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

DAVID BLOMMENDAHL

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at Douglas McKay High School in Salem. This is my second year in that role.

I consider it a privilege to judge and have a deep respect for the preparation and commitment that participating and competing in these events entails.

When judging, I will always ask for your name with correct spelling, your assigned code, the school you represent, and the topic of your presentation. I use this information for my own notes which I usually take on a Google Doc.

The nature of each event is different, but invariably I focus on your "hook," evidence of organization, clarity, annunciation, correct grammar, emphasis and dramatic pause for key points, and voice. I want to see YOU come through in what you present.

I will give all competitors feedback, usually in bullet point form, on the strengths of their presentation as well as areas for improvement. I will always try to be constructive.

I am newish to judging debate, but I focus on the clarity of your arguments and the respect you show your opponent(s). If there is a disparity between your argument and that of your opponent, clearly engage with that disparity and use facts and logic to make your own case. I am not impressed with emotional arguments. Facts weigh heavier than beliefs.

I value and respect what you are doing and how you show who you are and what you are capable of in these events.

Best of luck to all!

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.

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.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

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

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

Pronouns: He/him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

About me:

- I am what you considered a mom judge

- I have served as an officer in the Air force for 21 years and retired last year.

Want I like to see in debate overall:

- Speaking at a reasonable pace.

- Please sign post.

- Don't drop arguments

- Please do voters

- Confidence

- Be kind to each other.

What I like to see with speech events:

- Quality over quantity

- Have confidence and project your voice

- If you can apply your topic/theme to real world problems that would be great as it gives a reason why people should care about your theme/topic.

About Me:

My name is Gabriel Elmosleh, and I'm a freshmen at Clackamas community college. I did speech and debate at Clackamas High school for two years, and I competed in parliamentary/Policy debate, and extemporaneous speech.

I'm a bit rusty when it comes to speech and debate, so I'll try not to be too technical or harsh when it comes to my grading, unless it's a style of speech and debate I'm familiar with. I have a very limited history of judging, so my feedback may not be too in depth at times. If you do an impressive David Attenborough or Michael Caine impression, you will get bonus points.

FYI, there are three different Tabroom accounts for Michelle Hamann. They are all me. This is the current one, so look here for paradigms, but if you want the whole history of my judging you might want to look at the other ones as well.

LD: I have been judging debate longer than you have been alive. I am pretty old-school in my approaches. I will accept more progressive styles, but the focus always needs to be on the resolution and why we should or should not enact it. I'm not really interested in a meta-debate about debate, and if you bring up those arguments I'm probably going to be looking for ways for you to lose.

I flow on paper, and the flow is where I look to make my decision. If you want me to consider an argument you need to give in a clear and organized enough manner that I can get it onto the flow. If you're speaking at 300 words per minute, I'm probably not going to get it onto the flow. If you don't signpost, you're at my mercy on where I put it on the flow.

I care about warrant a LOT. Evidence is good, but if you don't tell me why it matters, it's not going to matter much in my mind.

Quality of arguments will always beat quantity. Just because your opponent drops your contention 10 subpoint Q doesn't mean you win. (Doubly so because a case that has that many contentions probably argued none of them well.)

Be respectful. You can win--and win handily--while respecting your opponent, even if he/she is overmatched.

PuFo: I am a reasonably educated American voter who is relatively well versed in current events. Convince me. I will not flow and do not care about dropped subpoints and technicalities. I will listen to what you say and how you say it, and pick the team that offers the more convincing arguments.

Congressional Debate: How well are you contributing to positive, productive debate? That's the question that underlies every aspect of my judging in Congress.

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.

I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.

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

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

Pronouns: any

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

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

For policy debate:

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

Disclosure:

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

Running lots of off-case positions:

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

Kritiks:

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

K-affs:

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

Disadvantages/Counterplans:

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

Topicality:

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

Debate through high school (2009-2013), primarily Lincoln Douglas

Coach of the Silverton High School team (2015-2019)

Clash

You can pick up cheap heat from dropped defense and impact out into oblivion - which, admittedly, can make the difference - but if I feel you're being abusive impacting out, I have no problem saying so on ballot. Use any weighing mechanisms/cards to make your impacts believable and I'm a happy judge.

Specificity is key. I want to see pin-point accuracy in the line-by-line; so much of debate skill is economy of ideas, and I want to see you use what matters. Tell me exactly in the card where you are at all times; just that little bit of extra time keeps us all - including yourself - on track for the offense you're generating. If you're being intentionally vague to cover, you should have considered dropping the point.

Personal Notes

Any case/k/etc that requires you to take my laptop from me is an easy win for your opponent. If you follow through with Baudrillard and take it without asking, I will listen, but the second I get my laptop I sign the ballot.

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.

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.

Hi Everyone, I am a parent judge with extremely limited experience. I'm unfamiliar with how different forms of debate and speech work, so I hope competitors will be patient with me and explain to me.

For speech, I respect a speaker who can enunciate and articulate, with vocal variety, without loads of filler words. I will not be able to provide time signals, so if you need them, I recommend asking another competitor. That said, you are allowed to self time as long as the rules permit it. Please be supportive of one another during a round by staying quiet and offering support and encouragement between speeches/rounds.

For debate, I have limited debate experience. I am not sure how long each speech is supposed to go or the order of speeches and crossfires, so if competitors could guide me, that would be great. I would like your contention to be clear and supported well by your points. Please, no spreading, I would like your speeches to have a good pace and enunciation. I would like competitors to be respectful to one another and to the judge during a round.

Thanks so much, and I look forward to a fun round.

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

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.

Hello everyone,

My name is Charlotte Thomas. 2023-24 is my second year judging Speech and Debate, and I am very glad to be supporting all the students who compete! In my working life, I am a psychotherapist, which means that I am skilled at tracking communication and intention. I will always work to remain objective in my assessments and comments. I will also enter the judging space with a fresh, open mindset.

In debate rounds, I am looking for clear and concise arguments which I am able to track. I also place high value on respectful behavior before, during, and after the rounds. I love it when I am offered a roadmap of where your debate is headed.

Thank you, and good luck!

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

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

Pronouns: he/him

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

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

For policy debate:

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

Disclosure:

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

Running lots of off-case positions:

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

Kritiks:

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

K-affs:

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

Disadvantages/Counterplans:

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

Topicality:

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