I'm new to judging LD.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

You cannot go wrong by guiding me with a mapping. Help me to see the scaffolding or your framework of contentions or rebuttal. Echo your value. However, avoid being a one-hit wonder.

Look to respond effectively to the other's contentions.

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

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

Hello! I am an attorney in the public sector. I do not have a speech and debate background, but I have done a lot of public speaking (oral argument, motion hearings, administrative hearings, and some trial work) in my work. Other than that, I have two teenage daughters and try to stay physically active.

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.

Background: I did speech and debate in high school focusing on LD, Extemp, and Congress so those are the forms I know best but have exposure to most of the forms. However, some of the categories are new since then and I am a new judge regardless, so please take into account that I have general experience but am not dialed in as a modern speech and debate judge at this point.

Paradigm:

My pronouns are he/they, I am non-binary and queer and I am predisposed towards arguments supporting equity, inclusion, and social justice. Arguments in favor of the status quo are fine, however, but need to support how it is good for the topic at hand not just that it is the default.

I believe that debates should be a constructive clash of opposing ideals or opposing plans towards a common ideal. Humans are natural story tellers and if you want to have people buy into your theory, you need to have a narrative structure that tells the story you want them to become deeply invested in. Support it with facts, absolutely, but a pile of facts with no narrative leaves open the interpretation of those facts to your opponents and the listener. A winning argument establishes their narrative as the field upon which the conflict happens.

Passion is important but so is respect. Engage your competition respectfully, do not demean or belittle.

I can follow along with speed but speed often dilutes the narrative power so be mindful of hitting home the points that are most important. Minimize spread. An unrefuted argument is not a winner if the argument is not well supported. Have key points, make sure I understand what they are, support them well, be respectful and you'll do well with me.

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

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

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