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!

As background on who your judge today is: I am a student at The College of Idaho. I am on the Howling Yotes debate team and often compete in British Parliamentary. Through all four years of high school I competed in various speech events and did every debate event on the Idaho high school circuit. I do not try to judge based on the knowledge I have from higher education, but instead on a variety of factors.

Technique: This is the most important thing in debate. I am not a techy debater and don't focus on the major agnostics of it, but at the end of the day the tools you utilize in debate are vital to winning. Part of what this means for me is that structure to your speeches is important. I want to see clear pieces to each argument and for you to spell things out for me; I will not make connections for you or do any of the work for you when judging. Clear link work and impacts are major judging factors for me. Building a case and refutation should involve clear and strong offense. Offense is more important to me than defense; defense is important and should be included but that should just illustrate how important strong offense is.

Persuasiveness: This is less of an important factor, but it still matters because debate is not purely about the agnostics of it all. This can mean clear and confident speaking. This can go a long way towards selling an argument, but honestly I would give low point wins if I could because the eloquence of a speech does not determine if you had a winning argument.

Question periods: This looks different depending on the type of debate, but I highly recommend all debaters utilize questioning periods to their full extent. I want to see that you are using question period to build either direct offense or defense. Filler questions or ending questioning period early makes it look like you have nothing to say about your opponents speech.

Evidence: I want to see reliable and credible sources. This is a huge point of backing up your claims. However, this does not stand on its own; there needs to be a warrant. The link work you use to explain the impacts of this evidence is just as important.

If you have any questions about feedback or other things I saw in the debate, you can email me at jayden.bodey@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu !

I am new to judging and debate. Please ensure your arguments are easy to follow and flow by avoiding spreading and jargon. I will make notes on key arguments but not keep a rigorous flow.

My decision is based first on which case is better constructed and defended, then on the debate skills.

Definitions should provide context for your case. Please debate the Constructives not vocabulary.

Debaters will be expected to cover important arguments and questions in refutation;; however, with community judges, a strict “burden of rejoinder” – the assumption that every argument must be explicitly refuted or deemed to be conceded and true – is unlikely to be enforced. A common- person understanding of which arguments are important and which are not is a better method to evaluate what must be refuted.

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

"Education . . . is a process of living, not a preparation for future living." -John Dewey

I was a high school debater for Capital high school all throughout my years as a student and now I am currently a debater at the College of Idaho. the more I become entrenched in what it means to go to a liberal arts school, the more I realize that the debate circuit everyone has come to know in high school is not realistic to actual living. Therefore, when I judge rounds, I am not thinking about how you have dressed or the formality that you present to me but I'm instead judging how well you fulfill what the event is supposed to represent. If I am judging Lincoln Douglas, I expect to see a debate on conflicting values, I don't expect to see a debate on minuscule facts. In public form, I expect to see a debate that would be comprehensible for anybody who walked into the room. Any other events that I end up judging I can disclose at my leisure. I was also an interp event speaker and had been working on my own pieces through my college years and will provide criticism on how you present your speech to me as well as the contents of that speech in great detail. I believe wholeheartedly that debate is something that should prepare you to become a better speaker and also become comfortable with failure. I know how it is to get caught up in a game of break or not but rather we should focus on how you can learn from this round. If you didn't win the round what things can you do better next time? I am always open to having discussions about things that you can do better next time.

I love debate and have competed in every format but congress! I specialized in LD debate and panel discussion speech. I now compete for the Boise State team! As far as what I vote on, I really enjoy impact calc and links. Those are the things that win rounds for me. I am also a heavy voter on dropped arguments. So if your opponent ACCURATELY calls you out for dropping an argument, that is one of the biggest things I vote on.

LD:
I hate limiting burdens on the neg, I think they are a cheap way to try and do less work to win the round. So please don’t run them but if you do, argue why I should accept your burden really well but make sure they aren’t the main focus. Impact calc is everything. I care more about who ties their value criterion into their case better than who upholds it. Value-criterion often wasted time, so don’t focus on it too much. Spending more than a minute, if that, on framework wastes your time. LD is looking too much like PF and Policy. I prefer a moral based case with less evidence. I believe You shouldn’t be hitting everything with a card. I will not be voting just because you have more evidence, or your opponent “dropped” a specific card. Win off of morals, impacts, and solvency. Those are most important for me. I love counter plans, I think they should be a staple of the negative. Kritiks are really fun, if you argue it well I will enjoy it. That being said, I hate some progressive style in LD even though I enjoy those progressive arguments. Talking fast is never an issue for me, but you shouldn’t ever spread or baby-spread. It ruins the point of debate. Also, attack argument on moral framework, if you run some weird policy card cutting arguments, it is not enjoyable. Don’t run abusive definitions or arguments. If your opponent does this, PLEASE call them out.

PF:

I am a big fan of evidence heavy arguments. I tend to side with the team that is best supported by their evidence. That being said, make sure to also have a strong line of reasoning as to why I should buy that evidence. Good speaks are very important in PF, I think it is essential to the format. That being said, speed is never an issue, but make sure to enunciate.

Policy:

If your arguments are way too out there to where I cannot find your line of reasoning, I will be more inclined to vote the other way. Clearly explain the link chains. I love a good nuke war argument(in any format) and some out there ideas are really good, but it HAS to make sense to your argument. I don’t particularly buy into topicality, but I will consider it. I like counterplans a lot, I think they are a fun way to negate resolutions without having to argue for something morally wrong. I feel the same way about Kritiks as I do burdens, I think they are a bit of a cheap way to try and win the round. However, if it is a really good kritik and you still argue against your opponent, I could buy it. Just use evidence that connects back really well when doing this. I hate spreading. I hate it a lot. Talk as fast if you want but if it’s to the point of spreading, you are ruining the point of debate. You won’t lose for spreading, but I will be more inclined to vote for the team that doesn’t spread. I don't like policy and think it shouldn’t be an event due to spreading and case flashing. If you have to flash your case, there is no point in debating. Tag teaming is perfectly ok in cross.

speech:

I just vote on who speaks the best and has a great presence with the crowd. I like fun topics. In panel, I judge based off of who asks questions, invites others to speak, brings up new ideas, and merges ideas together the most. You cannot just say something prepared, you have to interact with the conversation. Be a good conversationalist.

REMEMBER: No homophobia, sexism, racism, classism, transphobia, or any thing of the sort will be tolerated. This will STRONGLY affect speaker points and could cost you the round. Please be respectful when addressing your opponents. Do not misgender your opponents and be careful of using personal pronouns.

This is your round to have and enjoy, so most importantly, make sure that you are being kind to your opponent and having fun!

I am comfortable with speed, but do not be excessive or spread, and I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. If you run a K, or a CounterPlan, or something progressive in LD - it needs to be done in a way that is accessible to your opponent.

If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but please don't be excessive or abuse that time. (I.E. have your evidence pulled up and organized)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun!

My email is hampton.allie@gmail.com if you have any further questions.

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)

Be nice :)

I like to judge based on the flow; if you want an argument to matter you have to tell my why. I don't vote on dropped points unless you tell me why the argument matters. I'm not gonna do any of the work for you here; if you don't tell me why I should care, I wont.

Rebuttals should not just be a cross-application simulator. I get that your points often do a good job by themselves of refuting your opponent, but I need you to EXPLAIN how this actually applies. If you just say the name of your contention and move on, you might as well have said nothing at all.

Impact calculus is probably my number 1 voter. If you can prove to me in the end that your impacts consistently flow your side then I will give you the win.

**Just some stuff about me: I did debate for four years in high school and I have experience in PF, LD, and Policy, though I specialized in policy and LD. I currently debate in college for the BSU talking broncos team so if you have any questions you can reach me through there.

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!

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

Consider me a "Comms" judge. Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

I'm primarily a flow judge, so try not to drop arguments! If your opponent does drop arguments, emphasize those to me and explain to me why they matter.

For LD, the V-C debate is super important, so make sure to clash on that and explain to me how each of your arguments connect to that framework.

Also make sure to communicate in as clear a manner as possible. I'm fine with speed, but if spreading is going to make you trip over your words, it's even better to take your time to speak clearly!

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.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

Hello! My name is Nathan and I am a former speech & debate student. My main format was Congress, but I have experience with and a good understanding of other events & formats. If there's anything I learned in Congress, it is that the more accessible your style is, the better. This is something I value and encourage in all rounds.

On balance I overall align with the tabula rasa paradigm. However, once again citing my Congress background, I value general speaking skill, confidence, light humor (when done right!!!) & speech composition in addition to all the usual debate conventions (warrants/evidence/impacts/etc.). Out of all these conventions, I would say warrants matter most to me (although all are critical!). If I do not properly understand the links of your contentions, I'm not going to favor them much in the flow. In that same vein & in alignment with the tabula rasa paradigm, I ask debaters to be as explicit as possible in their links, warrants, and connections. The less you leave for interpretation, the better I can evaluate your case & flow. If you do not explicitly state more nuanced components of the case and how they connect to the flow, you can probably consider the argument dropped.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I do not like to hear any sort of "progressive" argumentation or behavior in any rounds or formats. Spreading, K's, & most debate theory-related args will not fare well on my ballot. Please keep all cases & rounds strictly in the traditional realm!

Thanks for reading and good luck in round!

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

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) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

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), 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: 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.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

~*~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.

Clarity and Communication: I want clear and logical structure with on time roadmapping and signposting throughout. Try not to speak so fast that I can't understand you. I do understand that you have a lot to say on your topic but try to keep a clear and consistent pace.

Clash: The more clash the better, in all styles of debate

Respect is extremely important in debate, it won't affect your placement but it will affect your speaker points

If you do not provide voting issues I can not and will not vote for you unless you provide a succinct and strong case that can beat your opponent on its merit alone

I do not keep a rigorous flow, I will write down key words and points that I pick up on and I will keep track of the interaction from both you and your opponent regarding those points

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.

Update (February 2024): Hi everyone! I was a varsity policy/LD debater from Timberline High School last year and now I am in college. I haven't done/thought about debate in awhile, so just know I may be a bit rusty. I still know how to flow, etc. but I may need you to talk slower and I am generally unfamiliar with the debate topics this year.

Most important info: I'm a tab judge with a bit of communications as well. You being nice and respectful to each other (both your partner and your opponent) is very important to me. If you have any questions during the round feel free to ask me and I will answer them as best I can. If you have questions after the round, my email is aniroserice@gmail.com, so feel free to reach out :)

Policy --

Topicality: Make sure to extend your standards and voters, tell me why Topicality does/doesn't matter. Make sure to extend your violation and interpretation and compare them with the other team's. I don't think T has to be 5 minutes if you go for it in the 2NR, especially for novice debate, but 2-3 mins and a strong argument at least are pretty necessary for me to feel compelled to vote on it.

DAs: Clash is important to me, so please spend time addressing your opponent's arguments specifically as opposed to repeating what your partner said in the previous speech. Also -- do impact calc! How does the DA interact with the aff case? Does it outweigh it? Is it solved by the aff case? Is the DA more probable? Less probable? Why does that matter?

Speed: I am not a huge fan of spreading, please at least read your tag lines slowly. I will definitely appreciate it if you go slower, and am more likely to get everything down on my flow.

Tag teaming: It's fine, but avoid it. If one person dominates their partner's cross - ex than it will negatively affect speaking points.

Organization: Please signpost and give roadmaps! Unorganized debate is not fun to judge or debate in. If you have any questions about how to do this properly please ask me before the round and I'll be happy to help.

Weighing: Impact calc is super important to me. Spend your rebuttals writing my ballot for me - tell me specifically why you win overall and on each flow specifically if you can. I love voters, use them! I love passionate debate, this is your time to rant! Just make sure it stays respectful, relevant, and communicative. I want to know what will happen if the plan passes as opposed to if it doesn't pass and why one is better than the other.

LD --

I have done and judged LD before even though it's not my main debate type, and I'm pretty well versed in policy so I should understand mostly everything. Please extend your framework/value and criterion throughout the round and clearly do impact calculus. Make sure you connect your value/criterion and voters together so I get the full picture of why you win the round. Write my ballot for me by telling me exactly how you win and why.

Please signpost and give roadmaps, I judge off of the flow most of the time so this is super important. Have fun!

PF --

Clash and signposting are super important. Tell me specifically what argument you are answering and then answer it. Impact calc and voters are super important, give me a clear picture of why you win the round. Overall, have fun. PF is the debate type I have done the least but I have judged it enough that I will know what's going on, and I think it's a super cool debate type!

Congress --

Please be passionate debaters -- I love seeing people make persuasive, moving arguments that encompass an issue.

If you are not one of the first speakers on a bill, you need to incorporate clash! Reference other speakers that have already gone and use their arguments to your advantage - build off of those arguments or break them down in ways that strengthen your stance.

Your voting won't factor into my rankings at all, but your questions will. I will vote based on your performance overall -- how coherent, concise, and effective were your speeches? Did you ask helpful, engaging questions?

I'm rooting for you!

I am a novice judge with a background in business and engineering. I listen carefully but have a hard time absorbing points during rapid fire speech. Thus, I prefer enunciation and pacing, and emphasis of key points when the style allows. I see logical argument as the foundation of a speaker's points and style as the icing on the cake. I watch for the speaker to support their logical foundation with additional lines of reasoning that reinforce it. I enjoy listening to different points of view of the same subject. Detailed understanding of subject matter (when possible with the debate style) is a key to making an argument that will stand up against scrutiny.

I expect contestants to use all the tools of debate available to them, but profanity and demeaning opponents will typically be a negative for me. When speakers are working against another's argument I listen for problems and logical fallacies they have found to erode their opponent's argument. Being respectful and considerate of others is a foundational skill that allows us to explore subjects, doing so while still effectively debating an opponent's argument is a sign of high levels of competency in debate.

I appreciate logical arguments and sound reasoning. Please be polite and respectful of each other. I will flow your arguments but appreciate direct sign posts and also a moderate speed (not too slow, but no spreading please). I’m a former high school policy debater, so I’ve been in your shoes and appreciate the effort and preparation required for debate.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 3 years in every event, which means that I am familiar with the rules and terms.

I prefer students know the material and that they don't just read off of their screens the entire time. I like to hear meaningful questions and prefers students to fill the time that they have been given. Please don't speak too fast to where it is difficult to follow your argument. Be kind and be respectful.

I am a former three-year Congressional debater and enjoy learning new things in-round. I believe stale debate, no matter the quality of the speech, is uninteresting and reduces time for valuable debate. I recommend that debaters utilize recency and precedence strategically to introduce new material to the debate instead. I value questions as a form of participation and note significantly effective questions for judging. Motions are not a significant judging criteria to me, although experience in parliamentary procedure and strategic usage of previous question are noteworthy. Presiding Officers, of course, receive scores dependent on their ability to effectively uphold parliamentary procedure. Although politics is a component of Congressional Debate, I do not recommend that debaters rally undue influence to impact the debate in a way that negatively affects other debaters. I believe effective debaters may readily succeed without resorting to unfair or self-serving strategies.

Pertaining to decorum, I do not appreciate hostility. I believe effective debate is civil and demonstrates tact. Additionally, I believe effective arguments are enforced by clearly cited evidence. I recommend introducing new evidence, clashing with previous evidence, or analysis on siding/opposition evidence as effective strategies. Although I enjoy "Gotcha" or soundbite arguments, I do not rank them heavily in comparison to well-constructed empirically-supported arguments. Please address previous arguments and evidence; speeches "addressing/introducing" arguments or evidence that have already been supported or refuted seems somewhat tone-deaf to me and may rank lower, despite strong speaking ability.

Rhetorical questions in support of the speaker waste valuable questioning time. I may consider these questions effective should they introduce a new argument or support a standing argument, otherwise they consume time that may otherwise be utilized by opposition speakers with new or supporting points. I intend to score speakers utilizing full 30 second slots to ask repetitive rhetorical questions lower by 2 ranks.

(You can control F to find specific paradigm for your events. I only have event specific paradigm for PF, Policy, LD, BQ, OO, and Panel. If I'm judging an event that I don't have listed above, just read the general for speech and/or debate paradigm. Even I have specific paradigm, it's still good to read the general stuff). Always feel free to ask clarifying questions or if I have a preference about something I don't have listed here. If it's important for you to know my experience in debate I can give you an overview before the round.

General:

• Be kind to your opponents, you can be polite and win.
• Don't talk too fast, you don't need to go a snail's pace just make sure I catch the important points.
• No one likes framework debates, if they are basically the same just say it works under both frame works and move on. If not, make sure you have a good justification as to why I should prefer yours.

PF:

• Like I said be kind to your opponents. If your argumentation is equal and you were rude that will be taken into consideration for the RDF, and win or lose it will lower your speaker points.
• A little tag teaming is fine in cross through the occasional sticky note, but relying too heavily on your partner makes your team seem unbalanced.
• Make sure you have a strong warrant, your evidence is only good if I understand why it links to the argument and it's impacts.
• Even if you think something the other side said is wrong, don't drop any arguments. Address it (even just briefly) in your speech. That being said, if you use a dropped argument as a voter but it's not important to your case or the round overall I won't vote for you just because they dropped an argument. Tell me why it's important they dropped it and how the argument proves your side.
• Let your opponents ask you questions in cross, don't completely steamroll them.

BQ/LD/Policy

(I haven't judged or debated many of these rounds yet so I'll leave more thorough paradigm as necessary)

• Pretty much the same thing honestly. I know framework is big for these but I'm not going to vote for you just because someone accepts your framework, if they can prove their case under either I don't care, as long as they uphold the burdens/criteria/value. If having different values or criteria is crucial to the round then just prove yours is preferable and how you uphold it.
• POLICY NEGATION: Don't run a counter plan that is aff slightly to the left. You need to prove why the aff doesn't work, and if you run a counter plan there needs to be a reason that you can't have both plans and see benefits.

Speech General

• Let your authentic personality shine through! Lots of good speakers with great topics will be there so this helps set you apart.
• Don't panic if you stumble, it happens to the best of us.
• Varsity, please be memorized (if your event requires it), little slip ups are okay but you shouldn't be reading off a piece of paper, I also shouldn't feel like you memorized on the bus on the way to tournament. Novices, if you forget part of your speech don't panic and do your best to wing it.

Panel

• Don't interrupt, I don't judge on quantity I judge on quality. If it's on accident that's okay, just apologize and move on.
• Don't force yourself to be table leader or speak for long stretches of time. I know people judge on that but if it is forced and comes at the expense of others at the table I won't vote in your favor just because you "led" the conversation
• Be respectful when disagreeing with your opponents and be mindful of how you speak to them, as well as who hasn't spoken in a while. I appreciate it when panelists encourage participation, especially when novice and varsity divisions are collapsed.
• I value originality, creativity, and depth when you make a point. You won't get points for repeating what some one else said or circular arguments.
• If everyone comes to a consensus, you can move on to a related branch of the topic. I know some judges are sticklers for staying to exactly what the topic is, but it's fun for no one to hear you all agree for forty minutes and go over the exact same talking points. Only do this if everyone has reached a consensus or you've all reached a point where there's nothing else to say on this topic.
• I also won't give you points just for being the devil's advocate.

OO:

• I'm not a huge fan of topics clearly chosen just to play to the judges. Pick something you are passionate about! It really shines through in your performance.
• It's okay to pick a topic that's talked about often, but make sure you are speaking on it in a fresh and engaging way and bring a unique perspective.
• Use platform movements to help break up your points.

My name is Kristin Wright, and I can't wait to judge your round/congress session!

Some things that are important to me:

I'm okay with aggressive debates, as long as only the argument is being attacked, not the other debater.

Coming prepared shows and is essential to gain my vote.

Go slow and explain things that may seem obvious. Remember, I haven't researched your topic.

Other than that, just remember that debate is supposed to be fun!