Respect comes first. We’re here to compete, but there’s a fine line between being competitive and being aggressive. That said, I do consider myself a flow judge. At the end of the day, my vote is going to boil down to consistent and clear refutation across the flow. Clear signposting is also HIGHLY appreciated.

Speed is alright, so long as you’re able to annunciate. It doesn’t matter how many points you’re able to fit into a minute if I can’t tell what you’re saying.

Tl;dr: Refute, be respectful of your opponent, and annunciate.

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

As background on who your judge today is: I am a student at The College of Idaho. I am on the Howling Yotes debate team and often compete in British Parliamentary. Through all four years of high school I competed in various speech events and did every debate event on the Idaho high school circuit. I do not try to judge based on the knowledge I have from higher education, but instead on a variety of factors.

Technique: This is the most important thing in debate. I am not a techy debater and don't focus on the major agnostics of it, but at the end of the day the tools you utilize in debate are vital to winning. Part of what this means for me is that structure to your speeches is important. I want to see clear pieces to each argument and for you to spell things out for me; I will not make connections for you or do any of the work for you when judging. Clear link work and impacts are major judging factors for me. Building a case and refutation should involve clear and strong offense. Offense is more important to me than defense; defense is important and should be included but that should just illustrate how important strong offense is.

Persuasiveness: This is less of an important factor, but it still matters because debate is not purely about the agnostics of it all. This can mean clear and confident speaking. This can go a long way towards selling an argument, but honestly I would give low point wins if I could because the eloquence of a speech does not determine if you had a winning argument.

Question periods: This looks different depending on the type of debate, but I highly recommend all debaters utilize questioning periods to their full extent. I want to see that you are using question period to build either direct offense or defense. Filler questions or ending questioning period early makes it look like you have nothing to say about your opponents speech.

Evidence: I want to see reliable and credible sources. This is a huge point of backing up your claims. However, this does not stand on its own; there needs to be a warrant. The link work you use to explain the impacts of this evidence is just as important.

If you have any questions about feedback or other things I saw in the debate, you can email me at jayden.bodey@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu !

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

I am a parent judge and have no prior personal experience in debate. I have judged at numerous tournaments over the past 3 years and have judged each of the debate events.

The strength and persuasiveness of your arguments are the most important, but specifically I watch for three things: organization, performance and clash.

Organization: I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. Signposting is helpful.

Performance: Act confident, speak clearly, stand up straight and look up from your computer. Do not speak too fast. Use enunciation and inflection in your voice. If you're speaking so fast that I can't follow what you're saying your argument is wasted.

Clash: This is a debate event and I want to see debate! I watch for rebuttals of specific arguments. Signposting during rebuttal is also helpful. I also watch how well you handle yourself during crossfire. Do you ask intelligent questions, when answering questions are you able to respond knowledgeably and confidently?

Be professional. You can debate and clash and probe your opponent's arguments without being rude, offensive or immature.

Public forum is supposed to be argued as if you are in front of a non-specialist or citizen judge. That's me! If you are debating in public forum, your arguments and debate style should conform to that standard and it's important to me that you understand that.

In Congress I like to see extemporaneous arguments that keep up with the flow of the debate and respond to previous speakers. If you're looking down at your computer reading your speech that tells me that you aren't keeping up with the movement of the debate. I like to see advancement of the argument and don't want to hear the same argument repeated that has already been given by another speaker. I also look for how you respond in questioning.

In LD I care more about strong quality arguments than the value criterion. That being said, since there is a value criterion, you should make it clear how your arguments connect back to yours.

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic. I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

I’m a new coach and judge and consider myself a “communications” judge. Please speak at a pace that allows me to flow your argument. Polite and respectful debate appreciated!

Mahalo!

Hi! My name is Gia Codina. I just graduated last year and competed on the circuit for four years. I competed in LD debate during high school. In a round, I look strongly at communication and flow. I want your arguments to be clearly laid out for myself and for your opponents. If I can't follow your arguments, I won't keep track of them. Also, communicate to me why you believe that you won the round. Despite being a debater myself, I still want any and all arguments and frameworks clearly explained.

I look forward to judging you and good luck :)

Looking for students who speak clearly and address all of opponents contentions.

Strong cross-ex and clash as well as evidence-based points make or break a debate for me. I follow flow closely. 

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Speakers who are articulate, well-spoken, and have a strong backing of evidence will fair better in round.-Judge Aaron Dossett.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

This is your round to have and enjoy, so most importantly, make sure that you are being kind to your opponent and having fun!

I am comfortable with speed, but do not be excessive or spread, and I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. If you run a K, or a CounterPlan, or something progressive in LD - it needs to be done in a way that is accessible to your opponent.

If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but please don't be excessive or abuse that time. (I.E. have your evidence pulled up and organized)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun!

My email is hampton.allie@gmail.com if you have any further questions.

Please do not talk excessively fast. Your rate of speaking should be about the same as in a normal conversation. I prefer speakers and debaters who speak at a conversational rate. A fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to
understand arguments in the past. If you talk so fast that I cannot follow what you are saying it will be difficult for me to give you a high score and/or ranking.

Know and follow the rules for the speech or debate event in which you are participating.

I value both arguments and style, with a slightly higher emphasis on style.

Try to utilize the majority of your available time.

Be respectful of each other.

Have fun!

This is your round so debate as you see fit. I have experience in forensics, so don't be worried about catering to a lay judge. Be kind people and have a good time!

Speech and debate are not merely extracurricular activities; they are powerful tools for honing communication skills, critical thinking abilities, and fostering intellectual growth. This paradigm delves into the multifaceted world of speech and debate, highlighting their significance in personal and academic development.

1. Effective Communication: Speech and debate provide platforms for mastering the art of effective communication. Participants learn to articulate their thoughts clearly, persuasively, and concisely, essential skills for success in both personal and professional realms.
2. Critical Thinking: Engaging in speech and debate fosters critical thinking skills by challenging participants to analyze complex issues from multiple perspectives. Through research, analysis, and argumentation, individuals learn to construct logical and compelling arguments.
3. Confidence Building: Public speaking can be daunting, but speech and debate offer a supportive environment for individuals to overcome their fears and build confidence. The ability to confidently express ideas in front of an audience is invaluable in all aspects of life.
4. Civic Engagement: Speech and debate empower individuals to become active participants in civic discourse. By discussing pressing societal issues, participants develop a deeper understanding of the world around them and are motivated to effect positive change.
5. Intellectual Growth: Engaging in speech and debate cultivates intellectual curiosity and a lifelong love of learning. Participants are exposed to a wide range of topics and viewpoints, challenging them to expand their knowledge and broaden their perspectives.

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

Be nice :)

I like to judge based on the flow; if you want an argument to matter you have to tell my why. I don't vote on dropped points unless you tell me why the argument matters. I'm not gonna do any of the work for you here; if you don't tell me why I should care, I wont.

Rebuttals should not just be a cross-application simulator. I get that your points often do a good job by themselves of refuting your opponent, but I need you to EXPLAIN how this actually applies. If you just say the name of your contention and move on, you might as well have said nothing at all.

Impact calculus is probably my number 1 voter. If you can prove to me in the end that your impacts consistently flow your side then I will give you the win.

**Just some stuff about me: I did debate for four years in high school and I have experience in PF, LD, and Policy, though I specialized in policy and LD. I currently debate in college for the BSU talking broncos team so if you have any questions you can reach me through there.

I did speech and debate in high school and now I help with coaching. My main format was Public Forum, but I have experience in a lot of formats and events.

With that, even though I can track with a lot of complicated rounds, accessibility in debate means a lot and we should all be striving for that.

For Debate:

I always try to be a tabula rasa, but I would still say I'm a flows judge, so signposting and taglines are super important to me. If I don't even know what side of the flow you are on in your speech, I probably won't even write down what you're saying. With that, I'm not going to make connections for you, so if you can't communicate internal and external links in your speeches, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through.

I am good with speed but clarity, projection, and inflection are where I'm giving speaker points. If I can't understand you, it's not going on the flow.

My decisions are based solely off what is said in speeches. If a great point is presented in cross, it doesn't matter to me until it's in a speech.

Warrants are also super important to me, so make sure all of your links are clear and your evidence is good.

I think impacts are really what win rounds. If you can show me a clear link story with clear impacts and weigh them well, you'll probably win my ballot.

I can handle some good RA's and stuff, but if it's not done well then it will be difficult to win my ballot.

Be nice and have fun!!

In PF, I think framework is important. I don't think framework debates are usually productive, but it is the only way to really convince me why your arguments matter at the end of the day.

In LD, I think your Value and Criterion should be the core of every single argument and I want to hear about it in every single speech. It will usually be my main judging issue. I am a firm supporter of traditional LD, I don't want it to sound like a PF round and I absolutely don't want any "progressive" behavior (spreading, Ks, etc.) at all.

In Congress, clash and preponderance of evidence has always been really impressive to me. I also think a good speaking style and presentation goes a long way.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

"It is not a crime to be seen learning in public." -Kyle Cheesewright

hello! my name is Jocelyn, but I go by JJ. i went to Kimberly High School, and I'm now a freshmen at the College of Idaho studying biology. i was a debater all four years of high school, and am currently on my fifth year of debating with the College of Idaho Howling 'Yotes Team! i do British Parliamentary Debate, and in high school I did LD and PF, but mostly Congress. with speech, I tried nearly every event, but I did Duo, Extemp, and OO most often.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in round, I first and foremost want to see respect from all participants. at the end of the day, we are here to have fun! this includes inclusion and respect for all identities and opinions, from both sides of the political spectrum.

debate:

THE BIG ONE: i want to see clash!!! i am a clash judge! i want to see how your arguments dismantle the opponent's, and how your arguemnts outweigh on impact calculus (timeframe, probablity, magnitude, and severity; essentially, which argument matters more overall). a good round leaves me to explain which matters more; a great round will explain it for me. just remember, in order to win on impacts and impact calculus, you have to fight through clash and come out victorious through that clash to access those impacts.

organization is also one of the biggest things for me. i need to be able to follow what you're saying. if I am not able to follow what you're saying, I won't know how to flow it and I won't know where to write it down. signposting, taglines, etc. are HUGE!!!

i also LOVE unique takes on a topic! an interesting point, a great bit of analysis, a bit of critical theory perhaps... I eat it all up! the weirder the better! as long as you can make it make sense to me, bonus points!

speech:

i don't know if I'm supposed to put this here, but regardless:

a good structure is huge for me on speeches. it has to flow and make sense.

a good topic also keeps me engaged more than an overdone one (not that those are any less important... I just love uniqueness and nerve! think outside of the box!)

obviously, speak beautifully!

"May the odds be ever in your favor." -Effie Trinket

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

questions on a decision? reach me at:

e-mail: jocelynmaxwell2005@gmail.com

instagram: @j_j_max

also a swiftie? an annoying 2010's pop girlie?

spotify

I am a judge who has formerly competed in debate in high school and college, and I am a coach.

I will flow the round and make decisions based on the ability of a debater to tie arguments back to frameworks and properly defend their position using line by line argumentation. I attempt to be a tabula rassa judge, but no person is entirely a blank slate. So, if you can directly attack and refute the arguments of your opponent by using evidence that is convincing and do so in a rhetorically effective manner then you will do well. I will not connect arguments for you, so you have to be able to make clear linkages between impacts and your case's ability to solve them. Please sign post along the way so I know where you are at in the debate, and make the debate as comprehensive as you possibly can. Use overviews and voters in rebuttals to summarize and connect your speeches effectively. Use your time wisely and be courteous of your opponents and their time as well.

I will hear out most arguments as long as they are clear and sufficiently backed up with evidence.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Preferred Debate Styles:Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence? No preferences

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? Will impact speaker points very negatively

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Up to debaters

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? All are ok/can be persuasive

Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Ok in policy debate, not in other debate types

How should debaters run on case arguments? Up to debaters

How should debaters run off case arguments? Up to debaters.

How should Debaters run theory arguments? Up to debaters

What other preferences do you have, as a judge? 1)I appreciate good clash— addressing the other side’s points not just repeating your points. Explain to me why your argument is better than the other side’s argument.

2) In rebuttals focus on winning the debate, not trying to win every argument that has been in dispute during the round.

3) I respect (and expect the debaters to understand) the differences between the different styles of debate. I don’t judge the same way in every type of debate, so please don’t debate in an LD or PF round the same way you would in a policy round. Accordingly, speed/spread in policy is ok, but not effective in PF or LD (ie you won’t lose my ballot in PF or LD because you spoke too fast, you will lose because your speed detracts from developing your arguments and making them persuasive to me). Note, even in policy ensure that when you read the evidence fast the card is still comprehensible. Kritiks are ok in policy, not in LD or PF.

Debate Experience. I was a former high school policy debater so am very familiar with that style, but I have judged rounds the past 2 years in LD and PF, in addition to policy.

I tend to judge off the flow

Spreading is fine if you flash your case to me and your opponents, and slow down on your tags. If you don't flash and you spread I will drop you.

I tend to not buy nuke war impacts (I'm willing to but u gotta convince me) if u gonna read a big stick aff u gotta fully commit, in general I tend to favor structural violence affs.

I'm fine with Kritiks but unless it's Cap, Abolition, or Securitization, I have pretty much no background on it. In round K's like Gendered Language are also fine. Make sure you do the work to explain it to me and convince me that I should value it. If your alt is 3 paragraphs of dog sh!t u better explain it to me.

I LOVE T, that doesn't mean I'll always vote on it, but if you run it well I will be happy. I'm very willing to vote on ridiculous or weirdly specific T if you can do it well.

Tagteaming is cool w me.

Obvious no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and also slurs.

Clarity and Communication: I want clear and logical structure with on time roadmapping and signposting throughout. Try not to speak so fast that I can't understand you. I do understand that you have a lot to say on your topic but try to keep a clear and consistent pace.

Clash: The more clash the better, in all styles of debate

Respect is extremely important in debate, it won't affect your placement but it will affect your speaker points

If you do not provide voting issues I can not and will not vote for you unless you provide a succinct and strong case that can beat your opponent on its merit alone

I do not keep a rigorous flow, I will write down key words and points that I pick up on and I will keep track of the interaction from both you and your opponent regarding those points

I competed in PF throughout high school and assistant coached after I graduated. I've judged all forms of debate extensively and I love progressive debate. Be clear, signpost, and I should be able to keep up.

I judge off the flow. If you drop arguments, you will lose them. Everything should be carried throughout the round, unless you give me reason it shouldn't be. I also judge heavily on framework (especially in LD and CX) because this tells me how I should measure the round. I'm comfortable with virtually any kind of argument, as long as you can prove to me why it matters.

I don't mind speed. Spreading is fine with me if you go slow on tags and flash your case to your opponent.

I don't care much about propriety (tag-teaming, standing vs seated, etc.) but I do care that you're respectful. This is an educational space. I don't care about assertiveness (totally understand rounds can get heated) but if you need to be mean or condescending to win, you're not a good debater.

See you in round! Good luck! :)

Good (Morning, Afternoon, Evening). I debated 4 years in High School and I am currently a member of the Boise State University Speech & Debate team. I am primarily familiar with Public Forum, however I have competed in Congress and am familiar with LD.

I do not really have much to say, debate should be about the competitors not the judges. You can basically run whatever you want with me, just make sure you have good links. I won't tolerate any homophobia, sexism, transphobia, racism, or personal attacks. Just have a good time. Feel free to email me with questions about the round @ adampendergrass@u.boisestate.edu

Have Fun!

I was never a competitor.

This is my 6th year judging HS speech and debate and first year as a Coach

I do not like spreading.

LD Debate:

I take framework into consideration, but not as much as arguments.

Policy Debate:

I prefer quality and content over speed. I can usually follow , but I want to understand your argument, not just hear it.

Kritiks are not welcome.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 3 years in every event, which means that I am familiar with the rules and terms.

I prefer students know the material and that they don't just read off of their screens the entire time. I like to hear meaningful questions and prefers students to fill the time that they have been given. Please don't speak too fast to where it is difficult to follow your argument. Be kind and be respectful.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework work use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

I am new to judging this year, however, am excited to support the hard work students do. I am looking for students that have put the time into research and practice. For debate, please refrain from spreading, as I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Know your material and be prepared to present your case in a professional manner. Have fun.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

Hi, I'm a first year judge with minimal experience and did not compete in speech and debate growing up in high school. I enjoy listening to evidence based arguments with strong conviction. I prefer to have competitors steer away from assumptions in their arguments.

Be respectful of each other. You can argue your point and refute or even attack an opponents point without attacking your opponent or using hurtful language.

Please do not talk excessively fast. Your rate of speaking should be the same as in a normal or spirited conversation. If you talk so fast that I cannot follow what you are saying it will be very difficult for me to give you a score. If you talk like it is a race it will negatively affect your score.

I cannot process speed talk. Please face me as much as possible while speaking. I utilize lip reading to help my comprehension of spoken language. If you talk quickly or unclearly while turned away I will NOT understand you.

Try to utilize the majority of your available time.

I am interested in hearing logical and well thought out claims with plenty of information to back you up. Structure your thoughts and make clear transitions. This way I will be able to catch all of your main points and reduce confusion.

I have been an English and History teacher since 2002.

Although this is my first year judging speech and debate, I have judged National History Day competitions since 2010.

I like a logical flow with well-structured evidence to support your assertions. Politeness is important to me. I appreciate when competitors time themselves.

Clear links to your values and criterion are important to me.