Greetings! I am thrilled to be your judge, and look forward to seeing you soon!

About me: I debated for four years in most events—NSDA National Qualifier in Congress (4x), Public Forum (2x), Extemp, Big Questions, and Duo; second-most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2022; and four-time elimination round qualifier at NSDA Nationals. Since then, I have judged a lot of Speech and Debate, mainly in Wyoming.

My paradigm is simple: be yourself. This is your space! I will do my best to be objective and consider everything said in the round: framework, then voters/contentions, and any weighing of impacts underneath them. However, I’m not a robot. I will vote for the team that appeals to me the most. Debate is more than an exercise in technicalities—it is an appeal to human thought, logic, and values.

Three quick notes: First, have fun and smile! Debate is such an awesome experience, and I find myself enjoying rounds more when y’all are, too! Second, no off-time roadmaps. Usually these are unnecessarily long, for little reward. Third, presentation matters. Speed should not preclude clarity, and eye contact, rhetoric, and dynamism are instrumental in ensuring that I am convinced by your arguments.

Note about Congress (borrowed from Joshua Hansen): This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

I really enjoy judging, and I will always leave some written feedback for you. For any further questions, please email me at willaepli@princeton.edu.

Debate is foremost education in speaking well, an exercise in communication. I despise spreading. If you spread, I will not flow. Slight speed is only justified in the 1AR and final PF speeches.

In PF, I do not like Blippies (although he's wonderful with children). I want arguments responded to in full. Summary and FF are there to pick and choose which arguments you will focus on - make the case for why the arguments you chose are more important with Voters, and ignore the rest. XFire should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XF is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. A dropped argument is only important if the other side made a convincing case that this was a key argument. As with PD I want roadmaps and signposting, always.

In Policy, SHIST Stock Issues, weigh Advantage/DAs after that. But of course if another paradigm is raised and not responded to then I will vote on that. Prefer closed Cross-X and DAs in the 2N- old school. Will accept Kritiks and CPs, but not preferred. Will vote on T. XX should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XX is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. Want ev-> fully sourced, good clash, signposting, road maps, and Voters.

In LD, I expect a Values Debate Round to be actually about values and philosophy. I am interested in the Value and the Criterion being argued. A value should be more than "morality", which is just another word for "values".

XD: I've judged XD at Nats before. Give me roadmap, signposting, Framework in Constructives, Roadmap in Rebuttals. Sources should have author/date.

As a student I participated in every IE and Debate form at AHS (save LD). My favourite events are IX, POI, INF, and PD. Created the Moroccan debate league and trained the coaches and judges from multiple schools there, beginning in '12; took teams to Nats multiple times and coached six schools in Morocco, Mongolia, and China.

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.

Hello! My name is Mikey (he/him) . I'm former high school debater from Colorado. I did 3 years of LD, during which I qualed for nats twice and collected 2 bids to the KTOC. I'm familiar with the PF, CX, and LD debate formats. Please add me to the email chain if you create one. Below I'll leave general paradigms with further details if you are interested.

Email: mdolph@lclark.edu

TLDR

Be courteous, under non circumstances will I vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or oppressive argument. I love persuasive speeches, but that doesn't have to be your style. I'm fine with speed, so long as both debaters agree to it: and the debater who spreads, flashes their speeches. I'm a tab judge - but I also hate weak link-chains; so pick your poison. Dropped arguments are conceded, but that doesn't mean you auto-win. Please don't make me do more work then I should by leaving out voters/the role of the ballot. Please sign-post and finally, have fun:)

If this is a local tournament (or your PF) you don't need to read any more of my paradigm. Good luck in your round! Below I'll leave in depth paradigms for specific arguments if you're interested.

Trad

I'm a traditional LDer at heart so, I absolutely love good framework clash broken up into V/VC.

Phil

I love a good phil round, this is mostly what I ran in high school so I'm roughly acquainted with most theories. That means bonus points if you run something I haven't heard.

Larp/Policy

As long as you do impact calc this is a pretty solid strategy for the round. I find other argumentation styles more interesting, but that wont play a factor in my judging.

Kritiks

I love Ks, if you want to try out a K I'm the judge your looking for. As long as you can explain it well I'm cool with you running it.

Theory

If you run a T, make sure you opp actually links in. You have a heavy burden of proof, but on the flip side I tend to weigh Theory first. However, I am not a fan of theory as a time-suck argument. So if you run it, please be genuine.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

Competed for four years for Jackson Hole, Wyoming—NSDA national qualifier in Public Forum (2x), Congressional Debate (3x), Big Questions, and Duet Interpretation; most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2021; TOC National Champion Presiding Officer in 2021.

I won't vote you down for speed, but if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it. The quality of your speaking and presentation matters. Please weigh and contextualize your arguments.

For any questions regarding my paradigm or an RFD, I can be reached at joshuahansen@college.harvard.edu.

————————————

For Congressional Debate:

This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

————————————

For the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series:

I was a 2020 National Finalist, competed at and made out-rounds in four regional tournaments, and have judged multiple final rounds at regionals since graduating. I take the GCDS prescribed paradigm seriously—be polite, be presidential, focus on the big picture, and don’t treat it like a normal NSDA debate event.

I am former Policy turned LD debater from 24 years ago. Since debating in high school I have spent a lot of time judging a variety of events here and there. I am currently a high school speech and debate coach. I like to keep things pretty simple - LD is ultimately a debate of values. Convince me that your approach to the resolution best upholds a value that you have defended as a value worth obtaining and you are likely to win.

Some things worth knowing - I do flow debates and get really annoyed by dropped arguments. I don't mind speed if I can understand you. I do place a large value on confident politeness. It helps you look in control and right. Rudeness or overly emotional debating implies you are losing control which shows you fear you are losing. If you think you are losing then chances are I might think so too.

I like well organized cases and responses with signposting to cue the organization and help me make sense of everything. I also really like explanations of evidence. If you tell me something will lead to more of something but don't say how or why that is a good or bad thing then it's a waste of evidence.

I will try to give thorough feedback to help you understand why I made the decision I made.

I have worked in World Schools for two years.  I like to see clash and will use the ballot as instructed.  

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: My approach to judging Lincoln Douglas debate is to vote based on whether or not I should affirm the resolution. I will try to evaluate it from one or both of the frameworks put forward by the debaters. If one of the debaters persuades me that their framework is better than their opponent's, then I will use that framework to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters to determine how I should respond to the resolution. If neither debater conclusively wins the framework debate, I may see if either debater wins under both frameworks or if one of them was superior in terms of overall persuasiveness.

I think there is some ground for interesting interpretation of the language of resolutions, but whether an interpretation of language in the resolution is ultimately reasonable is something that the debaters can attempt to debate over to persuade me one way or another. In general, the more novel the interpretation, the stronger the arguments need to be to justify the interpretation.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources.

Credentials:

• My name is Marissa (she/her/hers)

• I am a student at the University of Missouri majoring in Chemical Engineering with an emphasis in Biochemistry; I also work in a research laboratory where I make biomodulatory materials and related products (e.g. medicines and vaccines). This has influenced my opinions in certain rounds, but I try to not let it affect my overall decision.

• My email is mam9k2@umsystem.edu (add me to your email chain/evidence doc, feel free to ask me any questions about anything after the round is over and I have submitted a ballot)

• Debated for Battle High School in the Eastern Missouri Circuit from 2017 - 2021

• Primarily PF, Inform, OO, and DX

• I qualified for Nationals in PF and Inform

• I went to State in DX and PF

• I’ve also done CX, LD, and almost every IE (in the state of Missouri).

• Assistant Coach for Rock Bridge High School in the EastMO Circuit since 2022

• Do not use topic-specific jargon without explaining it (general debate jargon is fine). Ex) UBI, BRI, etc. Only hurts you because I'll get distracted trying to figure it out.

How I Will Vote/Weigh:

• LD

• Framework debate comes first ofc.

• Every contention and subpoint on the aff needs to connect to your V and VC. Every attack on the neg should show how they don't support whatever Value won framework OR flaws in evidence and arguments.

• Philosophy/Logic/Morals > Empirics > Anecdotal Evidence.

• Pls no K's in LD unless you can directly tie them to the framework or resolution.

• PF

• Key Voter Issues, Weighing, and Impacts are the most important things to me

• I do not want to hear you repeat the same empirics over and over again, explain WHY they matter.

• I don’t care for evidence debates. Soley going line-by-line will not help you. Only arguing morals with no evidence will also not help. PF should have an equal distribution of these.

• I generally dislike frameworks in PF; I absolutely do not like K’s or theory in PF

• Being civil in crossfire, especially grand, is especially important

• CX

• I cannot emphasize this enough, be logical and clear. Logical arguments will always beat out anything else for me.

• I am not a big CX fan, so I will be fairly lay. I will make some assumptions in judging such. For example, solvency is most important to me. I just straight up don't know any of the CX lingo so I will be confused :(

• I don't understand K’s or theory well so please explain them in a lay way. I would love to hear an K on the CX Nationals stage being a misrepresentation of the event though. Especially at any association tournaments :)

• Tech > Truth; My job isn't to prove you wrong, but truth informs better arguments.
• If you tag team, clarify that with your opponents before the round.

• If I can’t understand you, I can’t give you the win.

• Only if your arguments are equally strong/equally weak/no clash/I cannot otherwise decide a winner, I will vote based on the better speaker

• Quality > Quantity

General:

• Evidence:

• Add Me to Your Email Chain/Evidence Document: mam9k2@umsystem.edu

• If possible, add all of the evidence in your speech to this email chain

• If you are spreading, I expect this.

• If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find/share a piece of evidence that has been asked for, I will count it as your prep. (in person, I'm a bit more lenient virtually)

• I may ask for evidence, so don’t leave immediately

• I do not care if your opponent refuted a specific card or not in PF/LD.

• This is because I want you to refute each others’ overall ideas, not what someone else has to say (obviously, if there are numerous cards dropped I will care, but I'm less concerned with 1 statistic vs a pattern of evidence)

• I won’t even remember your specific author or date, don’t solely use it to signpost. I won’t know what you are talking about.

• I DO care if it is something that has been signposted (contentions/most subpoints) because that will be on my flow

• These don’t all need to have unique rebuttals for each point, but it does need to be clear what all you are refuting.

• On this note, don’t tell me what to do. Tell me why.

• Don’t tell me “they dropped this, vote them down.” Explain that “They dropped this, which is problematic for XYZ, therefore we should win.” If something is dropped and you want to bring it up, I still want to hear why it mattered. I will probably forget you saying it dropped for the same reason it was dropped, so you need to explain it.

• Once again, Tech > Truth, but exceptions (blatantly false, no-contest statements that a lay judge would know) exist.

• Off the Clock Roadmaps:

• Use it when you are arguing in a unique order (anything that’s not 1,2, 3)

• Do not give any off-the-clock “arguments”, if you do I will begin my timer.

• Timing:

• 10-second grace period, beyond that I will stop listening/cut you off. 30 is when I mark you down.

• Don’t stall, we all have more rounds

• About 15 “free” seconds before you need to start speaking

• I don't time at Nat Circuit Tournaments, NCFL, or NSDA. If you've made it this far, you should be able to time yourself and each other.
• For extemp debate, please no extensive roadmaps. If it's off the clock it increases the time spent in the round by a huge margin and if it's on the clock, you actively hurt your own speech.
• Other/Really The Most Important Things:

• Be Kind and Civil: NO personal attacks

• I generally dislike it when you call me or your opponents by their names unless asked to. I prefer to be called "the judge" and as a competitor, I found it extremely frustrating to be called "Marissa" in round (particularly when I was being cut off in cross... so maybe trust your gut on that one)

• Don't let your spectators be rude to me/others. I won't vote you down but I will be less unengaged.

• Ask me if I am ready before you begin a speech unless I say I'm always ready. I'm always ready for cross.

• Remember your goal is to convince me and not your opponent

• I take a lot of notes and will give you feedback on everything from your argument to your speaking style.

• On that note, sign-post with 1, 2, 3, etc and/or a, b, c, etc.

For CX - I am a Stock Issues judge. I like to see a lot of on case being debated. I like to see policy being debated. I do not like blatant lies in a debate. I want to see direct clash. I have no problem giving a low point win. If the argument is better that is what will win you the debate. While I can flow spreading I’m not impressed by it. Speak well, work well with your partner, and debate the policy.

WS:

I have coached World Schools for two years now. I look for a good oratory speaking style paired with a strong, common theme that unities what point you are trying to make. I want your 3rd substantive to be a more interesting argument. Your team needs to work together well to create a strategy to win. Do not be too aggressive, be kind, be respectful, and don’t just say “they are wrong”. Back up all arguments with a reason why they are wrong. 

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

>>> Short version:

Ex-Policy tab flow judge without strong technical background; tries not to judge PF and LD like they are Policy.

>>> Way too long version:

I am an ex-Policy debater, but from a time and place when Policy was less technical than it is today. Back then, it kind of resembled what we would see today in a faster, more evidence-heavy PF round. Speed had just started to get popular and argumentation was shifting away from focusing on stock issues and more toward focus on advantages/disadvantages. Although CPs, Ts and Ks were around, they were not well-liked by most judges and so most rounds would center around on-case and DAs since those were the arguments you could win on.

Policy:

As a Policy judge I consider myself tech>truth and tabula rasa. These are the judges I most enjoyed debating in front of, so this is the type of judge I am by default. That said, I do kind of groan when I have to listen to really bad generic DAs, really bad generic CPs, outlandish theory, Ks that even you don't understand at all, and throwaway Ts. But I understand it's all part of the Policy game to some extent, and I'll vote on this stuff (in Policy only). But I am happier if I can vote on good arguments instead of tricks or one tiny dropped part of a spread. I don't have a strong background in Ks, so if you are going to run one you will need to explain it for the layman and it will need to make sense to a layman-- frankly some Ks I cannot even flow without some added exposition because I have not a single solitary clue what the words being said mean as they are read off the page. You can read the whole entire K and my K flow sheet at the end will just say "buddy without Oregons ??? (scooby doo huh noise) ???". Although there are arguments that I personally like more or less, in general I will vote on anything that you can explain, win, and weigh. I've tried to learn the parts of "modern Policy" that are new to me, but it still is probably wise for very proficient Policy debaters to treat me as flay and slow down and explain the more technical args a bit. I don't give speed warnings; I expect you to know how fast you can go and remain understandable, and find that 99% of debaters do and it's usually not a problem. Although I can usually keep up with speed just fine in the "straightaways", I have noticed that in very fast rounds I sometimes lose the first part of a card or argument right after switching args. Because of this, if really speedy speedsters want to slow down just a bit during/after the signpost, take a quick breath, and give me a half second to find the right place on my flow, that would be great and prevent me from missing the first part of your next argument.

PF and LD:

In PF and LD, truth>tech.

I like all kinds of PF, both the slower more persuasive classic PF and the faster more evidence-heavy line-by-line PF. When rounds have a slower team against a faster team, I find that kind of tricky to judge. Obviously if I judged it like Policy, the faster team would almost always win. Because I like both styles and think they are both valid ways to do PF, generally this is how I judge PF so that slow teams can compete against fast teams: I flow the round using a Policy-style column flow, but I am much, much, much less strict about extensions and drops. I think a good argument made in PF can stand on its own without necessarily requiring an extension in every speech. And I will do some work on the flow if there are obvious ways that arguments interact, basically taking short leaps if I believe they are obvious and within the realm of how a lay judge would evaluate the round. I know it really stinks when judges put pieces together too much and you lose to arguments that your opponent did not even really make, so I try not to do that, but in general I believe PF should be judged by thinking humans and so your arguments should take into account the fact that the judge is able to think and reason. Basically in PF, I am an unbiased but normal, average, thinking lay human person who is open to being persuaded by the overarching story of the round. Each thing that gets said in the round is free to bounce around in my head and interact with each other thing, without needing to be told explicitly to be cross-applied or extended or whatever, it's all just a big soup of argumentation. Although I flow, I don't judge strictly off the flow, it is more of a personal notekeeping system than a gameboard. This is in contrast to Policy, where I am more of a strict argument-evaluating computer and the flow is the gameboard on which the round is won or lost. It seems to me like research and case writing are the critical parts of PF; it is usually very obvious which teams have spent time digging deeply into the evidence, reading beyond the highlights, and gaining a deep and nuanced understanding of the empirical facts; and those teams usually debate much better and are more persuasive regardless if they choose a faster or slower style.

I had no exposure to LD until I started coaching, but have really grown to like it. Basically all LD that I see in Wyoming is trad though, so if you are a competitor reading this at Nationals and you do progressive LD, it will essentially be my first time seeing that. My default way to judge LD is to treat the Value and Criterion like a framework or weighing mechanism. Because of this, it is very important to me that you don't ignore the value clash and that you tie your arguments back to the V/VC. The winning V/VC becomes the yardstick by which I measure the rest of what happens in the round and has a huge effect on what arguments end up mattering in the decision. If you ignore the V/VC, you will probably lose. Sometimes the V/VC debate is very close and hard to call, so it may be strategic to try to tie your args to both V/VCs just in case you end up losing the V/VC part of the flow ("even if x, y...")

General:

Generally speaking, a type of speech that I usually find persuasive and effective looks like this:
- Goes straight down the flow and explains why you win each point of clash, actually interacting with the point and not just reiterating what you previously said
- Extends the parts of the flow that had no clash (dropped stuff) that you still think important
- Does an overarching impact analysis, weighing, tying arguments back to framework or value. Explains broadly why winning the points you just discussed means that you win the round as a whole.
Definitely there is no one effective speech structure, this is just the type of speech that often leaves me thinking "dang, nice speech".

Speeches that I find not very persuasive do things like:
- Try to extend a point from your last speech but don't interact with the clash on that point. You ask me to extend something you said earlier in the round but do not interact at all with how your opponent answered that point. These types of "non-interacting extensions" are kind of not even flowable in my book. I really need at least one sentence of analysis explaining how your extension is able to hold, given the clash in the round on the point in question. Just saying "extend x" and no further explanation is not good enough when there is ANY clash on the point. When there's no clash, by all means "extend x" and move on.
- Similarly, trying to cross-apply without explaining how the point cross-applies. Just saying "cross-apply x" and moving on is not going to cut it unless it is extremely obvious how the cross-apply works. In general I would like to see at least one sentence of analysis explaining how the cross-apply cross-applies.
- Really vague impact analysis. I had in my paradigm last year that I liked weighing (which I do), and often people seemed to just throw in short vague debate camp statements like "outweigh on magnitude", "outweigh on probability". While that's better than nothing for sure, I would really love to see some more thoughtful analysis of how the impacts in the round stack up against each other and how they interact with any framework or value in the round.
- Only going line-by-line with zero overall analysis of the round. Even in Policy, I do like to see at least a little bit of overall summary beyond the line-by-line.

I don't really care that much about roadmaps. I'd prefer them off-time if you are going to do them just so they don't waste useful speech time. I do like signposting though especially in fast rounds.

I really prefer if everyone in the round is respectful to each other. I know it's debate and things can get heated, but let's keep it as civil as possible.

(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

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.

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.