:

There are a handful of things that I value in debate, that being clash and turns. These are the big points that I will value. I also weigh framework and impact calc. Another tip, don’t assume I am keeping track I need you to spell it out and flow your arguments through. I will keep track and flow, but if you do not point out how you win each argument I will not value it as much

I also do not like most of the Policy strategies being used here. I don’t like spreading since I need to understand what is being said. I do not like K’s or any plans either.

Howdy, I am William Wayne Ward from Wyoming.

Experience:

3 Years High School Congressional Debate

1 Year British Parliamentary Debate

1.5 years College Public Forum Debate (current competitor)

Currently Learning College Speech (at large)

President of UW Speech

Debate:

I enjoy the technical side of debate but better speakers will often win my vote should the speaker's clash and arguments be roughly equal. I really enjoy watching clash, especially lively ones, but I severely punish Ad Hominem arguments and general disrespect. I prefer on the clock roadmaps but I do not care much. I shouldn't have to read y'all's case to understand, it is lame if I do. If you give me a K argument that is not on case, I will likely give you an L. Spreading makes me Sad. I believe that ridiculous arguments require minimal responses, the bar for a substantive response is lower. Please do not force me to listen to a definition debate where the two terms are not meaningfully different.

Congress: I expect chairs to be efficient, know parliamentary procedure, be fair, and to take good precedence. Newbies are more forgiven. I have a ton of experience here, I can smell procedural BS a mile away so do not cross any major ethical boundaries.

Chair, I detest question precedence and RNG speaker selection. That is not in Roberts Rules of Order.

Speakers, you are in congressional debate, not congressional oratory. The later half of the debate needs to have clash or I will have an excellent nap. Don't tempt me.

LD: Please explain why a value or criterion clash matters, what arguments I should drop or if I should entirely ignore your opponent's case. You are in a moral debate, not PF Lite™, explain why morals matter.

PF: If I cannot explain your case and it's logic in 1-2 sentences, I probably will not vote for you. Simplify your case for me into easy logic if possible. I am sadly, a pea brain.

CX: Pray I am not your CX judge. If you have the misfortune of seeing me as a CX judge, K arguments that are off case are annoying and spreading is lame. Treat me like a lay judge.

Debate differences: I will try not force my preferred lay and PF view points on you, I detest how CX judges decide PF, but I cannot reward something I do not understand just because it is the norm.

Speech:

I judge heavy on energy and blocking (when applicable) as well as speaking ability. I would much rather judge a room full of the same subject with great performance than unique topics with poor performance.

In my view, you are in Speech, not Debate, which means that the best subject, topic, or argument does not always win. It's all about how you can present it, but an interesting topic certainly helps.

Ballots:

I like to flow what happens in your feedback on Tabroom for most events, especially debate so you can see everything I hear/consider. That said, I flow faster on paper so in elimination rounds I will likely not flow on the ballot.

↑ Effective Judge Understanding > Flow Transparency. ↑

I might add emojis to most ballots. ???? ← Might look like this. If I do not have much under your feedback or RFD, it is because I forgot to fill it out like a dingus.

Contact:

for additional feedback or questions about your ballot:

email: willward2002@gmail.com

text at 307-921-0711

Just don't dox me, thats not coolio.

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

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.

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.

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.

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.