Original, un-canned argumentation goes a long way, but as far as constructives go, it makes no difference to me whether you wrote, bought, borrowed, stole, or found your case in a dumpster. Sophisticated arguments can be made simply and the round comes alive in rebuttals... Perry your opponents' case, double down on good questions/answers from crossfire.

Most of my RFD is based on the flow. I work hard to leave biases at the door but please avoid making strawmen out of bad facts.

Brownie points for strong links, eloquence, and referencing puppies.

I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

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.

Hello, I'm a new judge this year and would appreciate if you could explain jargon (if used), speak clearly, and enunciate. Thank you!

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

I like a good spirited debate that is well mannered and respectful of each other and being attentive. I wouldnt judge based on my own beliefs or knowledge of facts, but based on the arguments and counter arguments between the debating individuals/teams.

For speech events, I like to see content relevant to the topic and not consume time with material to fill in time.

In both debate and speech, I enjoy when contestants do not read from written script, but use their gestures to articulate their point of view.

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.

I want a civil debate with clash and clear arguments. I don't like speed if you don't have clear organization and appropriate emphasis.

Hi! I'm a sophomore in college who did 4 years of speech + debate in high school with Ida B. Wells in Portland, OR. LD was my main event; I also did Impromptu and Extemp and dabbled in Radio, Oratory, and Parli.

I mostly did traditional debate when I was in high school, so that's the kind I'm most used to. However, I have a baseline familiarity with some progressive stuff (plans, CPs, theory), so if that's your jam, go for it! Just be clear and inclusive to people that don't have as much experience with circuit debate. If you want to run a kritik, I'm willing to vote on it but please let me know before the round. If you have any more specific questions about this stuff, ask!

Tech over truth / tabula rosa / no judge intervention. All these things mean the same thing to me, which is that I will try to evaluate the round based only on what y'all say, rather than my preexisting knowledge or opinions about it. I won't do any of the work for you: if your opponent says something that's clearly inaccurate, or drops a point, or does something abusive, it's on you to call that out. This also means I am open to whatever you want to read. "Wacky" or nonstandard arguments are totally fine (though of course I hold them to the same evidence standard as anything else).

Please don't spread. Speed is fine as long as it's not crazy. I reserve the right to say "slow" during your speech if you're going too fast for me to flow.

Stuff I like to see in round: direct clash, clear speaking & language, civility/respect, impact weighing, clear signposting, clear voters.

More on "clear voters:" in your voter speech, the best way to win the round is by telling me exactly why you should win it. Write my RFD for me! Line-by-line analysis in a voter speech can be important, but you'll always be better off keeping that to a minimum and focusing more on an overview of what arguments you're winning and why they are significant.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, just be reasonably concise. And please signpost in your speeches, even if you do an offtime roadmap, so I can tell where you are on the flow. "Now, onto the first neg contention" or something like that is great.

Organization is super important to me. Especially if you are making more than 1 response to an argument, please please please number or letter those for me so everything is neat on my flow.

If you have any questions after the round about my decision, email me: preston.bushnell@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from you :D

Also, if you want to know more about any part of this paradigm, just ask! There's lots more detail I can go into :)

Good luck! You got this!!!

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

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

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

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

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

I am Carson Chamness this is my 4th year of college debate. I currently debate at Lewis and Clark College and have competed and judged college debate.

As a judge I will strive to be as unbiased as possible, judging based on the quality, and depth of argumentation. Explain the logic behind each point and how a claim will provide a favorable outcome.

I also reward strong rebuttal, within arguments, and arguments that view the motion/topic from multiple viewpoints.

Organization of speeches, Is also important as it allows for one's speech to make more sense and makes sure judges follow your points and flow your speeches.

Lastly speak clearly, especially in an online debate unclear speaking can cause others to not understand your point, so make sure you are speaking loudly and clearly so judges and your competitors understand what you are saying as it's hard to judge or respond to someone's speech if one couldn't understand, and follow your speech.

Hi, my name is Becca. I competed in the California HS circuit between 2019-2023, mainly in IE events.

For debates, I look for clear speaking and well-structured arguments. Good values/resolutions are important for my judging. Brownie points if you somehow add in "shrimp fajita" into your argument.

For IE, I take content quality just as important as delivery, especially in impromptu events. Be clear and precise; avoid stiff body language.

I primarily consider confidence and spontaneity. A well structured speech with verified details is another highlight.

I tend to incline towards well modulated delivery while stressing on the key points.

I expect each of them to be kind and respectful to all. Wishing everyone all the very best.

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

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

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

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

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

My paradigm definitely doesn't cover everything, so please ask me specifics and any questions before round!

Add me to the email chain and send any questions about RFDs: taliajcordova@gmail.com

Background, if that's helpful: I graduated in 2020 and this is my third year judging. 3 years parli, 1(ish) year policy. I've competed in every debate form at least once plus various speech events (mostly extemp).

General-- Equity and respect are paramount. Speech and debate should be an inclusive space--please make your opponents feel welcome! Equity violations or any expressions of bigotry are unacceptable.

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and will vote on the flow by evaluating the line by line, impact calculus, and looking to how many arguments each team wins. This being said, please warrant your arguments and impact them out/terminalize impacts. Make extensions of your case and your rebuttals! I'm open to voting on any well explained and clearly linked-out argument and will evaluate the whole flow, but like anyone I have different thresholds for different arguments/styles. Those preferences are outlined below...

Speed-- I'm rusty at flowing spreading, so if you speak at top speed I probably won't get everything on paper, but I'm comfortable with reasonable speed as long as your opponents are. I'll clear you if need be. Please slow down on taglines.

Topicality and theory-- Neither are my favorite thing to listen to because they often reduce substantive debates to small technicalities, but there are defintely times when they're useful tools. As long as you give specific violations and standards I'll evaluate the argument. You should be able to specify the ground lost in the particular round we're in, not just read generic harms that don't link. That also means I probably won't consider 'potential abuse' as a voter--it's necessary to prove in round abuse.

Counter plans--Great! Just make sure your CP is competitive.

Kritiks-- I really enjoy listening to Ks and any argument with a critical lens and am open to voting on them, as long as you make a strong link to the aff and have a *specific* alt text. Please explain your K literature! I'm pretty well versed in cap Ks/Marx and feminist theory, and I know a little biopolitics/Foucault, but beyond that don't assume I know your authors.

This is especially an issue in policy, but don't use Ks or any other non-generic argument just for the sake of skewing out your opponents--you should be able to to break it down to its essence in an accessible way so they can actually engage with it. That doesn't mean you're fully responsible for their comprehension or that you shouldn't make the argument, but please be reasonable and don't read something for the sake of confusing people.

TL;DR: Respect each other, warrant arguments, weigh impacts!

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.

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

Please speak clearly and slowly enough to be understood. No spreading.
Please be kind to and respectful of your competitors.
Most importantly have fun…and good luck!

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

Here's the TL;DR version of the paradigm

I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging.

Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as judge to be in the role of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I will use the information, arguments and clash presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.”

To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted.

Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.

Risk-taking is fine as long as you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. As long as everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.

To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Accordingly, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.

Some quick, event-specific notes:

--Policy: I am not going to be on the email chain because this is not an essay contest, this is an oral persuasion event. I will judge it based ONLY on what I hear and understand. If you spread, I am not going to be able to follow you. You will likely lose the round unless your opponent is foolish enough to do the same forcing me to determine who lost by less. You can try and debate your K, or your T, or any other letter of the alphabet, but if you do, it better clearly relate to the basic premise of the resolution, because that is the show I bought a ticket to see. Not saying you can't run them, just they need to be relevant to the spirit of the resolution.

--LD. This isn't policy. DO NOT SPREAD. Be clear on your value and value criterion and explicitly tie your contentions back to them or you will hurt yourself. Otherwise the notes for policy apply.

PF: This is an event intended for a lay judge to be able to adjudicate. Even though I am not a lay judge, I will judge this as though I walked in off the street and never judged before in order to stay true to the spirit of the event. Make sure you engage accordingly. In other words if you treat this like a mini-policy round, it will go poorly.

If you have any questions about this, ASK!

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

Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate:

First and foremost, have fun

Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.

My philosophy

I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.

My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic

In ALL debate events, I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.

--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.

Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?

Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that includes speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.

I HATE spreading

SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if it is too fast.

I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution

I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.

Agnosticism ≠ idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech

I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.

Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know

The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.

I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it

This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.

Part of being an effective and successful debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.

I reward risk-taking and humor

Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.

I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion

Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?

How I weigh your arguments

The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.

--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.

Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con

The affirmative/pro always has the burden to convince me to change the status quo and in a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard. In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.

Dropped arguments do not always matter to me

Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.

I never allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.

Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.

Give your citations context so I can give them credibility

Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written.

I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs

While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:

--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.

Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me

Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:

--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.

I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.

Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins now." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.

The game is the game

If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.

I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense

If you make faces, gestures, or otherwise show disdain for the person speaking, know it will negatively impact your score. Also, anything you say or do that demeans the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

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

pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

1. Preparation: The first step to being a successful Tabroom competitor is to be well-prepared. Have a deep understanding of the competition rules and procedures and the subject matter being debated. Also, clearly understand your goals and strategies for the competition.

2. Practice: Practice is essential to improving your skills as a Tabroom competitor. Practice your arguments and delivery, but also get feedback from coaches and peers to help identify areas for improvement.

3. Organization: Being organized is critical to success in the Tabroom. Have a clear schedule and timeline for the competition and keep track of important documents and materials. Ready to adapt to changes or unexpected challenges that may arise during the competition.

4. Professionalism: Professionalism is vital to making a good impression in the Tabroom. Be punctual, respectful, and courteous to judges, opponents, and competitors. Also, maintains a positive attitude and avoids getting too emotionally invested in the competition.

5. Communication: Effective communication is essential to making a solid case in the Tabroom. Be articulate, well-spoken, and able to express your arguments clearly and persuasively. Listen actively to the arguments of your opponents and respond thoughtfully and respectfully.

6. Collaboration: Collaboration is an essential strategy for success in the Tabroom. Work with your team members to develop solid arguments and strategies, as well as be willing to compromise and adjust your approach based on the feedback of others.

7. Continuous Learning: Finally, being a successful Tabroom competitor requires a commitment to continuous learning and improvement. This means seeking out opportunities for feedback, staying up-to-date with current events and trends in the field, and reflecting on your performance to identify areas for growth and development.

If it matters to you, I used to make critical and performance based arguments. I have coached all types. I generally like all arguments, especially ones that come with claims, warrants, impacts, and are supported by evidence.

Do you (literally, WHATEVER you do). Be great. Say smart things. Give solid speeches and perform effectively in CX. Win and go as hard as it takes (but you dont have to be exessively rude or mean to do this part). Enjoy yourself. Give me examples and material applications to better understand your position. Hear me out when the decision is in. I saw what I saw. Dassit.

Add me to the email chain- lgreenymt@gmail.com

My "high" speaker points typically cap out around 28.9 (in open debate). If you earn that, you have delivered a solid and confident constructive, asked and answered questions persuasively, and effectively narrowed the debate to the most compelling reasons you are winning the debate in the rebuttals. If you get higher than that, you did all of those things AND THEN SOME. What many coaches would call, "the intangibles".

Speaking of speaker points, debate is too fast and not enough emphasis is put on speaking persuasively. This is true of all styles of debate. I flow on paper and you should heavily consider that when you debate in front of me. I am a quick and solid flow and pride myself in capturing the most nuanced arguments, but some of what I judge is unintelligible to me and its getting worse. Card voice vs tag voice is important, you cannot read analytics at the same rate you are reading the text of the card and be persuasive to me, and not sending analytics means I need that much more pen time. Fix it. It will help us all. Higher speaker points are easier to give.

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to observe and participate in your debate.

TG

I have been a parent judge for three years. My paradigms include clarity of arguments, minimal jargon and organization.

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:

If a debater is hateful, aggressive, or presenting racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other harmful arguments they are dropped.

I flow debate, but I'm not a tech debater. I can follow theory, topicality, and some Kritiks, but take it easy on me.

Keep super speed to a minimum and tagline VERY clearly.

Not a fan of definition or source debates, I really like creative arguments.

I competed in Parliamentary and Congress throughout high school and went to Nationals in World Schools, so I know most of the lingo.

Some things that will really help your case is clear signposting. It will help me track all of your points throughout the debate. With that, it is also important to address all of your opponent's points, even if you do this with just a couple sentences. I really like to see engagement in debates.

For events that permit them, feel free to be aggressive with POIs. They are an effective way to provide a quick rebuttal.

For Congress, I heavily weigh new points over repeated points, so make sure that what you are saying is unique.

I am a parent lay judge, and this will be my first time judging.

It sometimes takes me a moment to process what I hear. So, if you are speaking multiple points in rapid succession, I might miss one. Also, I am not familiar with much of the jargon related to speech and debate.

I expect your arguments to make sense, and that you are respectful to all present.

My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you. Kritiks are valuable to debate because they can have an impact on our discourse. To wield them as a procedural cheapens that. I also really really dislike Topicality unless absolutely necessary. Especially when someone runs T against like a novice case topic area. Running Topicality because you think you have to is so boring and just takes away from the debate.

I prefer debate to be an accessible activity. Overly relying on jargon to make your point bums me out. Do not spread your opponents. If they say "clear" you better slow down. Disregarding that can absolutely cost you the round.

Most of all, persuade me. I want warranted claims and facts presented, but I need you to do the analysis. You need to put the pieces together for me, I will not do the work for you.

I will try not to divulge my personal beliefs, and most of all, I will try not weigh them in a round. That being said, I am human and I have feelings and empathy.

I also value cordial discourse. If you get rude to your opponents (dismissive, talking over them incessantly, glaring or obviously rolling your eyes) I will mark you down on speaker points at the very minimum, and it will affect my decision. Remember, you were new once, and a supportive community keeps this activity alive.

Have fun, don't stress out, and GOOD LUCK!!

For email chains: bharrison@pps.net

I want to see the points of argument be addressed at each stage with an emphasis on rebuttals— essentially, flow everything.

As a former competitor (from middle school to college), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech (e.g. voting issues). For LD, tying in the value and value criterion are essential parts of this.

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

I'm fine with creative stances on Con/Neg in PF & LD, but make sure they fall within the status quo. No brand new alternative solutions.

No new arguments or evidence in the final speeches (LD 2AR, PF final focuses). Wrap up the debate with voters and strongest arguments. It's unfair to bring up an entirely new point that your opponents cannot rebut.

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

Hi! I'm a former speech and debate kid myself. Events I have personally competed in at least once include Parli, PF, Prose, Poetry, Storytelling, POI, Impromptu, DI, Inform and, Extemp. I also have non-tournament experience in LD, Congress, Inform, Radio, and ADS. My main events were PF, Prose, and Impromptu so many of my perspectives will be from that angle.

Just in general don't be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic or anything diminutive towards any other class of people. Also, be respectful during cross. I will grade down speaker points for any hostile behavior towards your opponents.

For Debate Specifically:

• Signposting: DO IT! Every contention, subpoint, impact, turn etc. should be signposted. If I don't know what you're talking about/on I won't write it down. I allow and encourage off-time roadmaps (just taglines or "go down aff then neg")
• Speed: I ask that you don't sacrifice legibility for speed. If you're talking so fast that your point is unclear or you have to take pauses/breaths in the middle it isn't worth it.
• Impacts: I vote on impacts so make sure to clearly state them and weigh them with an appropriate weighing mechanism
• Cross/Questions: I don't flow cross/questions so if you make a point, bring it up in your last speech.
• Timing: Please time yourselves. I won't interrupt you once your time is up but I will stop flowing.
• Evidence: Use it for everything (debate form allowing). My email is elliexqhoward@gmail.com for any evidence-related email chains.

Hi! My name is Augustin Jeyakumar. This is my first year as a judge for speech and debate.

Here are some tips on how to get my vote:

Debate:

• Please don’t spread! It makes it hard to understand

• I don’t flow cross

• No complicated jargon please, I’m new to judging

• I appreciate offtime roadmaps

• I’m tabula rasa

• Please be respectful to your opponents!!

Speech:

• Try not to fidget because it’s a bit distracting

• Platform events: have your points clearly stated. Make sure your gestures, blocking, and body language help put your point across! Speak loudly and clearly. Have pauses, and pacing, prioritize eye contact!

• Interp events: have intro memorized. Have good blocking and body movement. Try to use as many hand gestures as you can. Try not to look at your binder too much. Use dynamic movement a varied tone.

Overall:

• Don’t stress too much! Enjoy it and don’t be too nervous!

• Make sure to have good eye contact and speak loudly and clearly.

• Most importantly, be respectful and have fun!

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Hi!

I'm a parent judge in my second year judging. Still lay. I'll generally follow tech>truth, but make it at least logical. If you're going to claim that something leads to nuclear war, you better have a really clear link chain. I'm also not great at evaluating super nuanced weighing mechs, so try to leave that out. Basic jargon is fine, don't go overboard.

PF: I don't flow cross, if something important is said bring it up in the next speech.

That's about all, just keep the round clean and let's have a good time.

I am a new judge with no debate experience. I value a cohesive and well-researched presentation. Please be mindful of your pace and be courteous to one another.

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).

Zero tolerance policy for bigotry. Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Debate:

Most of my debate background is in parli & policy so I appreciate structure and specific impacts. I judge primarily on the flow so please tell me where we are on the flow with proper signposting, it will make everyone's lives easier. I appreciate creative arguments, but make sure they are well thought out. Other than that, it's up to you to tell me how the round should be judged and what I should be voting on. Otherwise, I'll default to what I think is most important.

Also, please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say, I will not hold going under time against you.

Speech:

General things I look for

Structure - Basic intro and general organization & cohesiveness to the speech

Specificity - I tend to prefer specificity in your content rather than broad generalizations. This can come in the form of including personal anecdotes/specific stories, carving out a specific niche with your thesis, etc.

Rhythm & Tone - Memorization, hitting clear emotional beats, adequate use of speed & volume, etc. all are key

Creativity - Speaks for itself but I appreciate creative content/performance choices, have fun with it

Debate:

I'm familiar with all formats to some extent. I've done a small amount of Policy/CX, so I'm versed in the jargon but not crazy familiar with the intracacies of the format. In highschool, I primarily debated LD on a very traditional circut so I vote heavy on clash and value, but I'm comfortable with theory and Ks (just make sure to explain them well). Unless it's blantantly offensive (racist, sexist, etc.), run whatever y'all want (even if it's a "hot take" if you can convince me of it, go crazy).

My one request: do. not. spread. IMO, it's not good form and I will doc you speaks. I start at 27 and adjust based on clarity and concision. Always be respectful of your opponent (stand during CX, address them not only the judge, speak kindly, etc.).

Speech:

I've competed in every speech event except ADS and radio. Try to be clear when speaking and captivate me with your levels and intonation. For PA events (info, pers, etc.) please sound like you care, i.e. don't be flat and boring. For interp events, it's all about presentation and story-telling. Bring me into the world of whatever story you're telling and clearly convey your emotions.

ALWAYS give a content warning if it's even slightly applicable. It's basic respect to the other people in the round, including me.

Online:

In general, but especially for debaters, please turn your cameras on is possible. It nice to have a face to talk to/debate with. Make sure you're muted when not speaking.

I value RESPECTFUL debate, please don't interrupt each other, make faces, or insult anyone's mother. While I ultimately decide based on best researched, presented, and debated case, your conduct does play a large role in that decision and especially in speaker points. Remember that we're all here to have a good time and learn, good luck!

Paradigms:

I am a debate parent who is in their seventh year of judging. I appreciate respect in a round and will dock speaker points if you are being openly rude to your opponents or to me. I try to flow everything in the round, including cx. Speed is okay, as long as you enunciate. I value organization and strategy in debate, as well as the ability to think on your feet and adjust your case on the fly. Finally, your contentions must be evidence-based: don't make arguments that you can't back up.

Hi! I'm a current APDA debater :-) in high school I did mainly parli but dabbled in policy and IEs.

Things you should know about me:

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. Like all humans, I am biased towards novelty, and hence like fun/interesting arguments. I will accept most arguments as long as they are well warranted, however, if your argument relies on bigoted logic, or is blatantly false, I will be looking for any reason to drop it. I expect well structured and warranted arguments and am alright with jargon and reasonable speed, given your opponents are also fine with it.I take equity seriously, meaning that if you are consistently disrespectful and/or impede fairness within the round, I will drop you and/or speak to your coach.

I judge on flow! Whichever team wins on the flow will win the round. This does not mean that you need to respond to every argument on the flow- good round vision is essential. Know which arguments you're winning and losing, and allot time accordingly. You do not need to respond to everything on the flow.

I will hear theory and kritiks (and think they are quite fun), although they need to be reasonable for me to vote for them. Don't try to stretch the truth past believability, that makes debate useless.

Debate is a game constrained by TIME. Use it well...

GOOD LUCK HAVE FUN!!

In general, I am a very pragmatic judge. Old school Cross-X debater, so I really love it when people use C-X to set up their arguments or catch their opponent off guard with something they didn't expect. Top half debates are fun, but definition clashes or weighing mechanisms will very rarely carry the day with me, but if its a novel argument I haven't thought of, it can definitely contribute to a win. I'm all about impacts, harms and solvency. When talking about inherency, you need to truly understand what it means and that the status quo is already doing it.

Not a huge fan of counterplans, unless the topic wording is so skewed so as to not offer the Negative much ground or pose serious morality issues. The burden of proof shift then occurs and most teams in negation that I have seen are not skilled enough to run these persuasively. I try and suspend my own biases and think I am pretty open minded. A FIERCE independent politically and a fiscal conservative given my career in economics.

This is not a tabula rasa judge; on the contrary:

"Making an evidence presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. To maintain standards of quality, relevance, and integrity for evidence, consumers of presentations should insist that presenters be held intellectually and ethically responsible for what they show and tell. Thus consuming a presentation is also an intellectual and a moral activity."--Edward Tufte (Emeritus Professor, Yale University),Beautiful Evidence(https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_be).

In Policy Debate:

I expect the affirmative to present a standing problem in the status quo that they can solve by means of a plan that affirms the resolution. I expect the negative to explain to me how their opponents have failed on one-or-more of these simple tasks, or why the problems they see with the plan their opponents presented outweigh the benefits.

(Why am I a boring "stock issues" judge? Because the framework is useful in the real world, see also https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selling-project-proposal-art-science-persuasion-6028 -- they rework HITS to PCAN but it's fundamentally the same.)

None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can enunciate. None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can think. I will be judging the debate as presented as I hear it and I should not need to judge evidence as written (and if I do then something bad has happened).

Speakers will time themselves, the person asking questions times Cross, I time prep and prep goes until your opponent is successfully able to see the evidence you handed/flashed/emailed to them.

Addendum: The best policy debates (with high speaker points!) get progressively wonkier/nerdier as each team tries to get to a level of detail that their opposition hasn’t done the work/research to know. If you know Scott’s Seeing Like a State then you can pretty much guarantee that there’s going to be a likely breakdown in plan-as-written somewhere, the question is: can you convince me that you know what it is (neg) but have accounted for that contingency (aff)? To quote Saxe (via Foucault): “It is not enough to have a liking for architecture. One must also know stone-cutting.”

In Values Debate:

I expect the affirmative to have a clear and good motivation they want to lead me to action with, a means of measurement showing me that the action they're advocating supports their motivation, and some evidence to support that the action tilts those means of measurement towards their sense of goodness. I expect the negative to explain to me why the affirmative's reasoning is faulty on any of these levels, or present a superior competing motivation (similarly structured) that is advanced by rejecting the resolution.

(If you need more guidance on what this looks like, might I recommend watching this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA)

In Public Forum:

I expect both sides to present coherent, defensible research boiled down to relevant talking points. This event is about doing a lot of draft and prep work so that you start and stay at (what is for you) the heart of the matter while you are on the clock.

(This is far harder than it sounds to get scripted even once, and has to be re-done month after month after month -- the disciplined cadence of perpetual research-to-presentation is what you learn from the "Public Forum" debate format.)

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

I'm an "OLD" former college NDT and LD debater when cards were actually on cards, I was a volunteer coached to HS and College teams. If you share cards with each other, please share them with me as well. Please be polite but I expect a clash, ad hominem attacks will ensure your lost of the round, and "I will tell on you." However, a friendly jab among friends keeps the debate fun and entertaining.

I am not a fan of speed, but I think I can keep up. I'll tell you to slow down if you're going too fast or being un-comprehendible. My big voters are IMPACT, Solvency, and Inherency. I'm a flow judge most of the time.

I love to see strategies and I do buy Topicality and Counterplan, but you better know it inside and out otherwise you can be heavily penalized. If you run T, please be specific. Time-suck T will be penalized, I love "turns" if you can sell it, and please carry/extend your key arguments, this helps flow and decisions.

I dislike BS contentions unless it's part of your "time-suck" strategies, or plans with no significant or inherency is an easy voter for me. If you catch the other team using it as a Time-Suck, call them out on it, and move on. Always tell me why and what you're winning. I appreciate a good off-time road map. I do not penalize speakers for NOT using all their speaking time...if you think you won the round, tell me where and how don't have to stand there and repeat.

I don't flow CX, that's your time for clarification and my time to listen

Parli/Ceda/UN etc. - Same rules apply. Value over value is a voter, even though plan/implementation is not required...realism, common sense, applicable arguments are.

I love to see debaters having fun and not taking things too seriously. Good Luck

Hello.
- I did 2 years of (American) Parli in high school in the Bay Area circuit, and I’m about four years into doing British Parli here at LC.
- Not a fan of speed in debate. There are pedagogical reasons for this, but more importantly, I’m not great at writing it down. If you want my ballot, you’re going to do better if you speak at a more measured pace.
- Don’t be bigoted in front of me (and ideally not when you aren’t in front of me, either). It's bad for your speaks, bad for your chances of getting the ballot, and it's just generally a bummer.
- There are a lot of judges at this tournament that you’d do very well reading Ks in front of. I am probably not one of them. I’ll vote for it if you can prove to me that debating the round without the K is causing harm in a direct way, but that’s a hard sell unless someone is actively doing something problematic. I am not familiar with most K literature, so you’ll have to walk me through it. If you try to walk me through anything by Baudrillard, I may cry.
- Theory is cool though, for voters you should probably say why they matter. I like education, I like fairness, I like clash, but you should still tell me why those things being valued in debate make the world better. I’m also open to arguments as to why I’m totally wrong about those being good things. Theory is a priori, and I will default to drop the debater (also open to just dropping certain unfair things, if you can convince me that’s better). Will default to evaluating by reasonability, because I have an outsized opinion of myself and I think I’m good at judging reasonableness.
- Impact calc: do it. Generally I’m going to default towards probability over magnitude (or structural impacts over flashpoint impacts). Something something better policy-making. I’m open to arguments as to why I shouldn’t do this, though. Reversibility and timeframe should probably be terminalized into mag or prob.

- Please weigh stuff. Please do impact calc. Terminalize your impacts and then evaluate them comparatively against your opponent’s stuff. I don’t want to do it so I’m hoping you’ll do it for me.
- PICs are fun, perms are also cool. Perms are probably not an advocacy? Idk dude I don’t have to deal with that sorta thing in BP.
- Be courteous to your opponents and to your partner. Conducting yourself with kindness and good humor, even and especially in competitive situations, makes the world a better place.
- I think that humor has a place in debate, and making me chuckle can earn you speaker points. Winning the debate obviously comes first, though.
- Because I am a dumb BP debater, I think that truth actually might have some bearing on the debate world. That means that if you make blatantly false claims that the average intelligent voter would know to be false, I’m probably not going to believe you. Debate might be a game, but it’s a game built on a very specific context, which is policy-making. Call me naive, but I like to hope that policy-making is somewhat based on truth. For any sort of spec knowledge, or anything that's debatable this doesn't really matter, I'm more referring to "Earth is flat sky is green" kinda stuff.

Hi,

I am a first-time judge and a speaker at Lewis and Clark College (primarily Interp). In round I'm looking for people to be respectful and kind, I also would rather people not spread because I want to be able to understand the arguments you're making.

Good luck!

Extensive Policy experience on the national circuit in high school and college (Lewis & Clark). A prior participant and judge of Parliamentary, IE's and other speech events and activities. Related moot court experience and a practicing trial lawyer. It has been many years since I last participated in or judged organized speech and debate events. I appreciate clearly articulated and structured arguments. I set aside personal biases as much as possible.

I’d like to see well-structured arguments with clear warrants and impacts. Delivery is important to me, so please, no spreading, and speak clearly and confidently (I do really enjoy humor as well). Logical contentions and rebuttals are definitely appreciated — no slippery slope arguments. If there’s an impact, it should be stated and well explained. Overall, I’m looking for creative points and well-presented cases.

TLDR:

1) Signpost

2) Have good evidence.

3) Give me voters.

4) Don't forget your framework.

5) Don't be boring; have fun.

Have fun!

Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), c/o 2023

If you need to contact me or create an email chain, use dpatel4@imsa.edu

-----

Hi! My name is Dhruv, and I co-captain the LD team at IMSA. I'll keep things short:

1) Be nice.

2) Debate well. This includes:

a)Signposting.I cannot stress this enough -- you must tell me where to look on the flow. Point me towards specific subpoints, contentions, and evidence. Go down the flow systematically, because if I can't tell where you're at, it'll be tough for me hand you a W.

b) Evidence.Include a whole host of evidence -- quanitative, qualitive, philosophical, and more. And remember, you must contextualize your evidence; I like one solid piece over 45 different cards that are very tangentially related to your arguments. And on that note, I care more about how strong your arguments are, over the quantity that you present.

c) Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters.Five times should be enough. Please give me reasons to vote for you at the end of your speech. Both sides should spend about 1-2 minutes doing so, and I don't care how you give your voters (completly seperate or dispersed throughout your speech) -- just do it.

d) And the most important thing: framework. This isn't PF, this isn't Policy, this isn't Congress. The whole premise of LD is a value and a value criterion, and you must remember this. Don't give me your value at the beginning of your constructive, and then throw it on the back burner for the rest of your speech. Forget your value, forgot getting good speaks.

3) Have fun. Don't be monotone, don't be boring.

Hello!

I am a newish judge, I competed in IE in high school and Congress in college in Illinois. So sometimes I have slightly different expectations than folks who have always been in debate in Oregon. This is my second year judging in Oregon. I am also a coach.

I try to encourage competitors to try their best to try to shape their arguments without attempting to tailor their arguments to an individual judge's paradigm. Particularly when you have several judges, it can be a challenge when their paradigms are not complementary. Nonetheless, a few general things for me

1. I try to choose the person I think won the debate. Simply because you counter or respond to an argument and say "this shouldn't flow" doesn't mean I have to agree that it doesn't flow.
2. I value organization greatly.
3. I do weigh arguments, some are more central than others, and winning on one argument is sometimes enough for me to make a decision. Winning on two smaller points is not as good as winning on the biggest point. In debate terms, I am weighing impact.
4. Stick to the resolution and the event you are in. Funding shouldn't be a key argument in LD or BQ, but it should be a central point in Policy/CX or PF. Additionally.... debate rules are not universal for all of the events. For instance... Public Forum does not have the "no no new arguments in final focus or summary" rule that exists in other styles of debate. It might be frowned on, but it isn't a DQ or anything.
5. No personal attacks. I strongly frown on inferred or direct insults. Yes "my opponent is not a good debater" is a personal attack.
6. I am generally open to people running Ks and Ts and other parts of the alphabet but I do not vote for them very often. My philosophy has always been that K's should be last resorts when neg or aff bias is unavoidable, not an excuse not to debate a resolution you don't think is cool.
7. An extension is not a new argument. Debaters on not confined to only repeating themselves in their final speech.
8. Saying "we don't have time to respond to that" is taking time to respond to it, especially if you repeat it a few times.
9. My flows/notes are often general and often messy. I am sorry, that is also just how I take notes and how I flow for myself.
10. Adding this one because I got a question about it... I will flow cross but I won't always flow like 'can you restate your 3rd sub-point" type stuff. If a question has an impact on the round or if I thought it was a good question, I will usually make a note at least.

CX: I served as a varsity CX debater in the UIL and TFA circuits.

I prefer a more traditional CX debate, but I will not count it against you if you choose not to do so. I will judge the debate on how you tell me to judge the round.

I will vote on stock issues but you have to walk me through them. My natural inclination is to judge a round as a policy maker so demonstrating impacts and weighing advantages and disadvantages is important.

CPs, if presented, should not be topical otherwise you are affirming the resolution.

I dont mind spreading but tag lines and main arguments need to be slower and clear. Roadmaps and signposting are crucial to an organized and well flowed debate on my end.

I'm not naturally inclined to love Kritiks, but I do have just as much experience in LD as well and while this may be policy debate, I will evaluate a K as they come up and vote on them if that is how the round is framed.

Ultimately, you tell me how to judge the round. I am a blank slate. I may have preferences but I won't count my preferences against you if you tell me how to judge the round and you win based off of that criteria.

LD: I have several years of experience in LD as well. Speaking and organization are key. In this form I dont mind the more philosophical nature of Values and Value Criterions. I also dont mind if you present policy arguments such as impacts and other things. Most of the above paradigms fit with LD as well.

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.

Be Objective

Believe more in Science and reasoning

Positive Energy

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

National competitor in World Schools, Extemp (IX), Policy, PF, and Duo. State level competitor in Congress

For debate: I will write really all of what I'm given as arguments, no matter what they are. That does not mean, however, that I'm willing to weigh random contentions, advantages, DAs, impacts, etc. the same as well-made and cited arguments. It just means that it's the burden of the responding team to point that out to me with or without cards. I will write down cross-ex, but it won't be on the flow unless a speaker brings it up in a speech as part of their argument. If you want to make my decision more predictable or precise, make sure that you bring up how your points fitframeworks in a round. If there's no framework debate, I will have to decide on my own how a round is weighed, which - try as I might - may not be on points or arguments you were thinking.

For speech: I tend to focus a lot on physical movement and tone when watching speech events. I love hearing that passion and confidence in a speech and seeing it in a competitor's movements as well. Of course if someone has a speech or movement limitation I will take that into account as I go about judging. I do understand the difficulty of limited prep events though and won't judge too harshly with that in mind. However, I expect points to be made with cited evidence where possible and, if a conclusion is made by yourself, lay out that logical chain as though I was a lay person. With prepped events, show off! Have some fun with it and show me that you've got this. I believe in you, and so should you. (For events in which it can be used, I speak Spanish, French, and some Maasri Arabic). Creative and stand-out uses of props, movement, or tone are great ways to show that you know your speech even down to the details.

For interp: Confidence. Is. Key. It comes with time and practice, I know, but of all the people in the room you know your piece best inside and out. Forget a line? That's fine, I've been there, too. Don't get too tripped up on the technical details so much that you forget that interp is a performance. You can always improve for the next tournament if something goes wrong or you forget lines, but there's no going back on the current round. Pops and voices should be sharp and distinguished unless there's a reason to have them otherwise.

Most of all, enjoy yourselves. Debate is educational, professional, and fun for everyone there, so keep up the good work y'all!

Hello!

To keep things short, I am a parent judge but I have judged PF.

Because I am pretty new to judging, I dislike spreading. Speaking pretty fast is the norm for debate, but if it becomes incomprehensible, I will start docking speaker points. Other than that, everything is pretty much the same: be a good debater and make sure nothing is racist, sexist, etc. Attack the arguments, not the people running it.

For PF, I am a tech over truth judge, but PLEASE HAVE WARRANTS. I hate excessive jargon use as well, so while you can say that something is non-unique or has been delinked, talk about the actual argument and not just a "Judge, they conceded our first response to their link on the first affirmation constructive, which is why you vote for us."

Speaking of evidence, I am a huge stickler for this since PF is evidence based: don't misrepresent evidence.

Overall: have congratulations and have fun! That's what this is all about :)

High school value LD, collegiate IPDA. Not a huge flow judge

Don't run nuclear war impacts, respect your opponent, and don't defend human rights violations or you're getting dropped

Hey reader! I dunno if tabroom has updated my name yet, but I'm Alice. I debate for L&C and if you’re reading this then you probably have me for a round or two!

For email chains, my email is lc20-0333@lclark.edu

TL;DR

I love thorough warrants and explanations. I am fine with speed, and will vote on anything that is explained adequately. I don’t lean any way, I’m fine with wacky 6 off strategies or 1 off DA’s, anything that you enjoy debating. Just make sure that you’re having fun!

Paradigm

I have experience in both lay and progressive circuits. I like good, interactive, educational rounds (isn’t that the dream). Try your best and you’ll do great, and you will probably get good speaks unless you say something super backwards and hateful.

Speed

I am completely fine with speed, so long as I can read along as you talk. Make sure that you are delivering your speeches with clarity. Don't feel pressured to speak fast if it isn't something you are comfortable with. The most important thing is that you and your opponent are both okay with the pace that is being set! If your opponent calls clear or speed and you don’t acknowledge it, you will lose speaks. Roadmapping and signposting are big plusses to speaks.

Stock Issues/Topical Debate

I feel comfortable with stock issues, and I think that stock issues debate is an easy way to get my ballot. You don’t need to explicitly tell me which card is on which stock issue, just make sure that when you’re doing line by line to sign post so I’m on the same page as you.

Kritiks

I spend most of my time debating Kritiks (on both the aff and neg), so I do end up voting for them a lot. My main areas are Orientalism/Cap/Queerness. If you do end up reading a K, please don’t assume that I know or understand the literature base. I think we as a community get away with using tags as arguments and not explaining the bulk of the card, so I tend to like at least a little bit of hand holding to get me to the same conclusion as you. Vague alts are really hard for me to vote on, so make sure you tell me what the alt actually does. If you’re debating against the K, don’t be afraid to ask clarifying questions because I may be just as lost as you are.

Theory

I do really enjoy theory debate. It’s one of my favorite things in debate. If you do end up going for theory, or find yourself having to respond to it, please make sure that you’re being clear with the signposts on the line-by-line. Theory can become really muddy unless both debaters make sure to be extra clear. I will vote on almost any theory arg so long as you win competing interps.

Extras

Feel free to email me any questions that you have that I didn't address in the ballots! lc20-0333@lclark.edu

I did LD and parli for four years in high school.

Write my ballot for me. Give me clear voters, use frameworks to evaluate arguments, and/or do impact calculus. Tell me what the most important arguments in the round are and why.

If you have any more questions about my judging philosophy, please ask.

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.

If you are doing a speech, go nice and slow. Don't feel like you need to rush it.

If you are doing a debate, be considerate of each other.

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 am a relatively inexperienced parent judge. I want to hear what you have to say, so I prefer clear, understandable speech - no spreading/fast-talking, no obscure references to debate terms that are likely foreign to parents who didn't debate in high school. If I can't understand you, then I can't count what you say in your favor.

I expect a courteous, respectful debate - and hope you have fun too.

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.

I strive to judge all debate with a blank slate, or with tabula rasa; I also pride myself at being as open minded as possible in every event that I judge, by recognizing and negating my own biases and beliefs so I can achieve impartial judgement in every situation. Although my decisions are primarily policy driven, I tend to also weigh speaking skills and communication as an essential aspect of student presentation.

Hi, I'm Josie (she/her)! I did LD for four years in high school, as well as HI, and I dabbled in other speech types as well.

TL:DR - please speak clearly, connect your points, don't be rude.

Speed- As long as I can understand you, you're good to go. I will let you know if I need you to slow down (speed/clear). Crystallization and slowing down for sign posting, tags, or important analytics helps me write down what you need me to know. Probably not your fastest speed ever.

Theory / K's- I didn't run a lot of these, but I can understand them. If you run these, please makes your points clear, and explain your arguments well. Really sell what you're presenting.

Framework - Love a good framework debate, please connect all your arguments back to the resolution.

Some more general notes- I will basically hear any argument or case, as long as you present it in a logical way. Impact calc will go a long way with me. I will be writing down and/or flowing through what you tell me to, so be clear when presenting and refuting arguments. However, if I see any glaring issues or flaws in your arguments, I will also take those into consideration.

I don't like nuclear extinction as an impact, so if you're gonna run it you better make it good. Ask me about it if you care that much.

You and I know to be competing right now is *insanely* stressful, so I'm proud of you for doing it! :) Everyone will have tech issues once in a while, so I will be understanding if anything happens. Please do the same for me.

My number one request is please don't be a jerk in round. Don't interrupt your opponent and be polite.

I will be disclosing and giving RFD if the tournament allows. Feel free to ask me any questions before we get started.

Recent graduate of high school debate. Focused on Parli debate, but also had experience with all other debate forms and a range of IEs. You can ask for more in depth paradigms in-round :)

I did not participate in speech or debate in high school.

I value organized and logical argumentation. Apply your argument, logic or theory to the facts of the topic.

I value the clear expression of ideas. The intent should be to communicate to your audience, not spray out as many arguments & points as you can. I do not do spread.

I value the targeted rebuttal of your opponents idea's.

I value respectful behavior. If I believe the intent of a question is merely to interrupt or knock your opponent of their stride and not a legitimate question, I will penalize such a question.

I do not want to hear debate about debate. Debate the resolution.

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.

TLDR

Hi y'all, I'm Taisei (he/him pronouns). I did policy for five years and LD for one year.

Former West High Debater, L&C 2025

Please put me on the email chain, or feel free to email me if you have questions - lc21-0970@lclark.edu

Do what ever you do best - just know I'm not familiar with a lot of K literature (I feel best prepared to judge Cap, Security, Abolition, Orientalism, and Ks like that). So, if you want to read a different K (looking at you pomo Ks), make sure you explain your arguments well.

Golden Rule - Don't be a dick. If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I'll nuke your speaks.

Tech >Truth

I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to be clear. If you're not, I'll say "clear". If you keep speaking in a way I can't understand after having been warned, I'll stop flowing. Also, slow down for blocks and taglines. If you don't, I may miss something important.

If no impact framing mechanism is provided, I default to consequentialism.

For Middle Schoolers and Novices

If you read my online paradigm and mention it when I'm judging you, I'll boost your speaks. I think that online paradigms are very useful because it's a space for judges to explain their philosophies in-depth, and I'd like to encourage debaters get into the habit of checking paradigms.

I'll listen to and vote for any kind of argument. Just make sure to explain it and do impact calculus. If you need to choose between making a bunch of shallow arguments or one really well fleshed out argument, make the fleshed out argument. If you read an argument that isn't a part of the assigned evidence packet, I'm very likely to vote against you because the packet exists so that both teams are guaranteed to be prepared to debate. If you read beyond the packet, you're ruining the learning experience for your opponents.

This is just a pet peeve, but there are a few phrases that younger debaters use that are unnecessary and drive me crazy. Instead of saying "Now time for an off-time roadmap," you can just say "the order will be..." and then give the order. That's much more succinct and it makes you sound more like a person instead of someone who's just repeating what a coach told you to say.

For Policy

Most of my debate career has been in policy, and for most of that time I was a 2N that read mainly policy arguments. For my senior year, I was a 2A that read policy affs. If you're reading a policy aff, make sure you have a good solvency mechanism that is unique to your aff. If it can really solved by adv CPs really easily, that's not a good sign. I like DAs and CPs and that's mainly what I went for as a 2N.

So while I'm definitely the most comfortable judging policy arguments, I can judge Ks as well. Just make sure you flesh it out well, as you would for any other argument and don't keep reusing the same key words and phrases as if they replace a warranted argument. Especially if you're reading a Pomo K (I will be honest, while I will vote for it, I'm not personally fond of Pomo so you gotta explain it really well)! Links of omission aren't links.

I'm fine with either team reading theory, but if you go for it make sure you explain it out completely. If you read a T violation and don't have an impact, I don't see a reason to vote for it even if you win your standards.

Don't go for everything in the 2AR/2NR. There should only be a few arguments so you don't spread yourself too thin. If you go for theory, it should be 5 minutes of theory.

For LD

Most of what I said about policy will also apply for LD. I read mostly policy arguments (policy affs, CPs, DAs), but I have also read Ks and theory in LD. I'm okay voting for any of those, just be sure to flesh out your arguments and don't just keep repeating the same phrases without any analysis.

I default to 1AR theory is okay, no RVIs, and theory means drop the team/debater. If you want me to think otherwise, explain why these shouldn't be the standards.

I have no problem with debaters reading new ev in the 1AR or 2NR, as long as it's to support an argument that was previously read (you don't get a new DA in the 2NR).

I don't like T Nebel. If you're really convincing I'll still vote for it, but do be warned, I don't like it.

I don't think you need a value and criterion, and if none is provided I will default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. I've done both progressive and traditional LD, so feel free to do either with me. That being said - if you're doing progressive LD and your opponent is used to doing traditional, I'd encourage you to make the round as accessible to them as possible. I don't think you need to then pick up a value and criterion, but try to be nice (i.e. don't spread super fast, don't barrage the aff with 7 off in the 1NR, etc). Debate should be a place for learning as well as competing

I am a novice judge.

I am an engineer by profession. I am used to sitting in presentations and in technical debates.

I find it easier to follow crisp, cogent arguments delivered with clarity.

I sometimes have trouble digesting the arguments if speakers rush through them.

Since I am new to this, please feel free to remind me if I am missing a step or about specific rules that are supposed to be applied during a particular phase of the debate.

Oregon debaters: I will only evaluate arguments on the flow and not consider (eye contact, cx, speed, etc). I am capable of evaluating all arguments (plan, counterplan, theory, kritiks, etc) on a fair and technical level and am okay with spreading. Although I was a circuit-debater, please only read arguments and debate in a manner you are familiar with and do not over-adapt (e.g. saying "this is your nuke war impact" when reading a structural violence aff; spreading when you can't). I am not receptive to these arguments and will likely give you bad speaks.

(Should not have to say this but ...) Arguments that are not extended (either implicitly or explicitly) in the 2NR/2AR will not be evaluated - I need a coherent explanation about what the aff/neg does and the impact of it.

Prefs info (how I evaluate debates):

In 2019 I qualified to TOC with 3 bids - I'm familiar will all types of arguments (K's, Theory, Plan's etc). I judged for 1 year and have not touched debate in a few years.

I will evaluate all arguments fairly - shoes theory can beat Wilderson if debated better on a technical level, although if you win "reasonability" I will almost certainly view silly theory or framework tricks to be bad.

I am familiar with K-affs vs Topicality debate and will evaluate this argument fairly for either side.

Pre-round info (things to consider when debating in front of me):

I don't know any of the current topics.

Tags of cards MUST be read clearly. Even the worst flower on the circuit should be able to flow your tags without needing to look at a doc. This also applies to blippy, pre-written analytics as well. I will call "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing anything I can't understand.

*If you are debating a novice/someone with unfamiliar with circuit debate, win quickly (extend a theory shell and sit down after 30 seconds) OR make the round engageable for them (read a lay position). If you take full prep and speech times to read a K against a novice who drops all the links and makes 0 perms, you will receive terrible speaks.

Links are important. Be sure to walk me through your impacts.

I also appreciate flow coverage and fact-based evidence.

Please do not say "For all these reasons, and more" If you have more reasons, tell me what they are.

TL;DR: Don't be rude or discourteous; speak well and clearly

parli and extemp mainly in hs but i dabbled in almost everything

Debate:

Run what you want, as long as it isn't morally reprehensible (i.e. kill all puppies). I prefer fewer, well created arguments with solid warranting and reasoning. Walk me through the link chains and terminalize your impacts and the debate will be so much more educational that way.

the more you can genuinely enjoy giving ur speech and make me laugh the higher i will score you

I'm totally and completely fine with tech/theory arguments and default on reasonability unless told to otherwise.

Speaking:

Please don't spread its unproductive, inacessible, and unpersuasive. Make me want to vote for your arguments not just default on # of points scored here and there.

I start speaks at 28 (yw) and go up or down from there, with 1.5 being style and persuasiveness and the other .5 being creativity of arguments. You could be the reincarnation of Churchill himself and still get a 29.5 <3

Speech!!!!:

Don't have much to say to y'all, as speech is very much event based. I judge speech based on how much you are able to meet the intent of your event. I.e. in HI I want to laugh but in Ext I want to come out of it knowing something new about the world. Other than that, as long as you're enjoying the speech you're giving I believe that your best will shine through. Have tons of fun!!

Kiara Tooley- she/her

If there is an email chain, please add me to it: tete.bete33@gmail.com

My experience is 5 years of policy debate.

Misc: When referring to me please use my name, not "judge". Make sure I'm ready before starting the timer.

Speed: Cool with speed though clarity is important. If I can't understand you, I can't flow. If the round is online, this is even more difficult so make sure clarity is top priority.

Time allotments: Time yourself and do not go over by an obscene amount. It is so annoying to me when I have to tell people their time is up and it looks so unprofessional for the speaker. If you do this, it will make me not want to vote for you especially if your opponents are following their timer. I do time for this exact reason. When the timer beeps, finish your sentence and then you're done.

Also, make sure to utilize all speech time. Every second you have is an additional opportunity to make your stance more competitive. Just try your best here and it will make me like you!

Evidence: Make sure that you can share all of your evidence. I'd prefer you not to present any evidence than not be able to share it. If you refuse to share evidence or even feign tech-issues to avoid it, I will assume you're hiding something. Your opponents shouldn't even have to ask you to share.

Dropped Args: I flow everything that is said. I also know from my experience in the lay circuit that sometimes when you don't know how to address something, it's simpler to just say that the opponent dropped it, especially in the last speeches. You're wasting your time with me here if you do this. Also, I prefer for you to talk about what the opponents did say instead of focusing on what they didn't. I feel like this provides more ground for argumentation and good clash.

CX: Prep questions during the speech, don't scramble during cx time. This makes you look more professional and prepared and also allots time where you can utilize your opponents knowledge or lack thereof to your advantage. On that note, use all of the cx time. At the very least, cx time is time extra time for your partner to prepare their speech (if applicable)- nothing is more frustrating to me than seeing this time cut short.

Prep: Don't be scared to take it, it's there for your benefit. I would much rather you take all of your prep and give a great speech than take no time and give one that needs better preparation. Take the time to look over your args before you present them, it makes you seem more convincing during the speech. I also don't think there's any harm in using all of your prep. Make sure I know that you're taking prep before you start the timer. Please count down from your time, I know you don't want to do that math. There's no excuse since you can use your phone for a timer.

Generally, have fun with the round and prioritize learning. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents and don't try to cheat the round. Making jokes and showing me that you're here to have fun will make me increase speaker points.

If you have any questions for me about anything on my paradigm, feel free to ask.

Hi, I'm new to judging; please be kind. I'm a parent judge, so please don't use too much confusing jargon, and don't spread. Above all, have fun!

Parliamentary Debate:

a) I am very tech over truth.

What this means is that I view debate and argumentation as a game to win, rather than who simply has the "best" or most "truthful" case. For example, if Aff says that the sky is yellow and Neg doesn't say anything, I will buy that the sky is yellow. If you don't extend arguments or framework, if you don't give me voters, I will vote against you.

b) When framework clashes come into play, defend your framework and how you weigh your round. Show why I as the judge should view the debate through the lens that you set up. You must win that battle. The same goes for definitions, albeit less important. If you lose either of these two, I will likely have trouble buying your entire case, regardless of the actual arguments.

c) I like it when there are clear impacts that are presented in your speeches that have good links to them, as with a strong, well-organized, and meaningful voters speech to make it last in my head.

d) Additionally, during refutations especially, I'd like to see time being managed well and attempting to refute every argument the opponent makes, and would also like to see your own arguments being repaired and extended because without that you have no more offense to me. Re-iterate your arguments and explain why they still matter. Arguably, this is more important than the actual refutation itself.

e) I enjoy it when you can creatively interpret the resolution, especially in parliamentary debate, so long as you can justify why your interpretation is correct.

f) Overall, the quality of your speaking doesn't really matter as much as it would an IE, but speak clearly and don't go too fast or slow, so that it's easier for me to flow.

Public Forum Debate:

a) A bit of history on the origins of Public Forum Debate:

Public forum debate was originally created as an antidote to the often highly technical policy debate (something you'll hear about in high school). In fact, it was the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, who first introduced the idea for this type of debate, which originally bore his name (Ted Turner Debate). He wanted to create a space where debaters could convince an audience of people who were not knowledgeable about a subject matter to vote for them.

b) In the spirit of Ted Turner, I believe that as Public Forum debaters, you should do your best to convey your ideas in a clear manner. Even in high school, the judges for PF are often lay judges, so I will pretend I know very little about the resolution. It, therefore, is up to you to inform me of what you are talking about.

c) Public Forum is an evidence-based debate. What this means is that I look for strong evidence and strong backing of evidence. If you cannot present evidence in a manner that is convincing, I will have trouble believing your case over your opponents'.

d) Remember that your case is only half of your debate!!! While I cannot emphasize preparing well in advance for Public Forum, you can still win a round with worse evidence than your opponents; it's a matter of how you use your speaking to appeal to me as a judge.

e) See points c and d for parliamentary debate. Keep point b in mind, but I will emphasize that a lot less in PF.

f) Points a and e in parliamentary debate do NOT apply at all to PF. Parliamentary debate is a different style from PF.

g) The quality of your speaking matters more in PF than in parliamentary debate. However, I do not expect the same quality as a dramatic interpretation; it should be calm and informative.

Furthermore, since public forum is meant to inform a lay judge, I will be a lot more strict on aggressiveness than in parliamentary debate. I want you to be nice to your opponents. The only exception is during crossfire; I want to see good questions asked, and a bit of (respectful) pressing here and there is acceptable and encouraged. Just don't seem mad.

Speech:

I will judge based on how good your speaking quality is and how well you're able to organize your ideas. Organization is something that I place a great amount of importance in; it's important to be able to convey your ideas clearly.

===============================================================================

In general, just be nice to each other and don't say rude things to your opponents.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at albert.a.wang@vanderbilt.edu.

Most importantly, have a good time!

In your final speech, if you address me as "Judge Albert", I will know you have read through my paradigm and I will be very happy.

EDIT: Please don't feel any pressure to do the above in the final round at Nationals.

======================================================================

My Points Scale:

30: You killed it. Absolute genius.

29: That was pretty epic

28: Excellent Job

27: Great Job

26: Good Job

25: Could use some adjustments

24 or below: You probably had some theory issues

Note: I will probably give you lower scores than other judges. That's just how my system works.

Also, if you get 28 or above, that's a very significant accomplishment. I don't give many scores above a 28.

I am a former debater and IEer from 1999 to 2007 and then I coached collegiate speech and debate from 2007 to 2009. I am passionate about this activity and enjoy judging when I can. I have done almost any IE or debate event you can think of. I did 4 years of collegiate Parli debate with an additional 2 years of coaching the activity. In high school I did LD, Congress, and Ted Turner (now Public Forum) debate and a variety of different individual events.

Policy/Debate Paradigm - While I have never done Policy as a competitor, I can flow and follow almost any argument you want to make. I warn you of three things about me:

1) You need to explain the argument you are making or I am willing to ignore the argument. If you explain the argument and provide me with realistic impacts I am happy to vote on pretty much any argument you want to make. If your impacts are poorly developed or are overly dramatic (global destruction, millions dead, etc) I will probably give your position very little weight. I do not know what your cards say so take the time to explain your argument. I will usually make my decision by weighing the quality and likelihood of potential impacts. I was a plan/counter-plan/dis-ad/topicality debater myself, but I have voted plenty of times for well developed critical arguments as well.

2) If you flow me out of the round that is your problem, not mine. I have a lot of flowing experience, but am by no means the fastest. I have from time to time missed arguments because speakers have gone too fast. I will do my best to keep up, but you go too fast at your own risk. I am not saying you need to go slow, just be careful.

3) I really like to see people having fun in this activity. Be creative and be nice to one another. I know it is easy to get wrapped up in argumentation and become passionate about what you are arguing. Always remember that this is a game that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you cross the line between being competitive and being a jerk, you will not find me to be very happy with your performance.

Have fun and good luck!!

Andrew Wilson

I am a parent judge. No matter how developed or “flow” my paradigm sounds or how experienced my judging record looks, treat me like I am part of the general public. Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. In debate, I will not flow anything I can't understand, so don't spread. Signpost. Use simple vocabulary (no jargon). Stick to traditional debate norms (no theories, Ks, trix, etc.). Participate in cross. And for any event, compelling and passionate delivery will earn you better rankings. Speak because it means something, not for the sake of filling time.

Be professional and respectful. Have fun!