Wycoff,+Pam

Pam Wycoff
Affiliation: Apple Valley H.S., Director of Speech and Debate Experience: I have over twenty years experience coaching LD and judging. General Description: On a spectrum of judging styles I would describe myself as a more traditional judge. I am always impressed by well reasoned arguments that cut to the core of the resolution. I appreciate a solid case position that clearly links the standard, arguments, and impacts. Know your story and advocate it clearly throughout the round. I am more concerned with quality than quantity of arguments. Theory: To me, generally theory arguments are essentially what I would term as concerns with resolutional analysis. It is acceptable for debaters to address concerns if one debater has not sufficiently and fairly established grounds for debate. However, the ideal debate scenario would be for both debaters to approach the resolution in such a manner that the round centers primarily on issues directly related to the resolution rather than focusing the majority of the round on what the resolution is “supposed’ to be about. Theory for the sake of theory is a bad choice. I would not advise the use of a kritik in a round Jargon: Strategically it is advantageous for debaters to avoid a lot of jargon in the round because I then have to translate that jargon into “my meaning” and that makes more room for issues to be “lost in translation.” Flowing/Managing the Flow: I do flow in a fairly detailed manner. It is in the debaters best interest to signpost clearly the argument tags AND author/sources during cases and rebuttals. Use vocal emphasis to ensure key items are clearly established. Additionally, I would not characterize myself as a line-by-line judge nor a big picture judge, but more “in between.” There are always key things on the flow “not to drop” but I prioritize issue selection over addressing each line. If you must pick one or the other, err on the side of the ‘bigger picture.” I am unimpressed by a long list of responses. I prefer one or two sound responses that take out the argument. Spreading as a strategy would not be a good choice. Delivery: In terms of speed I prefer that you err on the side of slower rather than faster—rapidly conversational is acceptable. If you need me to give you signals to slow down, I can. If it is too fast for me to process, I cannot flow sufficiently nor properly digest/adjudicate the arguments. I welcome good delivery skills. I appreciate a more formal than informal approach to the round. Miscellaneous: Ideally, CX should be used strategically to advance the round, not simply clarify. I do believe there is equal burden of proof in the round. RFD: Finally judges generally say they vote on the standards, and I do. The framework needs to have been clearly established and consistently established during the round. Additionally, in my assessment I will factor in the casing, how the key issues played out, who better controlled the round offensively and defensively, and the weighing/impacting of the final voters. I rarely vote on one simple extension. As a note, a “ quick list of what to vote on” is less effective than voters that are substantially weighed and impacted. Feel free to ask me questions before the round begins if you need further clarification about my judging style.