As a new judge, I'm looking for clarity in the debate. Slower speaking style without a lot of jargon will help me follow your arguments. Please articulate where your clash is happening and give analysis why your argument is superior to your opponent.

Hey besties I don’t have paradigm just have fun

I am a lay judge and this is my second in-person tournament.

I want you to speak a bit clearly and at a pace which I as a lay judge can follow/understand. Wherever it applies, I would appreciate an off-time roadmap.

I will not be taking time so be sure to take your own.

I expect you to be respectful towards your opponents.

I participated in debate in high school and college. I appreciate a well structured argument that clearly ties back to supporting evidence and clearly explained refutations that address points made by opponents. Weekend language is fine with me. Most of all, I want participants to feel comfortable when they speak so standing or sitting is fine. Questions from opponents are acceptable for points of clarification, but not as a form of attack or a tactic to distract.

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Hi there,

If you're reading this, good job on doing your research! My name is Joe Casey and I'm a fairly new judge in the speech and debate world, but what I've experience so far has been nothing less than impressive - you all give me hope for the future!

While I know I cannot be completely objective, that is the standard I aim for. How I feel about a piece, author, topic is irrelevant, the execution of your presentation is the variable that matters. To really break through I'm looking for exceptional cohesion and clarity, in both delivery and substance, as well as responsiveness to opposing claims.

You've already done the hard part by showing up so enjoy the show.

Good luck and have fun,

Joe Casey

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

I value clarity and organization in your presentation or argument. I appreciate it when you keep things simple and straightforward and logical. I also value moderate pacing and volume (i.e. speak slowly and don't yell), a confident demeanor, clear enunciation, and courtesy to your opponent(s). The content of your speech obviously matters most, but style of delivery (e.g. pacing, tone, mien) does affect my judgment.

If you're racist, homophobic, et., I'll vote you down.

Debate:

I did Parli for most of my time as a competitor. I judge through a policy lens, so please give me very specific impacts in each of your "worlds". All theory is open game if its done well. If no one brings up theory or metadebate, I won't vote on it. Whatever you tell me becomes reality- so build your reality well and remember to address all parts of the opponents' reality! Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Tell me what to vote on, or else I'll just default to whatever I think is most important. If you tell me that one impact is more important than the others, and have good reasoning to support that, I'll vote on it. Comparing your side's "world" vs. your opponents "world" will make my decision much easier. How will voting one way or the other actually manifest in reality?

Impact calculus really helps me decide how I will vote. If you have a really low probability high magnitude impact (like nuclear war), tell me why that matters more than your opponents high-probability, low-magnitude impact.

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

Structure- If you have a hook, intro, thesis (if necessary), a few points and a good conclusion. For interps, just having a good intro and clear points is good. '

Content- Having interesting content is my second way of ranking people. I especially like personal anecdotes.

Rhythm / Clarity / Tone- Having consistent word density, memorizing your speech well, and hitting the 'highs and lows' of your speech are all important to me.

Experience: Competed: 2012-2016 and Coached 2017-Present

I will judge based on argumentation, logic, and the reality of the situation.

I prefer no off-time road-maps, you have a speech limit keep it within that and the grace period, please.

PLEASE NO SPREADING, if I can't understand you it will be difficult for you to win the ballot.

Don't be rude.

Stay organized if you are bouncing all over the place it will disorganize my flow and it will be hard to ensure you get the W.

Stay on topic and stay within the parameters of the resolutions, don't pull anything too crazy that completely changes the wording or the intentions of the resolution.

Use short taglines for your contentions if you can. I don't want to spend half your speech trying to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be, make it clear right from the beginning.

Don't talk down to me, your partner, or your opponent(s). I will not tolerate this and will result in a lower score.

Make sure you have your cards ready because if I don't believe that you're presenting truthful/faithful evidence I will double-check them and if you don't have them it may not work out in your favor.

I'm a newer judge, so I appreciate clear outlines and a measured speaking pace where appropriate.

I debated all 4 years of high school mainly public forum and parli, as well as debating in college. I don't mind talking fast as long as you signpost well and enunciate enough to be understood. If you have a weighing mechanism make sure to put it to use.

I judged based on the debate flow and f whose impacts outweighed the others.

Make sure to stress the impacts of your case and weigh them in the round, if you don't I will weigh them at the end but it's not going to be as generous. Impacts should be weighed on the probability, timeline, and how many people it affects.

Give voters in your final speech, tell specific reasons why you won, not a general summary of the debate, you’re voters should include telling me how your cases impacts outweigh your opponents

I am a lay judge with one year of experience. I like a logical and well organized outline, sign posts, and if appropriate for your event, a range of tone and emotion. Debaters, please "connect the dots" for me on your justifications. I value both analysis and evidence, but at the end of the day, I trust the data. Please do not spread, and focus on clarity of your speech.

Greetings,

I am Amber Houston, and I have had the privilege of serving as a speech and debate judge since November 2022. In my journey, I have found immense joy in connecting with the vibrant speech and debate community. Building on my experience, I want to outline my judging paradigm to provide transparency and guidance for participants.

1. Clear Communication: One of the paramount aspects I value in speakers is clear communication. Articulating ideas effectively, maintaining a logical flow, and ensuring that your arguments are easily comprehensible is crucial. I appreciate speakers who can strike a balance between eloquence and substance, allowing the audience to engage with and understand the presented content.

2. Gracious Professionalism: In the competitive realm of speech and debate, maintaining a spirit of gracious professionalism is essential. I encourage participants to approach each round with respect for their opponents, acknowledging diverse perspectives, and fostering a positive atmosphere. A constructive exchange of ideas not only elevates the quality of the competition but also contributes to the overall growth and camaraderie within the community.

3. Continuous Learning: I view every judging opportunity as a chance for both participants and myself to learn and grow. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a commitment to improvement, incorporating feedback from previous rounds and adapting their approach accordingly. Embracing the learning process is key to not only enhancing individual performance but also contributing to the collective advancement of the speech and debate community.

4. Independence and Collaboration: I support participants who choose to manage their own time, recognizing the importance of developing independent skills. However, I also appreciate the ability to work effectively within a team. Whether collaborating with fellow debaters or engaging in respectful cross-examination, the capacity to contribute meaningfully to a collective discourse is commendable.

5. Presentation Style: While content is paramount, I also value a compelling presentation style. This includes effective use of voice modulation, appropriate gestures, and a genuine connection with the audience. A speaker's ability to captivate and hold the attention of the audience enhances the overall impact of their arguments.

6. Adapting to the Round: I recognize that each round may present unique challenges and dynamics. Participants who can adapt their strategies, delivery, and arguments to the specific context of the round will undoubtedly stand out. Flexibility and agility in response to unexpected situations are traits I commend in speakers.

In conclusion, I am excited to engage with the diverse talents and perspectives within the speech and debate community. My goal as a judge is to provide constructive feedback, foster a positive environment, and contribute to the collective learning experience. Best of luck to all participants, and I look forward to witnessing your compelling performances.

Sincerely,

Amber Houston

PF

I am a lay judge.

"Please, speak as you might to a young child, or a golden retriever."

- Jeremy Irons in Margin Call (2011)

Parli:

After presenting initial research and evidence (cards), I would prefer debaters to think through logical outcomes of the evidence. It is OK (and preferable) to demonstrate that you can think through and suggest impacts that may not be supported by evidence, than to just stick with the 20 minutes of research you were able to complete.

Poetry and Radio

Speed kills. Especially in poetry. If you find yourself reading fast--understand that fast does not add any drama to your reading. As the reader, it may feel like it does; but to the listener, it doesn't. The words and phrases in poetry have inherent drama. If read correctly (without speeding it up), the drama will be apparent. Linger on words, draw-out syllables. Pause. Give time for words to sink in.

I am a tabula rasa judge for the most part. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Basically, tell me how your impacts outweigh at the end of the round. I am fine with speed and K.

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or Kritiks. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments.

I don't like Off-Time roadmaps, if you haven't accounted for giving a roadmap in the allotted time, you probably should have.

Mostly just be respectful to your opponents, other judges, and me as a judge, as well as any spectators that may be observing the round. Not doing so may result in a lower score.

Former LD debater and I judge on flow. Framework and impact calculus are the most important--explain clearly how I should judge the round and why you won. At the end of the day, will vote on the issues you convince me to vote on, and generally open to creative arguments as well. Crystallize at the end of the round how I'm supposed to vote and why. I will assume as a default that unaddressed arguments are conceded unless you explain why they shouldn't be, and generally won't flow new arguments in rebuttals (of course refutations are fine).

Email: emiliamarshall@berkeley.edu - Please include me on the email chain

Pronouns: any

I competed in policy debate at Clackamas High School. I also have a little experience with parli. I'm open to any kind of argument or style - it's your debate. I'm comfortable with some speed, but slow down if someone asks you to. Be nice and be accessible. If you're rude or offensive I'll lower your speaker points (and maybe report you, depending on what you did). Always try to be sensitive to how your arguments might be affecting your opponents in the real world!

The best way to get my ballot is to be organized, signpost, and tell me why you should win. Don't assume I know more about your debate topic than the average informed person. If you're making a critical/philosophical/theory argument, explain it well, and don't assume I'm familiar with it. Avoid weak links, poor warranting, and dropping your opponent's arguments.

For policy debate:

I debated criminal justice reform ('20), water resources ('21), and emerging technologies ('22). I went to NSDA nationals for the last two, and wasn't on the TOC circuit.

Disclosure:

Unless you're breaking a new aff, disclose ASAP before the round starts. Refusing to do so is just uncool, and I would be sympathetic to (but probably not vote on) disclosure theory against that team. You should already have an updated wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy23

Running lots of off-case positions:

Please don't run a huge number of off-case positions against novices. Otherwise, do what you want. IMO, it's a bad strat to have a lot of underdeveloped arguments. And know that if you're spreading at the speed of light, I probably can't flow/understand everything you're saying.

Kritiks:

I like kritiks, so run them if you want. I'm most experienced with security and cap Ks. I am somewhat familiar with setcol, fem, and queer Ks. For any K, especially more obscure ones, don't assume I'm familiar with your authors/literature/theory. I probably won't vote on the role of the ballot, but that doesn't mean the aff should drop it either.

K-affs:

In high school, I mostly ran policy affs. I did run a Lovecraft K-aff at nationals for the water resources topic. Feel free to run a K-aff, but I do think the bar to win the round gets a bit higher the less topical or weirder your aff gets. You're going to have to explain to me how I should judge the round outside of a policymaking framework.

Disadvantages/Counterplans:

Do whatever. Huge extinction impacts (nuclear war, etc.) need to have correspondingly strong link chains to back them up. I'm happy to vote for a smaller or systemic impact if someone proves that nuclear war or whatever is super unlikely. IMO, one time suck can be fun, but much more than that is just annoying.

Topicality:

This may be obvious, but T should be used to check people who are running non-topical affs. Most T arguments tend to be kind of nonserious, so feel free to run it just to run it, but it's unlikely to win you the debate unless the aff drops it. Running 5 nonserious T arguments just because you can is annoying. In the rare cases where the aff obviously isn't topical, then it matters more.

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, unique perspectives, honesty, and kindness. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and be exposed to many different perspectives! In the late 70's/80's I debated in Arizona--high school and at ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success. I follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or the event rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate. Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

1/2024

I am a parent who was honored to judge at many tournaments last year, both Debate & IE rounds. I have a legal background and currently work in the pet and veterinary space doing research and analytics. Thus, pretend that I know nothing about speech & debate. Explain what you are doing and why.

I prefer clean, eloquent and well-supported arguments in debate events. Please don't speak too quickly (spread) even in policy debate. If I can't hear you/understand you, I can't evaluate your position. Debate still requires skills of persuasion, and much of that comes from tenants of communication like eye contact, facial expressions, vocal inflections, etc.

With IE events, please hold yourself with confidence. Body language is the first point of impression. Speak clearly, take pauses when you need them rather than stumbling (you can catch yourself and breathing through moments for clarity is key).

Hi, my name is Kenny and I competed in Speech and Debate all four years of High School and will be competing in college. I have vast amounts of experience in Congressional Debate, and have competed in Public Forum, Parlimentary, and World Schools in the past. I'm pretty chill, if you have questions just ask, I won't be like Oh My GoD yOu AsKeD a QuEsTiOn AuToMaTiC 7. That's just stupid. If you wanna see what I prefer, here you go but really its no different than most judges. Just do you, be cool, have fun. But if you want a full paradigm, I typed this out during class when I was bored:

In general, when it comes to events (both IE and debate), I prefer an understandable pace of delivery, so if you do speak fast I will be fine with it as long as it is understandable and I can keep pace with the piece. Also, while you are in round, be sure to be respectful to your fellow competitors, judges, and spectators, rudeness is something that isn't tolerated in a formal educational setting like Speech and Debate.

For Debate in general, make the debate about the spirit of the argument and the overall flow. Still have your definitions, models, impacts, weighs, and all that stuff but do not be abusive with definitions. You can run all the Ks and Ts all you want, as long as its an engaging debate I'll be happy. (Also, they are just fun imo). Rebuttals and counterclaims should be the same way. I will say, if you want to be funny and make jokes, feel free, I'm some uptight weirdo. While asking tough questions and trying to undermine your opponent is encouraged, be sure not to fall into the realms of personal attacks. Secondly, if you are going to spread PLEASE send me your case and your opponent your case. Also be sure to steer clear of logical fallacies (ad hominem, slippery slope, worst case, strawman, etc) as these will be looked down upon, especially if your opponent calls you out on it.

For Individual debate events, my paradigms are as follows:

Public Forum

In Pofo, be especially sure to set a solid framework in the debate, but do not make your argument rely solely on tech. In crossfire be respectful but do dig into your opponents argument. Tough questions and solid answers lead to both a good debate and making your argument better. Keep good flow and be sure in summary speeches to address it, and these speeches are especially important and give you a chance to explain why you win the debate under the framework. A solid ending will lead to better results in round.

Lincoln Douglas

Same as Public Forum, have a solid framework, don't rely on tech. If your neg and aff makes an abusive framework, call them out on it. Be respectful with questions and when you rebute your opponent, don't be a jerk. You can have some sass but be nice. Keep a good flow, summarize the debate well, and lay out your arguments well. I judge the debate over how good you laid out your arguments, attacked your opponents arguments, summarized the debate, and told me why your side won.

Parli

Parli is fun. We love it. Remember the usual, be nice, be respectful, blah blah blah. The important thing I'm looking for here is as follows: Make sure your arguments are clear and concise. If you have 2 really good points, I'll be happier with that than if you have 3 okay points. Don't feel pressured to always have 3 main contentions, that doesn't dictate who wins a debate. Be confident in answering questions, even if you can't elaborate much on it. When I judge a Parli round, I look for this: Who had the better overall case, how many clashes did you win and how does your argument outweigh your opponents, how well points were made in both POIs and speeches, how well you summarized the debate and made the case to me that you won. Your last speech to me is the most important, explain to me why you won the debate.

Policy:

If your gonna spread and not give me your case before the round, I'm gonna judge the debate on what I can pick up. Make your arguments and your rebuttals about the merits of the argument, not just technicalities and things like that. Speechwise, I'm fine with new evidence and arguments in your 2NC, but not in the 1NR (even though its the second half of the block). 1AR can use new evidence and arguments only if its in rebuttal to arguments from the 2NC. Any new arguments from 1NR, 2NR, or 2AR will not be on my flow.

Congress

PO: I will be judging you based on how good of a job you do following procedure. If you repeatedly need correction, your rank will go down, if you are flawless it will go up. Your job is to lead the chamber to the greatest debate possible and your rank will be dependent on how good of a job you do of that

Everyone else: Good speeches are a must. Especially in competitive rounds you only get a handful of opportunities at this. Giving solid arguments (especially in early speeches on legislation) is crucial and will impact your score greatly. Furthermore, those giving speeches later in a piece of legislation (there is no specific number, but once arguments become repetitive is the general time), give summaries and rebuttals. There is no need to bring new arguments in on speech 6 for aff, take time to address the opposing arguments and summarize the debate for both your colleagues and the judges, and effectively doing this is crucial to both a good debate and your ranking. This is not saying that rebuttals and summaries are more important than constructive speeches, as those who make solid arguments that come up in the debate repeatedly are great ways to get points. Questions are also crucial to a good debate. Asking tough questions and trapping your opponent (especially in direct questioning) are signs of a good debater. Being able to remain calm and answer tough questions are also signs of a good debater. Congress is like ice cream: the scoops themselves are your speeches, but the toppings that really make it pop and stand out are your questions. Mixing both of those is how you rank high in a Congress round.

I will admit to not being a very experienced Speech & Debate judge yet. However, Debate should have emotion and nothing is worse than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about. However, I do not like rude or disrespectful interruptions in cross examinations.

Bonus if you can use any French words or expressions.

You do not need to ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to.

Speaker points are arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

Spread (overly rapid delivery) - Due to tintinitis (ringing in the ears) I cannot fully understand 'spread' and thus if I cannot understand what the competitor is saying, I cannot give credit for what is being said, or the ability to 'flow' my notes so that I can judge accurately.

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

Heyo! I'm Adam Moeglein (He/Him), I debated at Crater HS until 2022 and now go to Oregon State. email for whatever: ajmoeglein@gmail.com

I competed in LD and parli for 4 years, and broke at nat circ tournaments a few times. Practice your dumb shells in front of me pls :>

TL;DR

Explain stuff. Evidence and speed are meaningless unless you have a story to back them up with. Best way to get through to me is advantage structure/whatever standard your given arg has, because I already know what args slot where in a narrative

I disclose, so don't run anywhere after round

Speed is fine, but I have information processing issues so pls just send the doc

Run anything

Bigotry bad >:(

General Stuff

signpost as much as possible. If you don’t I’m probably wasting 5 seconds tracking where to write what you’re saying instead of listening to what you’re saying

The only unchangeable assumption I make about the world is that logic exists. Everything else needs a warrant if challenged

I ran security, cap, and a Dr. Seuss performance in my career, as well as Rawls, Kant, and Baudrillard. And I think I might understand Heidegger and Nietzsche? Maybe?

I generally think probability >>>> magnitude but try me cowboy

I won't flow cross but I do believe its binding

Procedure

Tag teaming is A-okay. I'll only flow what the speaker is saying though.

Shadow extensions generally don't work

Stand or sit or do a little dance while you speak, I don't care

If the roadmap is more than 5 words some bad thing will happen karmically in the universe

Theory!

Be explicit and precise with your shells. I won’t assume parts you don’t give me

RVIs are acceptable if that's your mojo but I'd rather see another shell saying something like "Debaters can’t run X arg" to keep the round organized

semantics arguments like Nebel are meh unless you have a pragmatic reason to vote on it, or an analytic dump that throws my preference for pragmatism out the window

At bid tournaments disclosure is standard procedure in LD. Look into it if you're new to big tournaments! I will vote on it

I'm happy to listen to friv stuff, just give me a story to vote on

K

Don't make tags complex. winning via confusion is cringe

I'd be happy to hear a K-aff but I don't think they're strategic. Happy to be proven wrong though

Explain your lit well. Make it link. I'm voting on the consequences of an aff ballot, not some impact card your alt can’t possibly hope to resolve

Overall:

• I am generally a tabula rasa judge, except for situations in which a generally untrue claim is made (Ex: Climate Change Denial, Vaccine Skepticism, Other likewise false claims of fact).

• Heavy use of debate jargon or lingo will not automatically get you better speaker points.

• Please do not spread or needlessly talk fast, unless absolutely necessary.

• Signpost contentions.

• When giving voters speeches, be extremely clear what your voting issues are (Ex: “We won on the issue of solvency because of x, y, and z”).

• I am okay kritiks as long as you give substantial backing (arguments and evidence) to why one for the round ought to be considered in the first place.

• Only use Topicality Shells when absolutely necessary (example: an opponent’s weighing mechanism or definition is very out of topic, and it disrupts the purpose or coherence of the debate).

For Parli:

• Use questions to not an excessive amount. The opponent only has so much time to speak, and there are no cross examination segments. I would say limit yourself to 3 to 5 questions per speech (excluding voters and protected time where questions are not allowed).

For Prepared Debate Formats (LD, Policy, etc.):

• Although cards are absolutely necessary for such formats, I will not disqualify your argument if you do not have cards to back it up.

• When making arguments between cards and knowledge based evidence, cards are not innately better. Arguments made against evidence based on pure knowledge should only attack the validity of its analysis, rather than its validity on whether it comes from a card or not.

Include me on the evidence chain: myhre_joshua@salkeiz.k12.or.us

I have experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli. I debated in policy throughout high school and some in college.

I am out of practice with flowing speed. There's not a lot of fast policy debate in my region. I appreciate slowing down and clear articulation on taglines as well as theory/framework arguments. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing if you don't oblige.

I am willing to listen to any form of argument - I have no particular bias against kritiks or any kind procedurals.

Topicality - I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting on topicality. If you want to go for T then it needs to be a substantial part of your 2NR. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability unless you clearly articulate your impacts.

If you want to make theory an argument, I'm willing to listen. I can be convinced that conditionality is either good or bad depending on what happens in the round.

I tend to think K's are okay, although most debaters can never really tell me what the alt actually does. If you want to make a framework argument, then go for it.

Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.

Extra speaker point for whoever can make the most clever Dune reference.

Hello!

I did speech and debate in Oregon in high school from 2019-2023. I primarily focused on parliamentary debate, but I tried out Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas as well, and will be familiar with the conventions of your event. Feel free to use whatever jargon you please, so long as a) it strengthens your argument by allowing you to be more concise, and b) a reasonable person would expect your opponent to understand the jargon you're using. A good rule of thumb is that if a 2nd year open debater can understand your argument, I'll probably be able to understand it too.

I will try my best to remain tabula rasa, but like anyone else I have my biases, some of which I may not be aware of, but I will always be moved by persuasive argumentation. I will be keeping a (hopefully) good flow, but my notes can only be to the quality that I understand your argument.

Disclosure

While I personally believe in disclosure, OSAA rules don't allow me to discuss rounds with you during the tournament. However, if you want my flow sheets, or have any questions about my ballot after the tournament is over, feel free to contact me at my email: bryson@petterborg.com.

I promise you aren't being a bother, especially if you go to a smaller school where opportunities to get feedback can be sparse.

Civility always. Ethical frameworks > than economic ones (i.e. people over profit).

Harmful, racist, profane or inflammatory language is intolerable.

I respect sound reasoning and articulate rationale, passionate argumentation in pursuit of the highest good.

I am a tenth year English and theatre teacher. I was a journalist for two years before that. I did speech (DI, DUO, OO, PR) and mock trial for four years in high school.

I've coached speech in Oklahoma before moving to Oregon in 2019. This is my 5th year coaching speech and debate in Oregon.

I prefer speaking clearly at a good pace, but not overly fast so that I can understand what you are saying.

What I am looking for:

1. Well-Structured Argument/Speech: how your case is “built”. This includes contentions, definitions, etc, but also your logic and how you tie it all together. This also includes that ability to clearly refute the other side's arguments. CITED EVIDENCE is always a plus when applicable. I understand this doesn't apply in Parliamentary or Impromptu.

2. Introduction/Set Up: the start of your case that clearly states the resolution and structure of your case

3. Flow/Pacing: how your case fits and flows together

4. Composure and delivery: respect and decorum toward your opponent. Ability to respond well to questions and refutations.

Most of all HAVE FUN! :)

Debates are meant to be educational for all, clear to listeners, fair in competing content and skill, and charitable to the opposing side. As your judge, I want to see your side take seriously the responsibility to educate the room on the topic at hand, assuming little to no prior knowledge. Your judge approaches each topic with an open mind, so you should be filling my mind with exactly what you want me to add to my flow. Educating means speaking at a reasonable pace for understanding. Every person in the room should be able to follow your arguments clearly, the first time around (or, if applicable, through cross-examination). What this means is you are speaking slow enough, signposting often, stating links explicitly, and impacting your arguments. (Don't just tell me I should value safety, liberty, democracy, etc. Persuade why I should value it or why it matters.) Furthermore, if you sense your opponents are less experienced, knowledgeable, or prepared, leave them room to still engage in the debate and learn something. This means asking good questions and answering questions in a helpful manner. Finally, winning arguments take down the BEST argument from the opposing side, not the worst. Follow the philosophical principle of charity, assume best intent, be courteous, and practice empathy.

DON'T squirrel, run topicality unless absolutely necessary, fabricate evidence, talk over others, spread your case, drop arguments, use derogatory language, or engage in personal attacks.

DO prepare a strong case, speak well, practice mutual respect, read and think critically, and seek not only to win arguments but to understand other viewpoints.

schmittkyla@gmail.com

Hey y'all—I'm Kyla. A little background on me: I did speech and debate all four years of high school. Over the years, my main events were first PF and later parli, but I also have limited competing experience with CX and BQD. I coach most events, including LD. In college debate, I do CARD, which is most similar to CX.

I mostly strive to be tabula rasa, unless whatever you’re saying exceeds my reasonable doubt. In other words, I'll do my best not to let anything not said in the round influence my decision—however, I will also not vote on arguments that I know to be blatant misinformation/bigotry (that the average American adult would know to be untrue). Still, it's your job as debaters to oppose these arguments when you encounter them and call them out for what they are, even if the misinformation/bigotry is not outward but more insidious, and I will make a note of it on your ballot if you don't.

Throughout the round, please signpost and be organized in your responses and extensions. I love a good, orderly line-by-line analysis, and I strongly dislike not knowing where to flow your arguments (I’m coaching/judging a debate tournament—there’s a 99% chance I’m going to be tired, so make your arguments easy to follow). In your last speech, be clear about why you've won. Voting becomes harder (and more biased) when you don't give me explicit, technical reasons why I should vote a certain way. Substantive voters, impact calc, or comparing worlds are a few good ways to do this. My personal preference is for impact calc.

A few notes especially for CX debaters but also for everyone: please don't assume that I have memorized every convention of your format. Instead, explain to me what arguments you're making and why they matter; don't just throw out a bunch of jargon and expect me to ascertain its full significance. I can handle speed, but if you’re going to go fast, I want clarity. Please be accommodating of the needs of others in the room.

Finally, be polite and gracious to your opponents and judges! People are taking a lot of time out of their days to make these tournaments happen. Let’s keep debate a positive and educational space.

I am a volunteer parent judge for three years. Please be respectful to your opponents and don't overuse jargon. Also, please speak clearly and at a pace at which your opponents and I can understand what you're saying. Please be concise with your speeches and don't try and make them longer than they need to be. Off-time road maps are also helpful, and I would appreciate you using them. It is easiest for me to vote for a team/debater when they have a clear speech and good rebuttals to attacks on their case.

My priorities are straightforward: organization and clarity of your arguments, and thoroughness in addressing opposing arguments and answering rebuttals.

I'm agnostic about spreading; just make sure your pace, delivery, and presentation of information don't get chaotic and disorganized -- that would compromise organization and clarity, a priority stated above.

Keep in mind that, in life and in my judging, one doesn't win through sheer quantity of distinct arguments. If you have fewer but, in your view, more compelling lines of argumentation, make that clear. In real life and good reasoning, arguments are weighted!

Compete hard, but also treat everyone with respect. Snark and humor are fine (indeed, what would life be without them?), but sportsmanship is more important.

Pronouns: he/him. Email for the chain: joshuaskov@gmail.com

1. About me

I did LD, extemp, congress, and a few other events in high school, so I'm familiar with this setting. I'm a student at UO studying political science, and if you have any questions about scholarships, college applications, etc. feel free to ask me after the round! I'm here to help and you asking questions won't impact my ballot.

2. General preferences

Debate is a competition in logic and public speaking, an educational exercise. Don't spread. This isn't a test on my listening speed.

Judges will probably vote for you if you make their job easy! Signposting, road mapping, explicit links and impacts, clear voters, etc. -- walk us through your reasoning. If your opponent drops an argument, uses a fallacy, misinterprets evidence, says something during CX you want to capitalize on, TELL US. I will mark down logical mistakes I notice, but won't use them in my decision if you don't point them out. Again, clarity is everything.

Clash is more than repeating your arguments and just saying they're better. Claims need warrants.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but keep it quick. If someone tries to begin their arguments off the clock we all get annoyed.

If you use a kritik, you need to show it's unique to this topic or round, instead of this being your way to avoid writing a new case.

Quick note on etiquette: it's in informal rule to not speak directly to your opponent except in CX. Address your judge and say "my opponent said..." or use their preferred pronouns.

I'm tabula rasa in the sense that I work to not allow my own political beliefs, philosophical frameworks, and policy opinions to cloud my decision. I'm not tabula rasa in the sense of ignoring reality. Some things are inherently bad and not everything leads to nuclear war.

3. Event-specific preferences

LD: Got to love a framework debate. Even if you agree on value, VC, and definitions, then clash on who upholds the framework better! Don't be lazy and forget to mention your value after the first speech.

Parli: The structure of the round depends on the type of resolution. Don't bring a plan to a value debate! Tackling a policy resolution with just a one-sentence plan is a tragedy! You get the idea. Also, if your opponent wants to ask a question while you're speaking and you ask them to wait to the end of your speech, remember to follow through with that.

PF: This debate style was created to be judge-able by anyone regardless of debate experience, so do keep that in mind.

.

Good luck, be kind, and props to you for doing this! :D

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

Thank you for reading my paradigms! And thank you for being part of speech and debate. I have a few priorities. In debate...

1. Number your contentions, advantages, disadvantages, etc.. Make it clear to me what part of your argument we are listening to, and likewise, which part of your opponent's argument you are addressing. Good road maps and sign posting help me be a better judge.
2. Rules are important, but don't hide behind them. In some events, Neg doesn't have the burden of a counterplan. That said... I expect you at least mention what kinds of plans could exist as an alternative. Saying "Aff's plan is bad" can work...but at least describe a couple alternatives that are feasible. You need to demonstrate that there is an alternative, even if you don't flesh it out. It's totally possible your opponent's plan is terrible; what I'm asking is that you demonstrate that your opponent's plan isn't simply the least terrible option out of really, really terrible options.
3. Tone matters. Spirited, enthusiastic, even emotion-filled debate is great. But always treat your opponents and partners with enthusiastic respect. This includes non-verbals: looking at your opponent like they're crazy doesn't make me happy :)
4. I start timing when you're talking. Off-time road maps don't fly with me because everyone has a different vision of what exactly can and can't go into an off-time road map.

Last, some background about me that may help, especially for people doing Individual events or interps:

I am the West Linn Coach. That said, I am a newer coach, so particularly with LD and PF I may need greater levels of context to grasp what you're discussing. For something like POI or Poetry, don't assume I can grasp poetic abstractions immediately. Speak at a pace that gives me time to process.

I teach history. I'll be honest: an argument or speech that effectively draws on history can really catch my attention; likewise, one that messes up historical analysis can undermine a case significantly.

I also have a theater degree, and have spent a lot of time with our pal Shakespeare. I have spent a good deal of time on stage, and directing plays. Know that I appreciate a good performance, and good speaking craft.

In contrast, sports and music are weaknesses of mine. I don't know them well. While I think Taylor Swift is cool, as I write this...I can't actually give you the name of a song she has written. Though I might recognize one. Maybe. That doesn't mean you should avoid mentioning Taylor Swift or talking about music or sports -- you just have to give me context. What does that lyric you recited refer to? How does it apply? What does that sports metaphor mean? Why do these things matter to what we're discussing?

Given the background described above, when it comes to speaker points: I am in this coaching job because I want students to develop public speaking skills that will serve them throughout their lives professionally, politically, theatrically, or in whichever setting you desire. As such, speaker points for me are about quality, not quantity, of arguments and respect for the process and others. An appropriately placed pinch of dramatic flair never hurts either.

My priorities for judging any debate are

1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.

2) clear and organized arguments.

3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

Lay judge. 

This is my daughter's third year competing, so I have moderate judging experience in speech and debate events.

For debate: Please do not spread. Signposting is extremely helpful. Make sure that you are creating the arguments for me. Clearly lay out your impacts and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. I won't flow cross but I will be listening. Time yourselves. I will value tech over truth for the most part but avoid making far-fetched arguments.

For speech: I value good speaking style and originality. 

Overall, be kind and courteous and have fun!

Be kind and courteous

Try not to spread or speak too fast

I'm a flow judge but i also come from an LD background.

This is my first year judging. I prefer a normal speaking pattern and rate, skip the jargon and speed talking. I’ll be noting key arguments and value that over style. I lean toward stock issues, but can also bend toward policy maker. Have fun and let’s have a good debate!

Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags. 
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K. 
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Hello folks,

I am a former head coach--and current assistant coach--of West Linn High School's Speech and Debate team.

In my mind, debate is fundamentally a way for you (both teams) and I to engage substantively with a complex topic. I like intellectual rigor and good-faith clash with your opponents. I am really turned off by the debate being turned into a game, rather than a debate, so take that as you will.

In terms of speed, you can go at a brisk conversational speed, but if your speed interferes with my ability to understand you (or if you are not particularly articulate), then I will stop flowing.

Background: I teach AP Lang and Comp. I've been an English teacher for 15 years. I have a PhD in Educational Studies - Curriculum Theory. I am comfortable with critical theory and welcome its appropriate/creative use in debate.

Email:willyzyb@uoregon.edu Please include me on the email chain.

Pronouns: he/him

I competed mostly in policy debate at Clackamas High School. I'm open to all arguments as long as you know what you're talking about. I understand the need for speed in some rounds, but it's easier for me to follow if you're not going super fast. Just be really clear when you say your taglines. Don't be rude or make offensive arguments, you won't win that way. Be considerate of your opponents and the impact your words have on them.

The best way to get my ballot is to be organized, signpost, and tell me why you should win. Don't assume I know more about your debate topic than the average informed person. If you're making a critical/philosophical/theory argument, explain it well, and don't assume I'm familiar with it. Avoid weak links, poor warranting, and dropping your opponent's arguments.

For policy debate:

I debated arms control ('19), criminal justice reform ('20), water resources ('21), and emerging technologies ('22). I went to NSDA nationals for the last two, but I am not a TOC circuit debater.

Disclosure:

Unless you're breaking a new aff, disclose ASAP before the round starts. Refusing to do so is unsportsmanlike, and I would be open to voting on disclosure theory against that team. You should already have an updated wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy23

Running lots of off-case positions:

Please don't run a huge number of off-case positions against novices. Otherwise, do what you want. IMO, it's a bad strat to have a lot of underdeveloped arguments. And know that if you're spreading at the speed of light, I probably can't flow/understand everything you're saying.

Kritiks:

Kritiks were my main thing in high school. I have good knowledge of cap k and security k, surface level knowledge of fem, queer, set-col k's. I am open to any other k's, just make sure you articulate really well what you are trying to critique/achieve with this argument. Don't assume I'm familiar with any specific authors or literature.

K-affs:

In high school, I mostly ran policy affs. I did run a Lovecraft K-aff at nationals for the water resources topic. Feel free to run a K-aff, but I do think the bar to win the round gets a bit higher the less topical or weirder your aff gets. You're going to have to explain to me how I should judge the round outside of a policymaking framework.

Disadvantages/Counterplans:

Do whatever. Just make sure your link chain makes sense.

Topicality:

This may be obvious, but T should be used to check people who are running non-topical affs. Most T arguments tend to be kind of nonserious, so feel free to run it just to run it, but it's unlikely to win you the debate unless the aff drops it. Running 5 nonserious T arguments just because you can is annoying. In the rare cases where the aff obviously isn't topical, then it matters more.