Hi, I’m Owen, but you can call me judge

TLDR:

I can probably follow whatever you want to run, but if you are mean to your opponents, abuse things like Theory or Kritikes, or are unintelligible then your round won’t go well.

Long version:

I did debate in highschool and now I’m a coach.

In highschool I mainly focused on parliamentary debate where my partner and I were consistently top 5 in the state and within the top 10-15 at TOC for a few years in a row. I know how to do east coast, Oregon, and California parli (I can follow speed and lay debate well and at a high level).
My other events include public forum where I almost broke at nats one year, extemporaneous debate, and a few other events that I gave a try or helped people with at practice.
I did speech events as well but let’s not talk about those…

I judge tabula rossa, so line-by-line is important, but at the end of the day how you win the round is determined in your voters. In a perfect round you give small voters throughout your arguments, tie back the points you make to a weighing mechanism, and finish with solid voters that say exactly what I should be writing on my ballot.

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

TLDR Version: I did CEDA/NDT policy debate in college. Do whatever you want.

Hello:

My name is Ben Dodds. I have been involved with speech and debate for 18 years. I did policy debate for four years in high school and two years of CEDA/NDT in college. When I transferred from Gonzaga to Oregon, the policy team was cut and I started doing Parli on the NPTE/NPDA circuit.

I coached the University of Oregon team for six seasons after I finished debating. I judged CEDA/NDT and NPTE/NPDA debates at that time.

As far as a judging paradigm is concerned, I think that this is your activity now, not mine. If you can convince me an argument is valid in any format I will listen. I have enjoyed deep and complex debates about process counterplans and politics DAs and performance Kritiks of all stripes. There have been excellent debates on everything in between. You can't go pro in debate, it ends, I want you to use the time you have here to make arguments you like.

The unifying trait of arguments that I enjoy is that YOU enjoy them. If you are passionate about an argument, know why it should matter to me and can tell me that, I am game for it.

I don't have a "default" mode for evaluating or weighing arguments. If arguments are not compared, I will just compare them myself in whatever mood I am in at that moment. This cannot go well for you. Debate is subjective, no matter how much we might tell ourselves it isn't, it is and always will be. If you create the weighing mechanism and debate about what is important, I'll use that. Without comparison, my decision will probably feel arbitrary to you and me. Debate is about processing, comparing, and contrasting ideas. If you don't compare and contrast, you are not debating.

I have one specific request. I have never been in a debate where one person (or team) made all good arguments and the other person (or team) made NO good arguments. I appreciate debates and debaters that take an honest approach to their opponent's argument quality as well as their own. I want to hear an honest assessment of which arguments you think are good and bad, should be weighed or not, and matter most at the end of the round. If you show me a rebuttalist that thinks every argument they made is perfect and everything the other team said is worthless, I'll show you a bad rebuttal. I want to hear you tell me "this is their BEST argument, we STILL win because..."

I would appreciate as many specific questions as you have before a debate. I will answer them all.

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

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

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

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

Don't be rude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Amber Houston

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

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.

I joined the NSDA as a high school student in 1978 and have been involved in the activity at many levels and in many different roles ever since. My initial exposure to speech and debate was a year long class in the structure and theory of cross-examination debate. While I appreciate all forms of debate, C-X is my favorite format. I rarely judge because I am usually part of the tab staff or doing other administrative duties, including at nationals.

C-X Paradigm: I will listen to whatever arguments you run; however, if they are not sufficiently backed up with analysis and just consist of reading large numbers of cards with no solid links to your argument you will have a tough time picking up my ballot. Understanding the power of Stock Issues goes a long way with me, but I will vote on what is on the flow. I dislike generic disadvantages, generic K's and incomplete counter-plans. I can follow very fast debaters, but I dislike using speed to cover-up for logical inconsistencies and analytical flaws. I do not want to have to ask for cards, so be honest. Ethics are important, be respectful. Do not do things that will drive people away from the event. Tag-teaming is fine as long as I am able to see the c-x skills of both partners.

L-D Paradigm: I expect L-D debaters to have a more communicative style than policy debaters. The debater who holds their case together along with maintaining the supremacy (or at least equality) of their value and criterion is the debater likely to get my ballot. My position on theory is related to regional expectations. If I am judging a TOC meet I will expect K's and counter-plans. I do not expect these structures at Oregon tournaments.

Public Forum Paradigm: Communication is important in Public Forum. I expect a smaller number of arguments than in other debate formats; additionally, the arguments need to be clear and logically supported. Analysis, examples and cross-application to other academic disciplines (such as literature) are strategies I appreciate. I expect good manners. Grand Cross-Fire should not degenerate into a yelling match. I need to understand who is talking.

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm: I consider this a "no rules" debate. What you tell me is what I will use as my decision calculus. That said, I still expect good manners and good ethics. Do not lie to me. If you use policy concepts I am fine with that, but do not beat up on inexperienced debaters--this will not get my ballot.

My priorities for judging any debate are

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

2) clear and organized arguments.

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

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

Hey! My name is Sophia Varley and I graduated from St. Mary's last year. I did Speech and Debate for four years and my specialty was Parliamentary Debate (but I’ve dabbled in a little bit of everything). This being said, please do not spread or run any very complex theory. Also please remember to speak up and speak clearly (this goes for people doing speech events too).

Don't be rude to your opponents - if you show any blatant disrespect in the round I will take points off - I won't tolerate rudeness.

You're welcome to keep track of your own time with a timer.

Other than that I just want you all to have fun!!

*Bonus points if you make me laugh in the round.

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

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