Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.

Add me to the email chain please jadefelthoven@outlook.com.

A bit of background on me: I debated with Eaglecrest High School in the Colorado District for four years and achieved my degree of Outstanding Distinction. I mainly competed in PF, IX, and Congress while in high school. I competed in Congress at NSDA nationals. I have since done a fair amount of judging, mainly in PF and LD with some speech events here and there. Unfortunately most Colorado tournaments still use paper ballots so my record isn't available to see. I also have some limited coaching experience where I have worked with PF debaters on case and argumentation building. I just finished out my senior year of college this spring.

I will flow the entire round. I really value a strong, holistic case as opposed to framing your entire argument on one contention or piece of evidence. Narratives and overarching themes tend to create stronger arguments and thus stronger cases. Warrants are important and I appreciate them being stated throughout the round as opposed to hastily at the end. I love to see debaters actively mention the weight and impacts of their points.

I won't call for cards unless it becomes explicitly necessary for the outcome of the round.

In final focus speeches, I don't find it particularly compelling if your strategy is to go down the flow. I promise you I will flow the round and I will see where the main points of contention develop. I recommend giving 1-3 voters and spending your time weighing why they are stronger than your opponents.

I can keep up with fast speakers if that is what you'd like to do, but know I don't think speed is what makes a great debate. I weigh strength of the arguments much higher than I do speaking style, and don't typically doc anyone on speaker points. The winner of the round will be the team that presents the best argument. That said, I'll also mention I value civility between us all in the round! I would appreciate if you would avoid yelling at each other, speaking over each other in crossfire, just being excessively rude, etc. I think its entirely possible to have a great round while also keeping things lighthearted.

The odd circumstances of this virtual tournament are sure to be overwhelming. If you have any questions for me, please don't hesitate to ask before the round starts or email me at jadefelthoven@outlook.com. I wish you all the best of luck!

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

Classical Debate = Yes!

Core Values = Yes!

Criterion = Yes!

Flowing = Yes!

Discussion = Yes!

Philosophical support = Yes!

Spreading/Speed Readng = No!

*The aff should make a speechdrop or email chain every round even if debaters aren't spreading - it allows for everyone to see the evidence being cited and leads to better debates - your speaks will probably suffer if you refuse to disclose*

Hey I'm Ethan. I debated for four years, my freshmen year in policy and then three years in LD. My email is nicollethan03@gmail.com and would like to be added to the email chain/speechdrop. Also feel free to shoot me any questions after the round and I would love to help out. 

General Thoughts on Debate:

I am generally cool with basically anything you run because I've either probably run it or seen it before. I am obviously not cool with anything that is blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I am also not cool with being a douchebag to novices. If your opponent is new or not as experienced do not use this as an opportunity to spread 7 conditional Kritiks with a million different tricks. Besides those caveats I try my best to be an impartial judge with as limited intervention as possible. Since complete lack of bias is impossible I will try my best to give my general thoughts about different styles and arguments below. 

Traditional:

I love a good traditional round. I don't think traditional debaters are lesser in any way since they don't go as fast or run complex arguments stripped from the inner sanctum of the ivory tower. They have a different skill set that emphasizes simplifying complex arguments for lay audiences and trying to be efficient while being understandable. When done well its pretty impressive. 

Policy:

My bread and butter as a debater. I love creative plans/counterplans and well written tight DAs. Good policy debate requires lots of good research and creative problem solving so watching it is a joy. 

Phil:

I ran a bit of phil my junior year so I have a solid understanding of Kant, Social Contract(Hobbes, Locke, etc), and Rawls. Just slow down and explain your framework, metaethic, etc and you should be good.

Tricks:

I'm going to be honest, I really hate tricks. I think they can drive people away from the activity and negates a lot of the wonderful educational benefits this activity provides. Despite that I will vote on them because they are an argument that can be made. Just be warned that the threshold for them to be responded will be really low. 

Theory:

I understand most standard theory arguments but I'm not a big fan of theory baiting. I will vote on it but theory baiting doesn't make me happy but go ahead and do it if its your threat. Just be warned that my threshold for responses will probably be lower. 

Topicality: 

Regarding non FW-T against non-T affs, I understand this and will be able to follow it and actually find a lot of these T debates interesting. 

Kritiks: 

I ran a lot of standard neg Ks like cap and Agamben alongside with some cap affs. Just explain your theory of power well and you should be fine. Also when it comes to Ks, I'm really not a fan of Ks that get up and say "they are a distraction from the real problem so you should vote neg". I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a K that says that but it will be easier for your opponent to beat it. 

T-FW and Non-T affs:

In these debates I tend to lean towards T-FW but can be pretty easily convinced by Non-T Affs turns on the shells. These debates are probably the most interesting debates that happen because they argue over the power and harm that debate can have. 

In Policy debate, I am a Stock Issues judge.

In LD debate, I am a traditional LD judge who values effective communication, philosophical analysis, and value clash. Very rapid speaking rates are antithetical to this.