✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

Hi, I'm Gwendolyn Cole (she/they) I am a senior-year policy debater. I am a 2x national qualifier ( world schools in '23 and policy in '24) I have also placed at state, districts, regionals, and many other in-season tournaments in policy debate. I have multiple years of debate and speech experience across many events (policy, public forum, congressional debate, world schools debate, United States extemp, informative speaking, among others) so I feel pretty well versed in the speech and debate world. Any questions not answered in my paradigm I will happily answer before the round begins.

✿ No, I don't care where you sit or how we disclose or whether or not cross is open or closed

✿ I have no problem with spectators but I do not want them on the email chain/speech drop - if you are really watching the round for educational purposes it is best to train yourself to flow by ear

✿ Email:GwenCole802@gmail.com

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I Evaluate a Policy Debate:

❀ Speed: I'm a policy debater at heart, you're the one competing you make the call on how fast or slow you want to go. I don't care as long as you are clear - mumbling is not spreading - make sure a doc is shared so I can follow. If you are unclear or I can't hear you I'll say clear and stop flowing until I can hear you. Signpost always!

❀ Topicality: I will only vote on T if it's the only thing the negative runs or if they collapse on it in the 2NR . I truly believe that it's impossible to claim to lose ground if you're running any other off-case positions, cases, kritiks, etc. Prove to me you have no ground—collapse on T or don't run it. I won't necessarily vote neg down if they run T with other arguments and off-case positions I just won't evaluate it.

❀ DA's - The more specific the DA link is the more likely I am to buy it; the only time I'm voting solely on a vague link is when it gets dropped. If your uniqueness is two or more years old you shouldn't be running the disadvantage.

❀ CP - Advantage counterplans are my personal favorite but as long as you prove that it's competitive... it's competitive. That being said I will totally buy Perms if the neg is unable to prove competition. I don't necessarily believe that counterplans must be non-topical unless the aff raises that issue and gives me voters on it.

❀ Kritiks- I think K's are really great when run properly. In my eyes that means that you have a sustained framework through the debate - I think it's nearly the biggest piece to a Kritik, tell me about the theory of power, tell me why it matters to change that. I won't buy alts that aren't material or don't have mindset implications just telling me that the alt is "vote neg" and is verging on gross - it cheapens whatever advocacy or critique you claim to attempt at - tell me why, tell me how that changes the world either in the debate round/sphere or outside of it. Same as DA's more specific links are always better. I have a special place in my heart for Set Col and AfroPess but feel free to run Baudrillard for all I care.

❀ In Round Behavior - Couple of things here that I think need to be noted. First and foremost, I have nothing against a little bit of sass, It is good to be confident in yourself but, being rude to your opponent doesn't make you a better debater, disrespect will lose speaker points if it becomes egregious. When it comes to CX, I have no preference for open or closed, but I will say that if your partner has to answer all your questions, I will drop your speaker points. I understand that each individual has their own niche, but it does not make you a better debater to not be confident in your own case. Lastly, Bigoted arguments will never win my ballot - you'll lose the round and be left with zero speaks to show for it; don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.

❀ Little Things-

✿ My timer is always better than yours - prep stealing is gross, don't do it - if I think you're prepping I'll start your prep. I won't make you start prep to disclose your docs though dw.

✿ I'm flowing, I'm reading your cards, and I have no issue calling for evidence checks.

✿ The organization helps you win! signpost always, number your case attacks, and make sure I know where you are on the flow

✿ Past the first constructive speeches, clash is more important to me - cards are fine but do the work and engage with the actual debate.

✿ I'm not the one debating, I won't shadow extend for anyone, do the work, and extend your case.

✿ Dropped arguments are true

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I evaluate a Public Forum Round

❀ Definition Debate -Please make sure there is clash on this front of the debate - please don't just read your definitions and tell me the opposing team is wrong, tell me why, and tell me how your definition is better.

❀ Clash - A wall of cards is not debating, give me real clash, tell me why you can or can't support the resolution, give me the impacts of your examples/scenarios.

❀ Organization -Being an organized team helps you win! Signposting and giving off time road maps are always good ideas.

❀ Prep Time/Speech Time -My phone will always time better than yours - the second the questions start in cross I'm starting time - please save clarity questions for cx itself.

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I evaluate a Lincoln‐Douglas debate round

✿ I have never debated an LD round, that being said I am very familiar with framework debate (see policy paradigm above) and fond of FW debate so you should be fine. I stay up to date on the literature and will always work to understand you.

✿ I'm as progressive or traditional as you are debating I don't care

❀ Kritiks - I love them but please see my policy paradigm above, framework is the biggest thing on the K, as are material or mindset alts - "vote neg" without mindset implications is disgusting, especially on advocacy K's.

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

My name is Valery and I'm a senior at Jenks High School going into my third year of policy as a 2a! Im not going to pretend that im a complete blank slate when judging and have no internal biases bcs thats not true, to me thats kinda impossible but i will try my best to adapt to the round and evaluate things to my best-- im not perfect and no where near the fairly knowledgeable in debate so i may mess up and if you genuinely think i made a bad decision feel free to email me after the round when the anger has subsided and we can both try to understand the round more and make this a better space. Heres my email for disclosure vgdebate25@gmail.com -- and what i like seeing in rounds:

PF: pls way your impacts-- the biggest thing i see and hear abt novice pf are debaters not weighing their impacts. Listen to your coach bcs they are definitely more knowledgeable when it come to teaching debate but i personally believe that when starting out you wont understand the other more techy parts of debate and it makes a judges life easier when making a decision after round.

LD: I'm a little more familiar with ld, but i still need a lot of explanation and analysis with value and criterion-- and i will evaluate on the flow so just do whatever you're comfortable with. Again be nice to your opponent, especially since you're probably in novice as your reading this and it's everyone's first few times!

Policy: I do mostly policy stuff when debating but I am familiar with kritical stuff if that's what you're into:

Ks: I like Ks, i am comfortable with cap to a degree and i ran fem ir during the nato topic a lot (basically a type of security k so im cool with that too). Run whatever you want but keep in mind im not going to be an expert or even know every single lit base, especially if its really niche. I get confused by FW a lot so try to make it clear on my flow so that i dont evaluate it incorrectly-- and dont have a k overview thats going to fill up 2 pages of my flow-- i rather you do the line by line rather than answer everything messily in the overviews.

CPs: I personally don't believe in a lot of cp abuse stories and think that the aff needs to win something more substantive on the counterplan, but i am willing to hear it out and maybe vote if you do enough work on it.

DA: I feel like clear analysis in a DA debate has become under appreciated. Don’t just tagline debate your 1NC shell the entire round— give me the warrants of the cards and cross apply it to specific areas of the Aff. Impact weighing is huge here, if i’m in a round where the 2ar and 2nr simply shadow extend their impacts (i.e. “climate change is bad" and "war is bad") and don’t actually extend the warrants as to why that’s bad then i’m just left with deciding what I personally think is worse and you don’t want that— i dont want to be interventionist so your last rebuttal should in a way write my ballot for me.

Topicality: Ive come to realize that high school debaters tend to underestimate topicality when on the aff and the 2n's usually dont go for it unless its against a planeless aff or if the other team straight up dropped it. I like T, i feel like neg should be going for it more bcs its strategic and its fairly easy to evaluate it coming out of the 1ar and 2nr-- sometimes 2ar pivots a fun to watch but the 1ar still has to do the work to get there. Idk what else to say, my 2n partner hates to say it but hes a t debater at heart so ive been in a lot of rounds where its been the 2nr if that helps when deciding what you're gonna run.

Procedurals: some theory args is find not believable like PIC's bad bcs i feel like the aff should be able to defend laterally what they wrote in their plantext. But if something is droped i believe it to be a true arg and if the aff does work and mentions you drop it that means that i vote aff in that scenario. Condo should be a "condo good/bad" debate, minus one condo good debates are dumb to me to a degree but again do the work on it.

Main notes:

-Be nice-- to your opponents (there is an exception were they've said something insanely socially problematic and they seem to defend it/dont apologize about it), to your partner (the amount of time ive seen debaters be mean to their partners is crazy to me), and to me.

-Cross isn't supposed to be aggressive it's supposed to be informational and is binding if your opponent brings it up in the next speech

-Sometimes you need a break so taking a second of prep before any speech or cross is fine

-Don't say anything any-phobic or any-ist

-High speaks are just anyone who tries and isn't rude in round

-Id say my speed tolerance is a 8/10-- but i still like having the doc in case the debate ends up being around a specific card and both teams have different interpretations of it. I also am a firm believer of disclosing analytics if you have them, especially if you're going to go max speed and in novice.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

I am most engaged and convinced when an individual speaks with confidence.   This includes content knowledge and eye contact.

I am a 4-year LD debater and an 8-year debate coach. In Lincoln Douglas debate I believe in traditional debating (less policy), but I will vote for a K if done correctly. However, this is a value-based debate and excessive stats/evidence will not be weighed more than value; value and value criterion are essential to the debate. Also, off-the-clock roadmaps are not necessary, unless doing something from tradition.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

Simply put: The best argument will win.

My background is in Lincoln-Douglas and Student Congress in high school, and now a policy coach.

Speaking style: Slow it down a little. Show me that you understand the arguments, and the vocabulary by not tripping over your words.

Argumentation: Understand your cards. If you cannot show me you understand the card during CX or rebuttal, you will not win the round.

Clear, cohesive arguments that show me you understand the very basics of debate (claim, warrant, impact) will win my rounds.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

I did policy debate at Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read mostly policy stuff at Jenks and mostly critical stuff at OU, they are both valuable! I love a good case debate as well. Have fun, be smart, say what you wanna say.

I am a traditional PF judge. I don't really do kritiks or speed. Win me with strong arguments and impacts.