Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

I was a traditional debater, and I continue that trend in my judging. I specifically look for solid value/criterion framework debate, with good clash. Don't try to make any limits or grounds arguments. Telling me to drop a contention, argument, or card from the flow will not make it so. Prove the argument is null and void first. Though I'm a traditional judge, if you want to run a kritik, go for it! I love a good k, despite its non-traditional nature. For the value/criterion framework, philosophers and political theorists are phenomenal resources for finding a framework. If you're going to use such a theory in your framework (e.g. Social Contract Theory) give some credit to the people who invented it. If I don't know who's theory you're using, it becomes much harder for me to judge how you apply your framework as a whole.

Aff:

I do not want to see any plans or solvency. This is LD, not PF or Policy. Don't bring them up yourself, and don't let Neg try and pressure you into offering one. You are under no requirement or obligation to offer any form of plan or solvency on the resolution.

Neg:

You have a seven minute 1NC - I expect you to start your offense in that speech. Your 2NR is not enough time to cover everything the Aff will be able to pile on against you. If you don't cover it in 1NC, and don't tell me you'll discuss it in your next speech, I will extend it through the flow.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

I like a fair fight, use sources paired with the information you give.

1.Ensure that both your opponents and I know what cards you are running on your document, be sure to give all of the cards you are using through email chain, flash drive, ect. If you bring a new argument or new piece of info that works toward an argument into the debate without providing the card to your opponents and I, I will mark it down on the ballot and it will alter your chances of winning the round.

2.Clarify the order of your speeches

3.I will evaluate your cases by following stock issues carefully, try to not drop advantages/disadvantages and arguments as a whole.

4.I like clear speaking during the whole round so I can hear and understand all the information that is given so I can make the best judgment of the students cases.

enjoy your time debating, and be proud of the work you put into your cases. :)

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I prefer strong logical argumentation built on solid citing of evidence. You did your research for this, so use it and show me. Emotional arguments and pure logic have a place in a framework of solid research.

It's your round.

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

 Conflicts: Park City

PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued

Things that make me happy:

-       Great signposting

-       Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

-       Lots of evidence

-       Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

-       Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

-       Jokes

-       Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

-       Improperly citing evidence

-       Miscutting/manipulating evidence

-       Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere. 

What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you. 

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.

CPs/’Advocacies’?

Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.

Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.

Speed?

Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.  

Other technical things: 

-       I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

-       If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

-       I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

-       I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)

Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

                     - pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.

•Confident presentation/vocal presence.

•Well sourced arguments/warrants.

•Witty and well thought out refutations/counter arguments

•I am open to a variety of arguments.

•(LD) Counter-plans that can reveal grey areas in an otherwise black and white argument style.

•As with how judges should be, the key to winning my vote ultimately is persuasion.

I'm a lay judge.

When I'm judging, I weigh my decision heavily on a debater's ability to form and present a coherent rebuttal to their opponent’s contentions. As the judge, I feel that a debater's ability to listen, understand, and formulate a rebuttal in the allotted time shows me that the debater understands not only the topic… but the core of the Lincoln Douglas format.

Speaker points are usually based on ability to form arguments, and time management. That said, don't ramble just to fill time. If you run out of material that backs your contention or is useful in a rebuttal, don't keep repeating the same things over and over. You're better off being concise and ending early than rambling just to use up all of your time. I also want to see that the student takes the debate seriously, and isn’t just joking around excessively.

When making arguments, be sure to provide clear warrants that are pertinent to your argument, and show why it’s true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to reference them in later speeches when you're using them to support your contention. If I don’t believe your contentions, or if I doubt the facts you’re using to back your argument, it will impact my decision. Don’t just make up “facts”. If I feel you're doing this, I will vote against you regardless of the rest of your case.

I would prefer not to see K's or too much theory unless it's very logical, topical, and well explained. No spreading please, and no excessive debate jargon.

Last but not least, don’t be antagonistic or disrespectful towards your opponent.

Prefer traditional, and slower speech. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll give you a cue (noisily dropping my pen).

Debated Lincoln Douglas a LOT in high school.

Love clear sign posting and voters!!!!

Happy with most arguments if explained, linked, and defended well. I don't follow Ks, theory shells, or other progressive arguments as well, but you're welcome to try :)

Experience:

I've judged several debate tournaments over the past couple of years. I had the opportunity to judge at National's this past year. I'm familiar with most debate formats.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but not to the point that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you I'll simply put my pen down and stop flowing.

Topicality:

I like arguments that stick to the specific topic given, make sure you link arguments directly back to the resolution.

Plan/Counter-plan:

In PF do not bring up any plan or counter plan as it is against the rules.

Evidence:

I like strong evidence to back Up claims. I am an unbiased judge. I'm hoping to be convinced through strong evidence.

Civility:

I love teams that are passionate about their case, however I don't like it when that passion turns to hostility against their opponents. I'm okay with a debate getting heated, let's just keep it civil.

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

I am a former traditional LD debater. I like to see a case that has a nice emotional appeal backed with logic and facts. The most important voting factor for me is IMPACT. Tell me why I should vote for AFF/NEG and what sort of impact your case has versus what’s currently happening in the status quo.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand