Hey all! I am so excited to be back and judging because Speech and Debate is one of my favorite activities. I only did Speech and Debate my senior year of high school because I used to be a big running person. After I injured myself I thought I would give Speech and Debate a try. I loved it! I primarily did Info, Drama, and Poetry but I also had a Humor at one point. I double qualified for nationals in Info and Drama and I took my Info for my qualifying event and then poetry as a supplemental. I broke to the quarter-finals in Poetry, and I was super ecstatic about that. So that is just a little about me, but here are a couple of things to remember in the round.

1. There will be no bad-mouthing of anyone. EVER. You are all part of the same community. One that loves everyone no matter what. A community that wants to inspire change in our young people. It is ok to respectfully not like someone's piece but that doesn't mean you get to bad mouth them. Everyone has worked hard to bring a unique perspective to each tournament. Be kind because kindness is free
2. Please be respectful of others. Everyone has worked super hard to be there and it is super disrespectful to talk during someone else's piece. I'm sure you would want everyone to be respectful to you, so please listen and see if you can take something away from their piece.
3. If you have to leave because you are double-entered please do so between performances and politely excuse yourself. Otherwise, I would encourage you to stay and watch all of the performances
4. Just remember to have fun. Speech and Debate isn't all about the awards and placings. Speech and Debate is about inspiring change one audience member at a time. It's about making new friends that will last a lifetime. So if you like someone's piece go talk to them! Tell them how much you enjoyed it and you never know what might happen :)

I was a former PF-er, Extemp-er, and congressional debater. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).
2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. I won't flow args that start after the clock runs out and I'd needed I'll verbally cut you off
3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.
4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win. I have the right to choose if something is too out of wack aswell
5. I don’t disclose after round. Do not ask me to.
6. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks needs to have solvency and topicality. (Unless you are doing funny friv, then it might slide, case by case)

7. Sure, time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time.

8. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

PF:

Public Forum debate is a style of debate in which a mass of people, the "public" can enter a "forum". A forum for the public should be easily accessible to the average person, thus I judge this debate as such. evidence should be easy to view & understand by both sides. Aslong as that is mentioned in speech and/or agreeable between teams, there will be no issue.

1. PF is card-heavy, please, create an email chain with your opponents before the round! or not! just be amicable and willing to give cards in a timely manner. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it. If your questions takes 15 seconds to ask, ask a different question ???? please

Extemporaneous Speaking (and other platform + impromptu for that matter):

Overall, a better speech wins, I first and foremost judge on content

1. Extemp values thinking on the fly, I favor speeches that include TOPICAL and TAME humor, sure i enjoy an untame joke. But; that SHOULD NOT be paired with something to be taken seriously such as the Yemeni civil war.

2. When push comes to shove and 2 speakers have equally good speeches, I do judge on the smaller important distinguishing skills, like the walk, the hand gestures, the pacing, etc.

3. When talking about your points I want to see impacts or how it may affect me or the world around me.

4. I count and check sources, if I catch you making them up, you’ll be bumped down a placement for each source wildly incorrect. I've been a speaker I get it's hard to remember or funny. You'll slide with other judges but not me.

5. I value uniqueness of a speech, if you find roundabout consequences or theory id love that to be included as extemp values thinking outside the box, just don’t be frivolous. You’ll be favored over the same monotonous recycled 8 points.

Congressional Debate:

1. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread, you are failing in every aspect.

2. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone. If the parli doesn't do so they'll be knocked points, Congress should be in some instances a more fun and light hearted event

3. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they'll need to respond to previous arguments on top of their new points).

4. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

5. If your questions suck, I’m going to place you lower than someone who doesn’t question, as what you add to the debate has been touched on already and all you do is waste time.

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong v/vc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win. DO NOT SPREAD!

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other. Please share THE ENTIRE THING or make it ACCESSIBLE. It's NESSISARY for a more complex event such as this!!!

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads. Which is not bad either.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room and let you think about your actions.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Debate: Former policy, I do flow and speed but have good enunciation and understand cards at a fundamental level. Cut cards with attention to syntax. Make your clash and flow clear, but explain, don't just give tags. Target the fundamental "why" issues--Impacts, Ethics, Efficacy of Solutions, etc.. Citational integrity is important. Constructions need to build the case and should not leave holes to be picked up during rebuttal. I appreciate a good Topicality and Definition argument, but I balance this with the rest of the on-case argument unless violation is egregious, and you need solid theory structure/cards to explain the purpose of this line of argument. Practice decorum and respect for other debaters and time constraints. Don't use leading questions, use Cx for open-ended investigation and speeches for points.

Interp: I appreciate creativity, experimentation, and sensitivity/consideration towards audience affect/investment. Consider aesthetic coherence of your piece and mannerisms throughout--while I admire excellent technique, it must be purposeful in context and unified in intent.

Informative (Oratory, info, extemp): Persuade me and emphasize the importance of your topic/angle. Make impacts explicit. Organize around argument, not just case studies.

Congress: Give good speeches, practice integrity, don't be rude, respect everyone's space to give a good argument. Don't use leading questions; practice respect in questioning and integrity for the topic and impacts at hand. Make impacts explicit.

1. Debating is about fun above all else. however any and all violations of clearly defined rules is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated.
2. I am not a “Lay” judge, the decision for the round will be decided equally among three prominent voters. If voters are not provided I will be forced to vote on a systemic basis, based solely upon which contentions stand and which attacks cause contentions to fall. (VC clash will be weighed at equal importance to contention clash in LD, and will always be weighed even in the case that voters are provided)
3. it doesn’t matter the event, if cards are not provided you will be ranked last. “topic analysis,” and anecdotal evidence will always be weighed at less value than evidence based on professional data.
4. In the rare instance, that I am your judge for a “Interpretational” or “Platform” Event I will easily be defined as a “Lay” Judge. Any and all assistance to the judge in this case is heavily appreciated and supported. Intricacies surrounding specific events will often go overlooked. The round will be judged on content of your speech and the delivery of said speech. Any and all competitors who use a “script” past October 31st will be ranked last.

Hey y'all! I'm a varsity judge doing PF, Congress, and POI.

For debates, I will flow the entire thing (yes, even Policy), so you will lose if you drop several points. Make sure you back everything up with evidence and the claim/warrant structure. It doesn't have to be overtly stated, but "This evidence says [blank]. Because of this, [blank] will happen." is important.

For interp events, I will judge off of performance quality, not the piece itself. You have to have some type of blocking to score high and a cutting that is easy to follow. I would rather have a non-dramatic piece with blocking than an incredibly dramatic piece with no blocking. If you have an incredibly graphic piece without a trigger warning, that will end up on your ballot.

For Congress, you need to be paying attention to the round. If you are 4th aff/neg, you should be attacking points that were brought up earlier in the round. As the phrase goes, it's congressional debate, not congressional oratory. If you are a chair I prefer following the preset precedence if it is provided for you. It is up to you for questioning precedence, just make sure one person is not over-dominating.

Hi,

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

CX

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

PF

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

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

Congressional Debate

anything goes

Extempt

anything goes

Info/Oratory

just be memorized

Inter (Drama, Duo, POI)

anything goes

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!!

Tabula Rasa

Road maps are always on the clock.

Hello! Gosh I am so excited, I have read many many paradigms and now you're reading mine!!

Anyways,

Hi I'm lee and I did Lincoln Douglas debate all four years of high school and oratory for two years. I'm also experienced in Big Questions!

Debate:

LD: I will be able to understand you if you spread but I won't be happy about it. I prefer debates to be a good mix of technique and argument. I will flow the round but you need to tell me what to vote for. If you don't make it a voting issue, then I won't either. I want most of your arguments to be rooted in a moral principle, or I don't believe it's truly an LD debate.

CX & PF: I'm less versed in these two, but the same general rules go. If I can't understand you, I won't vote for you. Make it a voting issue for me, or ill assume I don't need to vote on it.

Interp:

I want to feel the emotions of the characters and I expect to see them fleshed out. I'm a theatre major so I'm watching you.

Platform:

Oratory: Be assertive! I wanna know why this matters to you and why you felt I should know! I expect to see a good mix of evidence and your own words, it should feel personal. Have fun, be relaxed.

In general, I want to feel like you did your research and understand what you're talking about! I'm always proud of good technique but I'm even more proud of personal style. You need both!

General rules: Do not under any circumstances disrespect, belittle, or diminish your opponent(s). Any homophobia, racism, sexism, or any other hate speech will not be tolerated in my round. You will immediately lose if you attempt this kind of speech. Speech is meant to be a safe place for everyone.

Good luck to you all! I'm glad to be judging for you!

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

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

(Paradigm Updated November 14, 2024)

Hello, Speech and Debaters! I am excited to be your judge for this upcoming round, and I look forward to hearing your speeches and debate arguments.

I participated in Speech and Debate in High School with four years of debate experience. Three of those years were spent in Public Forum Debate and my final year was in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I was lucky enough to have made it to Quarter-Finals in LD during my Senior Year at the Wyoming State Speech and Debate tournament. Additionally, I participated in Extemp for four years and had finished 3rd and 5th at Wyoming State in my Junior and Senior Years of High School, respectively. I am also a one-time qualifier in Extemp to the National Speech and Debate Tournament. I also participated in a little bit of Congress, Oratory, and Informative Speaking. Nowadays, I still continue my public speaking path by participating in Toastmasters International where I have learned new public speaking strategies and ways to improve my presentation skills. In Toastmasters, I have made my way to the District level in their public speaking contest.

In the past, I used to have pretty tough paradigms for debaters, but I have changed to be a bit more flexible. I understand that debaters have many different sides/perspectives of arguments and that they may use different strategies/approaches as to making their case stand out versus the other's. Generally speaking, however, I will make a decision directly on the debate flow and which side tends to have the more "offensive" arguments instead of the defensive arguments. This means that I am looking for how you plan to attack your opponents case via cross-applications, impact calculus, argument turns, etc. While I understand the need to have your points pushed across, I do ask that debaters speak a little slower that way I can catch all of your points. The main thing to know is that if I don't catch your point, it may not be an argument that I consider (especially if it ends up being dropped on my flow).

I try to provide the best feedback that I possibly can based on my past experience. If there is anything that you are not certain of or you would like more clarification as to why I thought one way or another, you are always free to send me an email to spence0310@gmail.com! I will read through it and provide a response back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you and good luck in your rounds!

Spencer Travis

As a judge, my primary focus is on who demonstrates the best command of the round, which I evaluate based on three main criteria: content, organization, and delivery.

1. Content: The strength of the arguments presented is critical. I am looking for arguments that are well-researched, logically sound, and thoroughly explained. It’s not enough just to present a lot of information; I need clear, well-supported points that directly address the issues in the round.

2. Organization: Clear structure is essential. I expect debaters to present their arguments in an organized way, with each point flowing logically to the next. Strong debaters will make it easy for me to follow their case and respond to the opposing side. This includes not only the initial arguments but also how well rebuttals are organized and how each speaker builds on or refines the arguments as the round progresses.

3. Delivery: Debate is a public speaking activity, so effective presentation matters. I will pay attention to how well you communicate, including clarity of speech, pacing, and your ability to engage with the audience (or judge). A confident, composed delivery enhances the strength of your arguments.

4. Weighing: In your final speech, I expect you to weigh the arguments you've made and explain clearly why your side should win the round. This includes identifying the most important issues and showing why your arguments outweigh the opposing team’s points. A clear reason for decision is extremely helpful in guiding me towards the winner.

Overall, I am swayed by the debater who wins the substance of the debate, presents it in a structured and engaging way, and clearly explains why they should win in the final speech. If both sides present strong content, organization, and delivery, I will lean toward the one that demonstrates stronger and clearer reasoning inweighing the arguments.

Howdy, I am William Wayne Ward from Wyoming.

Experience:

3 Years High School Congressional Debate

1 Year British Parliamentary Debate

2 years College Public Forum Debate

2 years in IE Speech (currently in Ext, Ads)

President of UW Speech

7 years in Speech and Debate total

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 do not care about On or Off Clock roadmaps. 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 you 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 bro.

Former CX debate and IE competitor from high school and college. In debate just make your argument. Don't get too stuck on a slip up from the opponent, make your case. Some speed is fine, make sure you are clear and articulate. I am looking for great arguments and not how many words you can say in a minute.