While I am a speech and debate novice, I often find myself in the position of speaking at public events or presenting under pressure as a professional. Whether it is in front of a large audience or in a crowded conference room or classroom, I have come to appreciate and understand many of the qualities that make an impression on an audience. These are the qualities that I will be seeking out (and maybe help to instill) in you, presenters of the future!

I am a flow judge who debates in college policy and parli for MIT and BU. I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments. See below for specific guidance on arguments and conflicts.

Spreading: I am mildly hard of hearing and rely on some degree of lip reading to understand people so I ask that debaters not spread at their full capacity but just speak fast and I'll let you know if its getting hard to understand.

Signposting: please please please do it, when you're moving to a separate page or getting into links or impacts let me know so I can flow your argument as well as you have constructed it.

(Epistemology) Tabula Rasa: In general, yes. If you drop something on the premise that its absurd or untrue but don't let me know why I will not flow the arg your direction. I use conservative common sense theory in parli but am generally tabula rasa when it comes to what you can and can't drop without explaining.

--------------------------------specific questions and issues (all basically standard) ----------------------------

Theory and Kritiks: Love em in the right context. Standard form should be adhered to but please talk to me before round if you have specific questions or if you want to alert me about how you structure these args differently.

Neg Block Skew: some new off case and on case args in the neg block are valid unless 1AR collapses on theory. Egregious violations and skew will be noted on the ballot. Collapse in the Neg block.

Drops and Collapse: Don't drop important stuff w/o notification, collapse to your best/strongest args.

Presumption of fiat for policy resolutions: fiat grants agency of enactment and enforcement unless a specific issue is highlighted by neg (see: tabula rasa).

Monolithic plans/plan inclusive cp: valid (burden of disproof is on aff and moot args are valid in most cases)

Straight turns: if you run a disad and only offer defensive non-unique args and link turns a straight turn is valid and will be considered on the ballot, to ensure this is noted the opposing team should mention it in rebuttal and closing.

Topicality: sucks, but if someone is egregiously off-topic or skewing the topicality of the debate in some inherently harmful way you should make this arg for sure. Not a fan of topicality stock args if there isn't any specific atopical approach from a team tho (but of course i will abandon this bias to hear whatever debate occurs)

Offense/Defense: I vote on offensive arguments flowed through, if both teams only offer defensive arguments and rebuttals I will adhere to the least responded defense and largest defensive issues. Please do not make me vote on defense it is a messy game.

Anything else I can answer or clarify in the beginning of round! :)

Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ableism: no tolerance policy, if you engage in harmful behavior in round we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If your opponent is engaging in some kind of intolerance/harm that I do not notice (which may well be the case) let me know and we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If you are using microaggressions or coded harmful language in your arguments it will be reflected in the ballot.

I am a lay judge so take that into consideration, please do not spread.

I expect that you are professional at all times.

Speak to me as though I'm an average person. Keep in mind that a concisely presented argument is a key consideration for me.

Please time yourselves and each other.

My name is Joseph Brower.

Background: I was on the Speech & Debate team throughout High School. I was a State Champion in Public Forum Debate and Radio. I competed nationally in Congress. I graduated 4-Years ago and work in construction management. I'm majoring in Civil Engineering at Portland State University.

Paradigm: Common-sense arguments that are backed by evidence are encouraged. However, I will not vote based on which team/individual I personally agree with. I will only vote based on which team/individual has better argued their points and refuted their opponents.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

I am a fairly laid-back lay judge (aka parent volunteer). I have no experience as a high school or college Speech & Debater. That said, I did theater and performing arts stuff in high school and some in college, and in my professional life, I listen and talk to people. So, I think a lot about language, voice, and clarity of presentation.

Given that I don’t have a background in S&D, use of jargon and highly technical points in debates is not likely to be that helpful. You’re welcome to use them if you like, but just know I probably won’t understand it and may be mildly bemused. What most influences my votes and rankings is if you can provide a compelling case for your ideas in a down-to-earth way. Help me understand your framework in plain English, and I’ll do my best to evaluate your ideas and arguments.

Giving a clear road map and helping keep me oriented with sign posts as you go will benefit you. Going too fast is not likely to help. In fact, excessive speed is likely to distract me from your ideas. I react well to respectful, collegial interactions between competitors, and pay close attention to that.

Finally, I’m really impressed by all of you folks who are dedicating your time and energy to such a cool set of activities, and like seeing students engaging with each other and having fun. (That’s point of all this, right?)

My paradigm definitely doesn't cover everything, so please ask me specifics and any questions before round!

Add me to the email chain and send any questions about RFDs: taliajcordova@gmail.com

Background, if that's helpful: I graduated in 2020 and this is my third year judging. 3 years parli, 1(ish) year policy. I've competed in every debate form at least once plus various speech events (mostly extemp).

General-- Equity and respect are paramount. Speech and debate should be an inclusive space--please make your opponents feel welcome! Equity violations or any expressions of bigotry are unacceptable.

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and will vote on the flow by evaluating the line by line, impact calculus, and looking to how many arguments each team wins. This being said, please warrant your arguments and impact them out/terminalize impacts. Make extensions of your case and your rebuttals! I'm open to voting on any well explained and clearly linked-out argument and will evaluate the whole flow, but like anyone I have different thresholds for different arguments/styles. Those preferences are outlined below...

Speed-- I'm rusty at flowing spreading, so if you speak at top speed I probably won't get everything on paper, but I'm comfortable with reasonable speed as long as your opponents are. I'll clear you if need be. Please slow down on taglines.

Topicality and theory-- Neither are my favorite thing to listen to because they often reduce substantive debates to small technicalities, but there are defintely times when they're useful tools. As long as you give specific violations and standards I'll evaluate the argument. You should be able to specify the ground lost in the particular round we're in, not just read generic harms that don't link. That also means I probably won't consider 'potential abuse' as a voter--it's necessary to prove in round abuse.

Counter plans--Great! Just make sure your CP is competitive.

Kritiks-- I really enjoy listening to Ks and any argument with a critical lens and am open to voting on them, as long as you make a strong link to the aff and have a *specific* alt text. Please explain your K literature! I'm pretty well versed in cap Ks/Marx and feminist theory, and I know a little biopolitics/Foucault, but beyond that don't assume I know your authors.

This is especially an issue in policy, but don't use Ks or any other non-generic argument just for the sake of skewing out your opponents--you should be able to to break it down to its essence in an accessible way so they can actually engage with it. That doesn't mean you're fully responsible for their comprehension or that you shouldn't make the argument, but please be reasonable and don't read something for the sake of confusing people.

TL;DR: Respect each other, warrant arguments, weigh impacts!

Public Forum since 2014.

Former political candidate. Campaign worker, director of outreach. Advocate. Leader. Reporter. Former debate student.

I place a high priority on speech delivery - eye contact, poise, etc.

Stock issues matter.

Evidence is the key.

Make me believe what your facts are.

I am a parent judge with some training and experience. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require. A few notes:

- I expect you to time yourself and each other

- Refrain from being rude to each other

- Keep you cameras on at all times

- Keep in mind that communication with me is key to effective argumentation

My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you. Kritiks are valuable to debate because they can have an impact on our discourse. To wield them as a procedural cheapens that. I also really really dislike Topicality unless absolutely necessary. Especially when someone runs T against like a novice case topic area. Running Topicality because you think you have to is so boring and just takes away from the debate.

I prefer debate to be an accessible activity. Overly relying on jargon to make your point bums me out. Do not spread your opponents. If they say "clear" you better slow down. Disregarding that can absolutely cost you the round.

Most of all, persuade me. I want warranted claims and facts presented, but I need you to do the analysis. You need to put the pieces together for me, I will not do the work for you.

I will try not to divulge my personal beliefs, and most of all, I will try not weigh them in a round. That being said, I am human and I have feelings and empathy.

I also value cordial discourse. If you get rude to your opponents (dismissive, talking over them incessantly, glaring or obviously rolling your eyes) I will mark you down on speaker points at the very minimum, and it will affect my decision. Remember, you were new once, and a supportive community keeps this activity alive.

Have fun, don't stress out, and GOOD LUCK!!

For email chains: bharrison@pps.net

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

I am a lay judge, albeit one with experience judging debate at this point. I am familiar with basic debate terminology and structure, but I have never debated myself, so progressive debating is mostly beyond me.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have already told you I am a lay judge, so make sure you are not speaking too fast for me to understand the words that come out of your mouth. This is debate, not auctioneering.

Be civil to one another. I expect you to show respect to your opponent(s) and avoid any disparaging behavior or remarks.

I appreciate off-time (or on-time) road maps when you can provide them, as well as signposting along the way.

Arguments should be clear and concise. Examples are key- if you have examples for your argument, I will weigh it. However, it's important for the other team to acknowledge this. I won't do the work for you; it's important that you address flaws in each other's cases in round so I can get it on the flow.

The more you talk over each other, interrupt each other, act condescendingly to the other team etc. the less likely I will be to judge in your favor. I'm not going to reward behavior that is harmful and often rooted in sexism.

I get some jargon, but I mostly did PF in high school so I'm not extremely well versed in debate jargon.

If you are able to explain something to me in a way that's accessible to me as a judge, that's fine. But I'm not necessarily going to know whether you laid out a kritik correctly, because that's not the type of thing I'm really familiar.

Updated: Mar 2024

he/him or they/them - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Former head coach in Oregon. Background in economics and data analytics. Just call me Jeff, please. Local and nat circuit judging experience.
Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.

LD Paradigm -TL;DR: Speed is fine. I am here to observe and evaluate your round, not inject my own beliefs, but I can't really disregard scientific reality. Solid warrants solve this issue. I like good theory and default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. LARP is good. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability. Assume that I am familiar with the topic but not your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine. Don't spread the analytics, but you can still talk faster.

Argumentation:
1) I will vote on topicality. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning topicality is necessary but insufficient for Aff to win the round. Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge, a line-by-line is not necessary. You don't need to spend 2 minutes answering. Disclosure is not an answer to a topicality.
2) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first.
3) Warrantless/impactless arguments are not weighed. Warrants can be evidence or analytics.
4) Extend and impact drops if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
5) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. I favor consistent weighing mechanisms.

K's: K's must be thoroughly explained even if stock. Clearly establish a solid link. I may be the wrong judge for an Aff K.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) I default towards drop the argument, feel free to make a different case.
3) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
4) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations.

Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.

Misc:
1) I'd rather judge good substantive debate than bad T rounds. If I feel like your bad T is stopping good debate, I will probably undervalue it.
2) Disclose, unless it is not a norm for this tournament.
3) I am probably a middle of the road speaks judge. 28 is average.
4) Pref list:
Plan/Value/Phil/LARP/Trad 1
K 2
Theory 2
Aff K 3
Tricks/Spike 5

Policy Judging Paradigm -TL;DR: Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. Policy is more of a game than any other debate format. Tech first.

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow or differentiate your analytics a bit so I can detect the distinction without referencing the doc.

Argumentation:
1) I vote on topicality. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff only needs to answer why/how they meet or why/how the challenge is illegitimate. I consider this one of the only "rules."
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Tech over truth.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got.
3) I default towards drop the argument. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.

PF Paradigm -Consider me an informed judge with debate experience, that may not be familiar with technical PF aspects. If the teams agree to something before the round (open cx, spreading, whatever) I will honor those agreements. I still consider PF a more accessible form of debate, so please don't make it less so.
1) Speed is fine, if everyone is ok with it.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaks if only one partner ever answers questions.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first.

K's:I've never seen a PF K. It must be thoroughly explained and have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.

Parli Paradigm
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation. The earth is not flat.

Disqualifiers:

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If it is blatant, you lose the round. Opponents to people that use these things, you may ask me for your options between speeches off prep time. Options are 1) Ignore them, 2) engage them, call them out, make them voters, or 3) end the round and ask for a summary ballot. If I concur, you win, if I don't you lose. I am not here to steal your opportunity to stand up to these things, but I can understand needing someone to protect the safe space. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.

Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.

Off-time road maps are fine.

I did LD for 3 years and am year out. I dabbled with prog debate, but it's not my forte. I also have experience in public forum, and parli.

Clear impact calc is the best way to my ballot. I want explict reasons why your impacts matter more than your opponent's under the fw.

Collapse.

My pet peeve is when people say "for all these reasons and more..." etc. Please find a better, more impactful way to end your speech :)

I am pragmatist by nature, but I will evaluate with whatever framework you give me. I know my philosophy.

Plans and CP's are fine, but I am not impressed by the neg reading a PIC with 4 minutes of PICs good, same with hyper-specific affs and 3 minutes of theory spikes.

K's:

I am familiar with the most of the lit. But I don't have much experience with the k's themselves. If you're going to run K, you have to explain it clearly.

Theory/T

I don't like friv theory.

I'm silently judging you

I did Public Forum debate at Harrisburg High School and I participated in all 4 years of high school. I didn't really participate in any other event, so if I'm judging you in speech or a different debate event I won't be as great a judge. I have limited experience with LD and Extemp, but not much else. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. In short, speak clearly, be nice, and follow the rules.

--PF--

Speaking:Being concise and well-spoken is important, but being respectful is equally important. I won't hesitate to drop speaker points if you are blatantly condescending or use insulting language.

Flowing: I flow pretty well and will vote off the flow most of the time. Other factors like speaking matter somewhat but the flow and pulling your arguments through are super important to me. Often times when cards are brought up in quick succession I don't write the card's names down as I am more focused on flowing the content of the card, so telling me what the card says in later speeches is key to keeping it on my flow. Cards are important, but big ideas and refuting the actual arguments your opponents make matters to me.

Evidence: I expect both teams to come to the round prepared with all possible evidence. If you use a card in the case please have the uncut article available, preferably with the used section highlighted. If you cannot produce the evidence promptly (within a minute or two) I will assume you don't have the evidence and evaluate the round as such. I will adhere to the rules, meaning if you do your own math, misconstrue an author's intention, or do anything else in violation of evidence rules I will not weigh the evidence in my decision.

Prep time: When you call for cards, I will start YOUR prep once you have received the article/card you requested. I will end prep time when you return it. I will start prep before you are given the requested card if you are prepping while you wait.

Framework: If a framework is given I will vote on it as long as it's not refuted effectively enough and is carried through. If you drop your framework in the summary and then bring it up in FF I won't be voting on it. If you can't adhere to their framework then give me another weighing mechanism or another framework. If a framework is abusive, tell me it's abusive and why. Don't get too deep into the framework debate.

Summaries: I prefer line-by-line when it comes to summaries as it's easier to follow in the flow, but using voters or another mechanism won't kill you by any means. Whatever you do, always signpost as much as you can, and don't go too fast. If an argument is important in the round, be sure to talk about it in summary, because if it's dropped in summary I won't be voting on it.

Final Focuses: Don't lie about what people said in the second FF to try to win the round.

--LD--

I have judged two rounds of LD debate in my life, one novice and one varsity. Do with that information as you will.

1 Respond to the opponent's contentions and arguments (if something is dropped, I will believe the last person who mentioned it).

2 Don't assume I know things.

3 Clearly state which contention (and subpoint) you are talking about.

4 Provide reasoning and credibility for your evidence.

For debate: quality over quantity for arguments (I'm allergic to spreading). If it's too fast for me to follow, I can't tell if it's a solid argument, so it means nothing to me. I'm more interested in engaging your opponent's arguments rather than tossing out a lot in hopes that an argument gets dropped.

I'll also say that maintaining clash in a debate is important to me. I am very unsympathetic to positions (counterplans, for example) that seek to evade the central issue in a resolution. Exploring positions that may not be popular or agree with your own opinions strikes me as one of the most valuable parts of debate, and you will do much better with me arguing those positions forcefully rather than trying to reframe a debate in terms that are more "comfortable."

For speech events, you still have to say something that is coherent and intelligible, but I have found that speeches that naturally vary in pace and tone keep me engaged much better than those that do not.

FWIW, I'm a science and math prof in my regular life. While I never competed in debate, I run lots of them with my students!

I did LD and parli for four years in high school.

Write my ballot for me. Give me clear voters, use frameworks to evaluate arguments, and/or do impact calculus. Tell me what the most important arguments in the round are and why.

If you have any more questions about my judging philosophy, please ask.

[updated for OSAA 2024]

​

portland urban debate league

‎​

please add me to the email chain - avneetsid28 [at] gmail.com

i only flow your speech but glance at the doc when questions arise (clipping, misconstrued ev, bad cites)

‎​

i care for this activity and all those in it very deeply, and i only hope for the same from you.

you win when you are kind, creative, and clever & i truly believe you can achieve this when you try your best.

‎​

it is my job to adapt to you, and your job to write out my ballot exactly as you think it should be written.

‎​

(yes, please read your k in front of me.)

frameworks that rely on excluding the k, disengaging with theoretical debate, and severing from your advocacy make me sad.

t is never an rvi, things like "limits bad" are better arguments, so please make them.

do affs have the burden to be "reasonably" topical? probably. very low threshold for what this means.

teams that convince me to reject the res have arguably clashed with the topic enough to make me believe it's bad.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

Please speak clearly - even if you are policy - especially if you're policy

(He/him)

Email for flash: porter.scott.wheeler@gmail.com

(If you have questions or beef w/ my RFD feel free to email me, (no promises on response tho))

Note: Tab has removed the google spellcheck API so apologies if there are misspelling on your ballot, I promise I'm not dumb as rocks, I just type fast.

College judge, debated for Cleveland High School. Experienced in all forms of debate and speech. Especially LD, Parli, and ADS.

My main imperative as a judge is to be entertained. If you pick the most boring rez and run stock args I will be sad

For Debate:

Run anything you want, I don't care, but please be clear with good signposting. If you are going to refute the neg's second contention third subpoint; tell me. While I was not a K or progressive debater I have no problem with progressive debate. However, if you do run a K make sure I can understand it or I will not vote for you. I am fine with speed just flash me your case first.

For IE's:

Just do your thing, I'm good with anything. No topic is too sensitive/no need to censor yourself. If you make me cry and I will be mad at you but I will probably give you first in the room.

tldr; don't be a dick

30 speaks if you run a case generated in chatGPT

I'm a lay judge with several years experience judging all forms of debate and speech events. I've taught college-level rhetoric, composition, and literature. In Debate rounds I'm looking for a solid argument with good supporting examples with clear and full elaboration; in other words, development is preferable to repetition. Make sure you define your terms meaningful and adhere to the actual resolution and don't wander off topic (i.e., if the issue is whether the US should pay its debt to the UN, the debate should specifically focus on that issue and not the UN in general). I love a good CX and (all things being equal) favor teams that discover vulnerabilities in the opponents' arguments and take advantage of them. If you don't have a full grasp of an abstract concept, i.e., "hegemony," "structural violence," "Occam's razor," "rational actor," "soft power," etc. don't bring it into play. Be able and willing to explain yourself and your ideas fully. I am unimpressed by spreading, jargon, or rudeness and regard off-time road maps as redundant. Similarly, telling me the "rules" of debate and claiming something is "unfair" will win you no points. I prefer to be convinced rather than told how to vote.