Currently, I work in the global defense sector. I have nearly two decades of experience spanning DoD public affairs, military tactical information operations, public relations, and broadcast journalism. I've had the distinct honor of supporting high-level events, including engagements with two U.S. presidents and the Secretary of Defense. As a U.S. Army Soldier, I served in three separate military campaigns in Iraq. Serving in combat operations deeply underscored to me the critical importance of effective communication, both in terms of strategic operations and in the preservation of human lives.

Debate and Speech Preferences:

• Clarity and Structure: With a background in strategic communication and understanding the life-and-death importance of clear messaging from my professional experiences, I prioritize clarity and organized argumentation. Make your points clear and logically structured.
• Content and Delivery: I value debaters integrating real-world examples, especially from defense, media, or strategic communication. Your delivery should be confident yet respectful.
• Engagement and Relevance: Engage with your audience (me included). Ensure your arguments are relevant and directly address your opponent's points. Avoid circumventing central issues.
• Diversity and Inclusion: Given my focus on diversity and equity, I urge understanding and respecting varied perspectives. Discriminatory or stereotyping arguments will not be entertained.
• Agility in Argumentation: Drawing from Agile principles, demonstrate adaptability in your arguments. This signifies the capacity to think and respond promptly.
• Development and Growth: My passion lies in aiding your growth as future leaders. I value speakers and debaters showing genuine interest in learning and betterment. Embrace feedback with an open mind.

Final Note:

While victories in debate and impactful speeches are commendable goals, personal growth and development hold equal, if not greater, significance. I'm here to offer feedback and champion your evolution into perceptive and persuasive communicators. Embrace the journey, and treasure the growth and insights it brings.

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

I did LD in high school. I'm ok with speed as long as you're clear. I was a philosophy major in university. I'll probably know whatever you run for frameworks. If it's weird, that's even better. I'm ok with kritics, plans, role of the ballots etc. Just make sure you properly explain how they function and how they should affect my vote. Make sure the local rules allow them too.

Since this is LD, I base my voting decision on the framework unless someone gives me a reason not to. That means I evaluate the contention/policy level debate through the framework. It is not enough to "win the framework debate." You need to show me that you win the round under the framework. There are two parts to a framework debate. 1. telling me which framework I should judge the round off of. 2. Telling me why you win the round under that framework. The good debater will do both. The debater who wants to win MUST do the second. If only one person does the second, they will win the round. If neither does it, I am going to do it, and there's a 50% chance you won't like the results. That said, don't do 1 if you have the same framework. I don't want to hear a 3 minute argument about the subtle differences between utilitarianism and consequentialism. If you feel the debate is important, feel free, but you don't have to do 1 to win the round. It's not necessary.

Be respectful to your opponent. Do not interupt their speech (including with your own timer). Don't tell me when your time starts. I am the time keeper. The time will start when I start it, usually at the begining of your speech. If your opponent asks you a question near the end of cx, you can take a few seconds to answer it. Just be kurt.