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.

Experience: I competed at NWC for 2 years as a nationally ranked parliamentary debater. My partner & I were also the first female-female team in history to be awarded the prestigious Bossard-Twohy award. I was a frequent "K" debater so I'm okay with critical arguments.

Sign posting & impact calculus is vital.

A) Tell me the argument you're addressing, then read your argument(s).

B) Tell me WHY your argument matters: give me some impact calculation, tie it back to the framework, put them in a double-bind, cross apply another argument on the flow, point out a contradiction, etc.

C) As the debate comes to a close, use a "Voters", "2-Worlds" or similar format. Explain to me why the arguments you're losing don't matter & how the ones you're winning are paramount.

Make sure I can flow you.

Repeating definitions, tag lines, etc. will benefit you.

CX: Please do not spread; I want to understand and be able to focus on what you have to say.

Impromptu: Maximum 20 seconds to choose topic after prompts are drawn.

Congress: Speakers: Please state your school code and spell your last name every time you speak. Chair: Please state school code and spell your last name after you've been voted in.

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

I do not like spreading. Please slow down.

I expect you to treat your opponent with dignity and respect.

I am looking for a good mix of fact base and anecdotal evidence to support your position.

Good luck!!

Please do not spread. I appreciate that you have a lot to say in a limited time, but if I cannot understand you, or if you make it to where I don't want to understand you, then you might as well say nothing at all.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

literateliz@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 respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

I appreciate all the hard work you do! Go speech and debate.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> Policy:

>>>>>>>>>>

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years, but it was way back when Policy was centered around case/stock issues and quite a bit simpler than most Policy is today. I didn't hear the word "condo" or "PIC" until I was already a man... by then they were nothing to me but blinding. I'm interested in all the "new" Policy arguments and have tried to learn and understand them, but it would probably still be best for advanced Policy debaters to consider me lay, maybe flay at best.

Paradigm: Tech>truth and tabula rasa. I view Policy debate as a verbal strategy game. I can be persuaded to view it some other way. I can be persuaded of almost anything in Policy.

Arguments: I'll vote on anything you can explain, win, and weigh (as long as it is not completely reprehensible or clearly harmful to people in the round). Policy should be a space where we can question assumptions that we would probably not question in other debate formats. I'll vote on Ks but you will need to explain the argument in a way that a layman can understand. If you are going to tell me in a K that your "buddy is without Oregons" with no further explanation of what that means, I feel bad for you and your buddy both because you are probably going "de lose". Explain what you mean clearly and I am fine with Ks. I am open to non-traditional cases as long as there is some way for something resembling a debate to still take place and there is still some way for me to evaluate the round.

Speed: I prefer moderate speed, I give no speed warnings, and I don't flow any words that are not clear, so it would probably be strategic for you to only go 80% of your full speed with me. I am of only average intelligence and average flowing ability, and I would hate to vote the wrong way because I missed a good argument you made because you were going too fast for me to understand or flow it. I don't like making a bad decision any more than you like receiving one; help me help you. I don't look at doc files unless a piece of evidence has been called into question.

How I evaluate the round: I vote on the impacts that got extended into the final speeches, weighing them according to the weighing mechanisms I was instructed to use within the round.

Keep it civil: I will never vote down a rude debater just for being rude, but I will add your grandma on Facebook and message her and tell her how rude you were being and she will be very disappointed, so please be courteous to everyone in the round.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> PF:

>>>>>>>>>>

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years, but it was way back when Policy was centered around case/stock issues and quite a bit simpler than most Policy is today. Back then it kind of resembled what we would see today in fast PF rounds. So I feel pretty at home in most PF rounds.

Paradigm: Tech>truth in PF, but unlike with Policy I will not believe statements that are plainly untrue, so maybe tech≈truth. In general I think Policy-style debate should stay in Policy and PF should be its own thing.

Arguments: There is nothing wrong with running an obvious contention and simply researching it to death, in fact I think that is the clearest path to victory in PF. Unique oddball contentions are fun though. Please don't run really weird definitions or frameworks that attempt to trickily obliterate the opponent ground or make the resolution tautological, all this accomplishes is to make the entire debate about your definition, which is not fun or educational for anyone. I won't believe that the framers intended the resolution to be interpreted in a way that makes debate impossible for one side. That said, if you get hit with something weird, I expect you to engage with it and debate it. Please don't just tell me something is against the rules; in reality the rules for all styles of debate are pretty vague and open, so give me a better reason to vote against squirrely arguments than an appeal to the rules. I am personally open to non-traditional cases as long as there is some way for something resembling a debate to still take place and there is still some way for me to evaluate the round, however I would strongly discourage you from running silly meme cases when the judge panel includes volunteer judges from the community; it actually does real harm to our activity and I will not view it kindly. If no panel and just me judging, it's fine.

Speed: Speed good... up to a point. Rounds that are too slow often end up lacking substantive argument and just becoming "talk pretty" competitions, while rounds that are too fast become speed reading competitions and then fall apart dramatically and disastrously during final focus when there is not enough time to collapse your arguments properly and summarize the round in a way that makes sense. So I recommend aiming for a medium "goldilocks" speed. Try to cover the whole flow and keep your voters extended throughout the round, BUT also don't be afraid to let your opponent have some things and go for what you are winning. There is never enough time in PF to cover everything, so be very careful not to get sucked into wasting time on the wrong arguments. Know what you have hopelessly lost and don't waste your time repeating an answer from an earlier speech that is not going to win the clash anyway, let that argument go and focus on something else that you can win.

Theory: I'd prefer not to hear theory unless there is a real reason for it. I am certain there are situations that warrant the use of theory, but do not think theory should be in every PF round. My opinion on paraphrasing in PF is that it is probably fine in the abstract and is not fundamentally different than highlighting evidence or inherently abusive. But in practice, paraphrasing often has the unfortunate consequence of speeding up PF rounds too much and making them very difficult to flow. Due to lack of taglines, a paraphrased PF case read with speed can be more difficult to flow than a Policy case read at the same speed. PF should not be harder to flow than Policy, that is just silly. But I am open to being persuaded either way on paraphrasing good/bad. I'm unlikely to vote on trigger warning theory unless there is an egregious issue in the round that the theory is addressing. I'm neutral on disclosure.

How I evaluate the round: I vote on the impacts that got extended into the final speeches, weighing them according to the weighing mechanisms I was instructed to use within the round. If the round comes down to an unlikely nuke war impact vs a smaller more likely impact, I would love to see some debate on how the relatively small likelihood of a nuclear war should be weighed against a smaller but more likely impact. There are good arguments on both sides, but if nobody makes them, this type of round becomes hard to evaluate fairly. Don't make me try to decide between apples and oranges on my own, please do the weighing for me.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> LD:

>>>>>>>>>>

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years. I've coached and judged some trad LD. I have near zero exposure to progressive LD. I do not have a strong knowledge of philosophy at all.

Paradigm: Tech>truth in LD, but unlike with Policy I will not believe statements that are plainly untrue, so maybe tech≈truth. In general I think Policy-style debate should stay in Policy and LD should be its own thing. But with that said, I am okay with judging a progressive LD debate if both competitors can agree before the round that they want to debate progressively. If not, I default to a traditional perspective on LD.

Speed: Moderate speed is fine.

Theory: I'd prefer not to hear theory unless there is a real reason for it.

How I evaluate the round: I see two separate but related debates taking place in LD:

The first debate decides which value/criterion is most important when considering the resolution. This debate can be won by analyzing the resolution, using examples or thought experiments, preempting or underlying your opponents value, using logic, getting admissions in CX, etc. Winning this part of the debate does not mean that you win the round, but it lets you set the weighing mechanism for the rest of the debate since your value/criterion will become the standard that all impacts are weighed against.

The rest of the debate centers around whether we should affirm or negate the resolution, when considered in light of the winning value/criterion. I look at the impacts that were extended into the final speeches and decide which weigh most heavily under the winning value. If the winning value is justice for example, I look at whose arguments best achieve justice. If you have a nuke war impact but do zero work relating it to justice, it has zero weight, I will not do the work of relating impacts to the value for you.

If you think there is no strategic reason to defend your value over your opponents, you are more than welcome to kick your own value and concede to your opponents value and then simply tie your arguments to their value and outweigh them on their own value. There's no shame in that.

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.

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.