I am a parent judge with limited 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."

I'm a parent judge with three years of experience, including judging individual speech events 3 times at NSDA Nationals, twice at NIETOC, and once at TOC. During debate rounds, keep your speaking pace moderate. If you are speaking too quickly for me to follow, I will let you know in-round. Your arguments should be at the level that an intelligent, well-read person can understand. If you have more advanced case theories, kritiks, etc., it's your job to make them understandable to me, including explaining terms of art. I like specificity. I like students who are competitive, but collegial with each other.

I’m a first year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

I am a parent with 2+ years of experience judging both individual and debate events.

* Spreading: I try to flow all contentions but may miss some in cases of high speed delivery. I favor well developed arguments over trying to overwhelm other side with sheer numbers.

* Theory: Please explain arguments without relying solely on jargon, but if you over-argue your points, I'll assume that you have nothing better to say.

* Voting: I favor competitors that present the most logical arguments, and clearly explain how impacts of their case outweigh those presented by opponents. To win my vote on framework arguments, they must be well developed with clear links to your case.

* Other Preferences: Questions should be concise and relevant, not long rebuttals with a half-hearted question at the end. I don't consider road maps to be off-time. The clock starts when you begin speaking, and I will cut you off if you go more than a few seconds over time.

TL;DR

4 years exp parli

tech>truth

Don't make debate inaccessible (racism, sexism etc.)

Debate is a game, I accept all arguments

Speed is okay as long as it doesn't make the round inaccessible for you opponent (also being online makes it hard to hear anyways, so go extra slowly if connection is poor)

I'm a physics student, so I can follow and appreciate scientifically heavy arguments

My name is Gus (he/him), currently a physics student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I competed for Cleveland High School (OR) primarily in parli for 4 years, but I have in-round experience for every debate form. My experience goes: Parli>>>>PF>Policy>>LD. I believe that debate is a game and therefore all types of arguments should be allowed. I will vote on theory and kritik as long as you give the simple argumentation as to why I should, I will probably never make those connections for you. I'm a physics major, I don't read philosophy, so if you're reading a K, don't assume I know your author or what your kritik is about. Speed is okay, I will be flowing the entire time, just make sure it does not preclude your opponents from being able to engage in thoughtful argumentation. I will not vote on presentation, I will only evaluate what I have on the flow. I don't care about weighing mechanisms at all, you can put one out, but for policy resolutions net benefits is usually the way to go. Creativity is super cool, after many years of debate people tend to rehash the same arguments, anything that makes your case stand out is great.

If you have any specific questions please feel free ask me before or after the round! my email is aglas4@illinois.edu

I just barely debated in high school, mostly did speech. I have done a ton of public speaking as a teacher, advocate and lobbyist (and I have a law degree). I'll follow your arguments, but you'll have to walk me through your flow and debate lingo, or I might miss it.

MOST IMPORTANT: Speak clearly and slowly enough so I can write down your winning points - otherwise, you didn't make them.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

I am a lay judge, so I appreciate patient participants who are willing to teach me and help me run the event correctly.

For debate events, I will be evaluating for clear speaking, signposting, and civility. I do not want spreading.

I prefer debates based on the topic and less on semantics and definitions. If you run K or T, be prepared to explain it clearly to me (and this is good advice for working with ALL lay judges).

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.

For Debate:

Slow down. For debate I always see great start, spreading in the middle then adding new args in the final. Look, just go slow the whole time. I promise you, a few well heard arguments will sway judges more than technical rule based filler. Plus, your speech will be much clearer and they will be in complete sentences.

I look for speakers to react to the other side's bigger points. Did you hear what they said?

For IE:

There is the intellectual story and the emotional story. One is coherent fact storyline. The other is how it made me feel. The ideal for all performances is when your audience temporarily loses their sense of place and is "in" your story. Think of your favorite movie. If you can do that, I will be yours!

Rich

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.

As a judge, I don't have a lot in the way of preferences. I did LD for a few years in high school, so there aren't many events I'm completely unfamiliar with. I'm good with speed so long as we start an email chain, I'm open to progressive arguments (especially with strong link chains!) and I love impact calc. Tell me what is most important about the round and why I should vote for your side. However, as a judge I don't appreciate being told what to do (it doesn't sit well with me) so I would rather you phrase your arguments on their importance instead of compelling me to do something.

I did LD, CEDA, and policy in high school and college, which was a long, long time ago, and started coaching and judging in the 19/20 academic year.

I'm open to whatever arguments you want to make. I'm a games theorist; debate is a rule-bound activity, and victory is decided, not by who has the best outfit or even the best cards, but by reference to the rules. I'm open to arguments about the rules, and I want a ruleset that will lead to interesting, educational, and satisfying debate.

I begin each round assuming that the debate is about the resolution, Aff will try to persuade me the resolution is true and will win if it succeeds, Neg wins if Aff fails or if Neg persuades me otherwise. If you want me to vote on some other basis, you need to persuade me in the round. Kritiks, perms, and some other esoteric arguments were not, as far as I recall, in common use when I was debating. That doesn't mean that you can't run them, but it means that you will be sorry if you assume I understand the framework, specific jargon, or the first couple of steps of your arcane theory argument. Those arguments can be very interesting, and I will listen to them and vote on them if I am persuaded, but that is unusual. I am surprised not to hear more arguments on topicality, the limits of fiat, how many examples prove a general proposition, and other basic arguments about the scope of the debate and the victory conditions.

My interest in theory notwithstanding, most rounds are won or lost on conventional grounds, and interesting debates are usually about true facts that exist in the real world. I'm not a tabula rasa judge; I read the news and keep up on current events, and I am a criminal defense attorney, so I have a pretty good understanding of the Constitution, how laws are made, and police and courtroom procedure. Arguments based on implausible or untrue facts are unlikely to work even if you have a citation to back them up. OSAA rules require more information about your sources than I typically hear. Telling me that in 2017 someone called Smith said something supportive of your argument is not especially persuasive, especially if your opponent points out that Smith's claims are implausible or we don't know who Smith is or why we should believe her. Arguments in Parli are most persuasive when they are based on facts that we all know and on logical inferences we can draw from those facts, and least persuasive, often round-losingly unpersuasive, when based on facts I know not to be true.

I don't think speed is appropriate in LD, PF, or Parli, and if you talk faster than I think is appropriate, I will put my pen down and stop paying attention. In policy, I don't object to speed, but if you talk faster than I can flow, it's your problem. Because debate is a spoken activity, I will not look to written materials to clarify things I couldn't understand during the speech, and I'll put my pen down if I'm unable to flow. In all formats, arguments delivered with the cadences, expression and gesture, and eye contact of good rhetoric will get more weight on the flow. And, like every other debate judge ever, I want clear organization. It's your job to make sure that I understand where on the flow your argument goes, and good signposts and labels will serve you well.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Yes, put me on the email chain: ekruger.berlin@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to reach out to me.

Background:

I'm a Freshman at the University of Denver majoring in International Relations and German, with a minor in Economics. I graduated from Cleveland High School in 2021 and competed all four years, mostly in Policy and Public Forum.

The basics:

1. I expect debaters to uphold and promote respect throughout the entire round. I'm open to listen to pretty much anything in a debate round, but if it is clear you don't want respect to prevail in the room, I will drop you. Debate is an educational activity but respect is a prerequisite.

2. Please for the love of all that is holy, SIGNPOST. If I don't know where you are on the flow, then I cannot reasonably evaluate your arguments

3. Tech > Truth (duh)

4. Kick out of positions. I don't want to have to evaluate a million args going into the last speech.

5. Weigh impacts. Every Speech. Period.

6. Extend arguments.

7. I'm OK with spreading. HOWEVER, read the room. If you have a first year who clearly can't handle spreading, then DO NOT spread. I don't care if you have a speech doc. I don't care if its the "norm" in policy or LD or Parli. DO NOT do it. Also, always send a speech doc.

8. Your round, your rules, just tell me why to vote for you.

Public Forum

I did PF my senior year after years of policy so I have some preferences that may be out of the norm. But again, do whatever you want as long as it's not abusive, racist, homophobic, etc.

1. I REALLY hate the paraphrasing culture in PF. It would make my life and your opponents life easier if you cut cards the proper way (tag, author, date, highlight).

2. Spreading in PF is kinda dumb but I understand how short speeches are so go ahead.

3. No arguments are off limits (theory, k's, etc.) but NEVER on someone new to debate.

4. Too many teams drop the line-by-line in summary. Don't be that team. It makes it seem really abusive when your partner brings up that one thing second speaker said on the line-by-line in final focus. Also, it's so much more fun than big picture.

5. Please, please, please collapse onto your best argument. PF is too short to address 3 args in final focus.

6. Impact analysis throughout the debate is SO KEY. Tell me why your impact is more important but don't wait until final focus.

Policy

*Note: I have yet to judge or coach the 2021-2022 topic. Assume I have no background knowledge on literature, acronyms, etc.*

1. Go as fast as you want but I haven’t participated in/judged policy in many months so my ear for spreading is not up to date. Just send a speech doc and we'll have no problems (I will drop speaks for clipping cards/skipping over cards and not telling anyone in the round).

2. Kick, extend, be organized, don't drop arguments.

3. On K's: I was never a K debater, never wanted to be one, and hated every K debate I was a part of. That being said, I think they have their place in the debate space and I will vote for one. Feel free to run them but assume I won't have any background on the lit. So, explain everything very throughly and run at your own risk.

4. Another note on K's: Kicking the alt of a K and just going for the link and impact is genius and something I wish I had done more….. Alts are usually stupid so why not just run it as a DA? (I totally didn't steal that from my partner... thanks Daniel)

5. On T: Go for it. Some judges say it's a time suck, others say it's a core part of debate. I think its amazing, so run it.

Parli

1. I see parli as unprepared policy so look at my Policy paradigm

2. Any args go but don't get too fancy with it. Nothing wrong with a classic uniqueness, link, internal link, impact.

LD

1. I have 0 experience in LD but I'll evaluate the round like I would any other debate.

I am a parent judge with some training and 5 years of state level experience (Oregon) . I have also judged at the Middle School National Competition in 2019, several TOC during 2020-21, and Congress at the High School Nationals in 2022.  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. - I expect you to time yourselves and each other. - Refrain from being rude to each other (I have never seen this occur in any round I have ever judged or observed). 

I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.

Also, be polite.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.

My background: I did debate for all four years of high school (2014-2018). I did LD freshman year, policy for sophomore and half of junior year, and parli for the rest of high school. I octofinaled at state sophomore year, semifinaled junior year, and won senior year. Also got smoked at the TOC senior year -- still was an absolute blast.

My philosophy: Run whatever you want. The exception to this is something so grossly offensive to a particular group, class, identity, etc. that I cannot believe it was anything but intentional. That aside, I believe the debate space is what you make of it. That means I am just as comfortable with you running a traditional aff with three advantages as I am with a K aff with as many T shells are necessary to justify it.

What it means to justify an argument is obviously variable but I would much prefer if you did not make me do it on my own. Please weigh impacts. I will zealously stick to the flow which means if you do not speak last and do not weigh your impacts, your opponents should have a virtually guaranteed win. If no one weighs impacts, then I have to do it myself which is a terrible scenario for all involved because the debate becomes an opinion poll. All of this is to say I will not care about anything unless I am told to*. If an opponent goes over time and does not stop, I will not care unless you stand up and tell me why that is bad. If an opponent does not take any questions in parli, same thing. If the aff's plan leads to a premature death of the universe, same thing.

A few asides: please give me a roadmap before your speech. I would prefer that such a roadmap does not become a speech in and of itself but again, the opposition would have to run an argument against it. In general, to keep everyone happy, you can just say "off case, then on" (or vice versa) and if you really want to make me happy you can give me the order of the off case arguments. I was a mediocre policy debater which means I do not hate speed like many Oregon judges do. However, I have not flowed spreading in years and probably will be bad at it so be prepared to say what you want to say more concisely if I tell you to slow down repeatedly.

Have fun folks!

* An aside for parli. Because it's a (sort of) evidence-less debate, there is usually an element of truth-telling I will have to undergo as the judge. If one side says "studies say environmental regulations harm firms" and the other says "studies actually show that they don't", I basically have to pick who I agree with because there are no actual studies presented. Frankly, it's a limitation of the format but you can limit its impact by utilizing empirics and narratives.

I'm not a regular judge. Please walk me through the event.

I'm an engineer and I value precision.

I am new to judging. I was in speech in high school, and in a discussion-based college involving philosophy and politics.

I am looking for direct communication on salient points without oversimplification. I appreciate slower speech, and attention to debate etiquette.

Since I'm new to judging, I'd appreciate no kritik or theory shells.

(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