For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

I am open to any argument as long as you can defend it in your own words.

My Preferences:

• Quality over quantity
• Tell me how to vote and why
• Don’t just read, explain
• Be creative: win with your words not your passion
• Don’t be boring. Make CX fun

And of course, keep it respectful . Rude people deteriorate our society in the most unpleasant of ways.

Any other questions can be asked before the round

2004-2008: Policy debate with La Costa Canyon High School
2012-2016: Coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League

Tabla Rasa judge. It is your debate round, so you should do whatever you want. This does not mean that you do not need to justify why you’re running the arguments you run. Disad-counterplan strategies should still be able to defend and explain why a policy framework is best and K, T, or theory strategies should do the same.

On Kritiks, you can’t win without detailed explanations of your link story and precisely how the impact relates to or interacts with case advantages. On framework, I need a clear explanation of the impacts to your standards and why your interpretation makes for a better world of policy debate. You will need to invest a lot of time to convince me that a particular type of argument or impact has no relevance to the round, because I do believe these arguments are exclusionary and wrong.

On theory and topicality, you must again clearly articulate why your interpretation creates a better world for debate. What specific ground do you lose, why is their interpretation or violation unfair, and what specifically happens to education. Briefly mentioned independent voters will not fly; if you want to win here invest significant time. I like cheap shots, but only if they’re well explained and impacted.

Speed is fine as long as you’re clear -- I should be able to tell the difference between your tag and the evidence.

If you like speaker points, make good use out of your cross ex and don’t be rude.

Experience:

I did mostly policy in high school, and am doing policy in college, so I have the most experience with this form of debate. I did a little bit of LD in high school, so I am familiar with the basic concepts, but I am not intimately familiar with it.

Paradigm:

I am okay with speed, but nothing obscene. I'm okay with almost anything that could be run, just make sure you explain it clearly, with every link in the logic chain properly explained.

I love well-done impact calculus. Explaining why your arguments have more bearing on the round, or on the world, and how your opponents don't, is a very winning strategy in my book. Simply assuming the impacts of your arguments, or assuming I know those impacts, doesn't help me evaluate your arguments.

The final speeches should give me a few things to chew on. That is, don't just dump tons of words in my ears and hope I vote for you. Give me a few key, concise, good reasons why you've won.

Policy-Specific:

I like disadvantages, but be sure it actually links to the opponent's case. Additionally, explain the impact story clearly.

I'm a big fan of topicality. However, make the violation clear, and be sure you tell me clearly WHY it's bad that the case is non-topical.

I will vote for kritiks, but I'm not a huge fan of them. The link and perm are big issues for me with kritiks, so be sure to clearly tackle those.

For email chains, my email is: zanehayesemerson@gmail.com

Background: I have been coaching debate and mock trial since 2006. For over 10 years I was a teacher and coach in the Chicago Debates League and have sent teams to a variety of TOC tournaments. Most of my debate coaching experience has been in Lincoln-Douglas with a growing emphasis in policy over the last several years.

Policy: I am not a fan of high speed spread debates and prefer moderation in speed over an ultra spread style delivery.Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going at a rate so fast that I cannot flow their arguments, then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Given this, I generally prefer to not be on the email chain as it is your job to communicate clearly and effectively in the round.

In the end, I prefer Policy rounds that come down to clear well supported argumentation, solid clash, impact calculus, stock issues, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework are great though I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case, i.e. generic negative arguments are valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. Always open for a great kritik, though prefer that you make clear how it is directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents.

In the end, my preferences are just that, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for them.

Policy Notes: 1) No open cross unless clearly agreed to by both parties before the round begins.

LD:

I debated 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years in NPDA parli debate for Washburn.

I can go in lots of different directions but I’m most comfortable being a policymaker. I lie more on the “politician/lawyer” side of debate roleplaying than “academic/activist”. I like hearing substantive debates about ideas and policy consequences more than hearing debate after debate about the same critical/theoretical topics. Not that you can’t run those, this is just my preference.

My only other real preference is that I think debate’s core value should be education. If you run theory arguments or critical arguments, make your standards/voters center education and explain to me how your position is better for education, especially topic-specific education. When I look back on my time in debate, the topic education and research skills are the thing I found indispensable in the long run. We should aim to make this space as enriching as we can.

If you run critical stuff the links are extremely important. Please explain to me why this topic or this aff case in particular is so important to run this exact K against. I’m pretty partial to the perm otherwise. I’m also pretty partial to links being independent disads against the aff, if argued well. I love hearing the topic/aff being very specifically deconstructed on critical grounds.

I’m ok with speed but I think debate should be an activity where we try to enhance and enrich our communication skills, and not end up a mealymouthed double-clutching race to the bottom. If you’re too fast or difficult to understand it has a good chance of significantly costing you.

I try my best to not look at your evidence unless 1) there is a dispute over something with the evidence, like claims of powertagging or false tagging or something, or 2) I miss something and it wasn't your fault, sometimes it happens and if I know you said it and just need to grab it I will. Otherwise I really try to stay out of looking at your docs because this is a communication activity and I want you to make the conscious choice to spend time on your winners and use your own analysis to communicate why your evidence and arguments should win the round!

When evaluating rounds, I look for well-thought out and articulated arguments. I want clash in the rounds through clear attacks on opponent's arguments and authority. If you plan to run a kritik, please ensure that you understand the philosophy that you are presenting and that it is appropriate for the round. Simply reading cards is not sufficient, as I expect the debaters to be able to cogently discuss the arguments being made and be able to defend your positions.

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

Please just ask. I so sorry, but I'm kind of lazy >.<

I will at least say I have a ton of policy experience, so I'm pretty good with whatever.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

I like good theory debate, don't like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate.

I like well-applied evidence. I don't mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I'd rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So help make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently.

Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, accept your opponents' attempts to do so.I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being a jerk.

I'm a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I'll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. Most importantly, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like "Even if" or "Regardless of if they win" or "My impacts should always be preferred because" will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side and hope it is enough to outweigh. Don't be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh it out for me.