I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current head coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

I am a communications judge and judge primarily on speaking skills and the clarity of arguments. I'm a new judge so I appreciate any help!

I keep time but like if you can pay attention to your own timing as well.

I appreciate respectful tone and pay attention to mode of delivery. I'm not generally concerned with speed of delivery and can follow quick argumentation as long as it sticks to a logical chain of reasoning.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Speakers who are articulate, well-spoken, and have a strong backing of evidence will fair better in round.-Judge Aaron Dossett.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

Tell me why your side is right.

Speed is not something that bothers me but I need you to make sure that I can understand you. Also if your intent is to outtalk your opponent for the sake of outtalking them, that isn't going to get you the win. I want to hear why you're right and your opponent is wrong.

I did very little debate in school but am a practicing attorney so I too have a way with words. I will take into consideration your eye contact, volume/inflection, and your clarity when determining points (not whether a side wins or not)

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

I did speech and debate in high school and now I help with coaching. My main format was Public Forum, but I have experience in a lot of formats and events.

With that, even though I can track with a lot of complicated rounds, accessibility in debate means a lot and we should all be striving for that.

For Debate:

I always try to be a tabula rasa, but I would still say I'm a flows judge, so signposting and taglines are super important to me. If I don't even know what side of the flow you are on in your speech, I probably won't even write down what you're saying. With that, I'm not going to make connections for you, so if you can't communicate internal and external links in your speeches, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through.

I am good with speed but clarity, projection, and inflection are where I'm giving speaker points. If I can't understand you, it's not going on the flow.

My decisions are based solely off what is said in speeches. If a great point is presented in cross, it doesn't matter to me until it's in a speech.

Warrants are also super important to me, so make sure all of your links are clear and your evidence is good.

I think impacts are really what win rounds. If you can show me a clear link story with clear impacts and weigh them well, you'll probably win my ballot.

I can handle some good RA's and stuff, but if it's not done well then it will be difficult to win my ballot.

Be nice and have fun!!

In PF, I think framework is important. I don't think framework debates are usually productive, but it is the only way to really convince me why your arguments matter at the end of the day.

In LD, I think your Value and Criterion should be the core of every single argument and I want to hear about it in every single speech. It will usually be my main judging issue. I am a firm supporter of traditional LD, I don't want it to sound like a PF round and I absolutely don't want any "progressive" behavior (spreading, Ks, etc.) at all.

In Congress, clash and preponderance of evidence has always been really impressive to me. I also think a good speaking style and presentation goes a long way.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Have judged a couple times a year for the past few years, predominantly in PF and Congress.

I prefer well thought out and logical arguments that have a few strong evidence examples. I don't like being bombarded with fast talk and a stream of evidence that comes so fast it makes it hard to draw the connections and relevance.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

I'm a Second-Year judge so have obtained some good experience last year. For Debate, I'd like participants to be deliberate in making their points and have supporting evidence to their arguments. I've given many presentations in my career and pace and eye contact are very important to me. Don't just sit and read from a script or your PC. You need to engage with me as a judge and be sure I'm capturing the points you really want to get across. Be respectful of your opponents but be thorough in your Cross. Lastly be sure to use your time wisely. Have fun and enjoy the competition.

For speech events, be sure you're fully addressing the content you need to cover in the speech. You should maintain eye contact with the judge and if properly used blocking can be a very effective tool in speech. Don't rush through your speech and try to use up all the time you've been given. Relax and have fun.

I began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy.

Essentially, I am a hybrid communications/flow judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and both the rules AND SPIRIT of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case. Please note: LD is not Policy, PF is not Policy, and I am not a Policy judge. For my approach to speech events, please follow this link.

Speaker Points: I am developing a Speaker Points Rubric that will assess the following categories:

~Constructive Argumentation
~Refutation & Rebuttal
~Evidence & Logic
~Cross-Examination
~Delivery

Cross-X and Clash: I value civil and direct cross, as well as effective engagement with opposing arguments and framework. Direct clash with claims and evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer. I also find that people who prioritize speed and quantity of information over clarity lose my attention, since it's impossible to use effective vocal dynamics if your pace is too quick.

Resolution Analyses and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, or there’s something in the Resolution that truly merits one, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation. I repeat: LD is not Policy. PF is not Policy. I am not a Policy judge. Until I see a K or RA that changes my mind, I am of the opinion that K's are most often a cowardly way of avoiding engagement with the opposing side. Counterplans are fine!

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted. I keep careful flows, so don't tell me they dropped your case/points, unless that's clear from the flow.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework work use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

I am new to judging this year, however, am excited to support the hard work students do. I am looking for students that have put the time into research and practice. For debate, please refrain from spreading, as I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Know your material and be prepared to present your case in a professional manner. Have fun.

I'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.

Hi, I'm a first year judge with minimal experience and did not compete in speech and debate growing up in high school. I enjoy listening to evidence based arguments with strong conviction. I prefer to have competitors steer away from assumptions in their arguments.

I have been an English and History teacher since 2002.

Although this is my first year judging speech and debate, I have judged National History Day competitions since 2010.

I like a logical flow with well-structured evidence to support your assertions. Politeness is important to me. I appreciate when competitors time themselves.

Clear links to your values and criterion are important to me.