I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

I was a policy debater for 3 years in high school and coached high school policy for 5 years through out college (in Montana). I'm excited to return to the debate world as a parent judge...things have changed a bit, but I really love it all.

l lean towards (and prefer) the stock issues. While I can go on a journey, if you use generic responses (K, Counter plans etc.) it could be more difficult for me to buy. I want to see organization, direct clash and I'll believe whatever you can substantiate with evidence or solid rationale. Debate can be intense, but please have some fun and be kind.

I need to understand what you're saying. I REALLY struggle to appreciate spreading. In my mind, it's quality over quantity. If I don't understand you (or I have to work too hard) it just won't be considered. So, if you attempt it, please, do it well. I'll flow and be aware of dropped arguments, so please pull them through.

I am a lay judge and this is my second in-person tournament.

I want you to speak a bit clearly and at a pace which I as a lay judge can follow/understand. Wherever it applies, I would appreciate an off-time roadmap.

I will not be taking time so be sure to take your own.

I expect you to be respectful towards your opponents.

I have been a coach for four years and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 21 years and teach communication skills. I am looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. I will put down my pen if I can't follow you. Please emphasize your points so I know that they are important and remember to pause on occasion so that I can take in your ideas.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position and I will be listening for how you support your position. Roadmaps are appreciated.

You can keep your own time, or I am happy to time and give you cues.

Be kind, be professional, and have fun!!

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

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

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

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

If you're racist, homophobic, et., I'll vote you down.

Debate:

I did Parli for most of my time as a competitor. I judge through a policy lens, so please give me very specific impacts in each of your "worlds". All theory is open game if its done well. If no one brings up theory or metadebate, I won't vote on it. Whatever you tell me becomes reality- so build your reality well and remember to address all parts of the opponents' reality! Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Tell me what to vote on, or else I'll just default to whatever I think is most important. If you tell me that one impact is more important than the others, and have good reasoning to support that, I'll vote on it. Comparing your side's "world" vs. your opponents "world" will make my decision much easier. How will voting one way or the other actually manifest in reality?

Impact calculus really helps me decide how I will vote. If you have a really low probability high magnitude impact (like nuclear war), tell me why that matters more than your opponents high-probability, low-magnitude impact.

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

Structure- If you have a hook, intro, thesis (if necessary), a few points and a good conclusion. For interps, just having a good intro and clear points is good. '

Content- Having interesting content is my second way of ranking people. I especially like personal anecdotes.

Rhythm / Clarity / Tone- Having consistent word density, memorizing your speech well, and hitting the 'highs and lows' of your speech are all important to me.

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

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

Hello:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't be rude.

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

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

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

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

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

I like well impacted arguments and thorough rebuttal! But mostly just be respectful and have a good time :)

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Hello,

I am new to judging this year so I ask that you speak at a pace that I can understand as well as your opponent.

Things I like: Off time roadmaps, clearly stating what you are linking something to, summarizing main points at the end

Things I don't prefer: attacking your opponent instead of their case, bringing up nukes because it's heavy when it has nothing to do with the case.

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

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

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

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

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

I am a lay judge, so I appreciate patient participants who are willing to teach me and help me run the event correctly.

For debate events, I will be evaluating for clear speaking, signposting, and civility. I do not want spreading.

I prefer debates based on the topic and less on semantics and definitions. If you run K or T, be prepared to explain it clearly to me (and this is good advice for working with ALL lay judges).

My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you. Kritiks are valuable to debate because they can have an impact on our discourse. To wield them as a procedural cheapens that. I also really really dislike Topicality unless absolutely necessary. Especially when someone runs T against like a novice case topic area. Running Topicality because you think you have to is so boring and just takes away from the debate.

I prefer debate to be an accessible activity. Overly relying on jargon to make your point bums me out. Do not spread your opponents. If they say "clear" you better slow down. Disregarding that can absolutely cost you the round.

Most of all, persuade me. I want warranted claims and facts presented, but I need you to do the analysis. You need to put the pieces together for me, I will not do the work for you.

I will try not to divulge my personal beliefs, and most of all, I will try not weigh them in a round. That being said, I am human and I have feelings and empathy.

I also value cordial discourse. If you get rude to your opponents (dismissive, talking over them incessantly, glaring or obviously rolling your eyes) I will mark you down on speaker points at the very minimum, and it will affect my decision. Remember, you were new once, and a supportive community keeps this activity alive.

Have fun, don't stress out, and GOOD LUCK!!

For email chains: bharrison@pps.net

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

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

Event Specific Paradigms

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

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

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

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

PF

I am a lay judge.

"Please, speak as you might to a young child, or a golden retriever."

- Jeremy Irons in Margin Call (2011)

Parli:

After presenting initial research and evidence (cards), I would prefer debaters to think through logical outcomes of the evidence. It is OK (and preferable) to demonstrate that you can think through and suggest impacts that may not be supported by evidence, than to just stick with the 20 minutes of research you were able to complete.

Poetry and Radio

Speed kills. Especially in poetry. If you find yourself reading fast--understand that fast does not add any drama to your reading. As the reader, it may feel like it does; but to the listener, it doesn't. The words and phrases in poetry have inherent drama. If read correctly (without speeding it up), the drama will be apparent. Linger on words, draw-out syllables. Pause. Give time for words to sink in.

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.

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or Kritiks. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments.

Affiliations--

Lewis and Clark College '23.

Assistant coach at Lake Oswego.

Background--

Hey! I'm Eden :) I'm an alum of the LC IE team and no longer debate, but I was a nat circuit LD'er in high school from 2015-2017. I competed as an independent, mostly attending bid tournaments in California. I mostly read phil affs and K's, but don't let that influence what types of args you read. I'm happy to evaluate anything so do whatever you're best at!

--Only arguments I won't listen to are ones that actively make the round unsafe (ie. overtly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.)--

Speed--

**Speed is the only element of your debate style that I think you should adapt for me.**

I've been completely out of debate for almost five years and don't judge often, so while I'm comfortable evaluating all types of arguments, I'm probably not going to be able to flow spreading at your top speed. If you're super fast (ie. 350-400+ wpm), please go significantly slower than normal, include me on your flash/speech doc email, and really slow down for any important analytics/tags/signposts. My goal is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, and I can only do that if I flow it properly. I will say slow or clear as many times as needed, but it may affect your speaker points.

Crystalizing and weighing impacts will go a really long way in getting my ballot. Please tell me exactly what argument(s) I'm voting for you on and why.

*Keep in mind I have zero knowledge of the current LD topic or any new jargon from the past few years, so you might need to spell things out for me a tiny bit more than normal.

Theory--

I was never a very good theory debater (but complete respect for those who are!) so if you read theory, please make sure to spend a little extra time explaining the arguments for me. I'm going to default to reasonability because I'm not fully confident in my ability to evaluate theory line by line, but I think strong theory arguments are very important for debate so please feel free to run it.

If you end up collapsing to theory, taking time to thoroughly explain the abuse to me (and how the interp solves) in the nr or 2ar is probably more important than blippy line by line, because I'm not well-versed enough in the nuances of theory debate to extrapolate the argument for you based on a single sentence.

**Side note: spreading a frivolous theory shell (ie. with only hypothetical abuse) against a lay/traditional opponent is one of the only things that would make me give you low speaks, because I just find that overtly exclusionary.**

K's--

I love Ks and critical affs so please feel free to read them! I understand most critical lit pretty thoroughly but over-explaining any really complex internal link arguments wouldn't hurt, especially if you're reading something on the obscure side. Other than that, just make sure it's clear what your alt actually means and tell me if your impacts are pre- or post-fiat (or both).

Keep in mind, an ethical framework linking into the K doesn't inherently mean it's false. If the impacts of the K don't link to the standard, you need to engage the framework debate directly because I won't presume that the K comes before ethics solely because you tell me it has pre-fiat impacts.

Framework--

I was largely a framework debater in HS (mainly affs but also the occasional NC) so I'd love to hear a good phil case. IMO a strong syllogism that you know the ins and outs of is usually better than a bunch of weak independent warrants. Make sure you explain the impact calculus under your standard, especially if its anything complicated.

Advantages, Disads, CP's, etc.--

Not much to say here--I'm always happy to learn about the topic lit and these debates can be super fun to watch. I'm always super impressed by LD'ers who know the ins and outs of the topic! Really clear crystallization and impact weighing is definitely key here. Err on the side of over-explaining link arguments, especially in rebuttals. Make sure your impacts matter under the winning framework.

Speaker Points--

I probably give higher than average speaks, especially if the round has good clash and strong weighing.

Good Luck! :)

Having debated in World Schools at nationals two years in a row I know quite a bit about debate. For me anything goes as long as you stay within the spirit of the debate.

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).

I still consider myself a novice parent judge. Please speak slowly, do not use jargon, and be polite to your opponents!! Giving off-time roadmaps and summarizing main points at the end of speeches will also be helpful. Toward the end of the round, be sure to emphasize why you think your team has won the round.

Email for the chain: brian.simmonds@gmail.com

DEBATE BACKGROUND

I was active in debate from 1994 to 2005 (seven years as a debater, two years as a full-time college coach/judge, two years as an occasional judge of college debates). Most of that experience was in policy debate, but I also competed or coached/judged in most other events at least once, including high school LD, parliamentary (NPDA), worlds style (in Scotland), and most individual events.

Since that time, I have judged a few high school debates. I am an attorney.

What follows are my views on judging policy debates. I do not have strong views on theory or style issues in other debate formats other than that I will follow the rules of each event as written.

SPEED / CLARITY

I can still comprehend high-speed debates so long as they are *clear*. But I can't flow back-to-back analytics read at top speed, so please slow down for those -- this is most commonly an issue when a debater is reading theory blocks or 2AC blocks against off-case positions. And everything needs to be clear, cards included.

TOPIC BACKGROUND

I have judged very few debates on the 2023-2024 policy topic (economic inequality). I am generally aware of these policy issues, but I do not have an extensive professional in any of them.

JUDGING DEBATES

The following is adapted from judging philosophies I wrote in 2004-2005, but I suspect it is a fair approximation of how I will judge debates now.

General approach

I judge debates similarly to most other former debaters [of my era?]. I won’t vote against you just because your argument or style is not my favorite. The preferences and predispositions that fill the rest of this sheet may do more to mislead you than help you -- you are almost certainly better off doing what you do best than adapting to my sensibilities.

Theoretical Predispositions

If the framework of the debate is contested, I begin my evaluation of the debate by deciding what framework should be used to decide the debate; that is, what am I deciding? Which policy is better (i.e., what should the US federal government do)? Which team's rhetoric is better? Something else? Personally, I believe that policymaking is the most defensible framework available, but that is a legitimate issue to contest in the debate.

Topicality. I was a better than average judge for the negative on topicality.

Counterplans. I did not have any particularly strong opinions about counterplan theory, but to the extent I did, this is where I stood:

- Very unfair: non-textual alternatives, alternatives like “not affirmative”, international fiat, multiple conditional counterplans/alternatives;

- Unfair: states counterplans;

- Fair: one conditional/dispositional counterplan or critique alternative, federal domestic agent counterplan (e.g., courts);

- Very fair: Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Critiques. Framework arguments are very important. Are you defending the status quo? (Probably not.) If not, then what are you defending? Vote negative doesn’t strike me as adequate. Is the debate about what the US federal government should do? What scholars should do? What citizens should do? About rhetorical artifacts? About ideology? About epistemology? And why should the debate be about what you want the debate to be about?

Argument Evaluation

In the later years of my debate judging, I became less enthusiastic about the value of quoted evidence -- and that is probably more true now, two decades later. Of course, evidence matters, but advancing arguments not included in the text of the evidence can be very persuasive to me as well. Spin matters. Reasons especially matter.

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.

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

1/2024

I am a parent who was honored to judge at many tournaments last year, both Debate & IE rounds. I have a legal background and currently work in the pet and veterinary space doing research and analytics. Thus, pretend that I know nothing about speech & debate. Explain what you are doing and why.

I prefer clean, eloquent and well-supported arguments in debate events. Please don't speak too quickly (spread) even in policy debate. If I can't hear you/understand you, I can't evaluate your position. Debate still requires skills of persuasion, and much of that comes from tenants of communication like eye contact, facial expressions, vocal inflections, etc.

With IE events, please hold yourself with confidence. Body language is the first point of impression. Speak clearly, take pauses when you need them rather than stumbling (you can catch yourself and breathing through moments for clarity is key).

Hi, my name is Kenny and I competed in Speech and Debate all four years of High School and will be competing in college. I have vast amounts of experience in Congressional Debate, and have competed in Public Forum, Parlimentary, and World Schools in the past. I'm pretty chill, if you have questions just ask, I won't be like Oh My GoD yOu AsKeD a QuEsTiOn AuToMaTiC 7. That's just stupid. If you wanna see what I prefer, here you go but really its no different than most judges. Just do you, be cool, have fun. But if you want a full paradigm, I typed this out during class when I was bored:

In general, when it comes to events (both IE and debate), I prefer an understandable pace of delivery, so if you do speak fast I will be fine with it as long as it is understandable and I can keep pace with the piece. Also, while you are in round, be sure to be respectful to your fellow competitors, judges, and spectators, rudeness is something that isn't tolerated in a formal educational setting like Speech and Debate.

For Debate in general, make the debate about the spirit of the argument and the overall flow. Still have your definitions, models, impacts, weighs, and all that stuff but do not be abusive with definitions. You can run all the Ks and Ts all you want, as long as its an engaging debate I'll be happy. (Also, they are just fun imo). Rebuttals and counterclaims should be the same way. I will say, if you want to be funny and make jokes, feel free, I'm some uptight weirdo. While asking tough questions and trying to undermine your opponent is encouraged, be sure not to fall into the realms of personal attacks. Secondly, if you are going to spread PLEASE send me your case and your opponent your case. Also be sure to steer clear of logical fallacies (ad hominem, slippery slope, worst case, strawman, etc) as these will be looked down upon, especially if your opponent calls you out on it.

For Individual debate events, my paradigms are as follows:

Public Forum

In Pofo, be especially sure to set a solid framework in the debate, but do not make your argument rely solely on tech. In crossfire be respectful but do dig into your opponents argument. Tough questions and solid answers lead to both a good debate and making your argument better. Keep good flow and be sure in summary speeches to address it, and these speeches are especially important and give you a chance to explain why you win the debate under the framework. A solid ending will lead to better results in round.

Lincoln Douglas

Same as Public Forum, have a solid framework, don't rely on tech. If your neg and aff makes an abusive framework, call them out on it. Be respectful with questions and when you rebute your opponent, don't be a jerk. You can have some sass but be nice. Keep a good flow, summarize the debate well, and lay out your arguments well. I judge the debate over how good you laid out your arguments, attacked your opponents arguments, summarized the debate, and told me why your side won.

Parli

Parli is fun. We love it. Remember the usual, be nice, be respectful, blah blah blah. The important thing I'm looking for here is as follows: Make sure your arguments are clear and concise. If you have 2 really good points, I'll be happier with that than if you have 3 okay points. Don't feel pressured to always have 3 main contentions, that doesn't dictate who wins a debate. Be confident in answering questions, even if you can't elaborate much on it. When I judge a Parli round, I look for this: Who had the better overall case, how many clashes did you win and how does your argument outweigh your opponents, how well points were made in both POIs and speeches, how well you summarized the debate and made the case to me that you won. Your last speech to me is the most important, explain to me why you won the debate.

Policy:

If your gonna spread and not give me your case before the round, I'm gonna judge the debate on what I can pick up. Make your arguments and your rebuttals about the merits of the argument, not just technicalities and things like that. Speechwise, I'm fine with new evidence and arguments in your 2NC, but not in the 1NR (even though its the second half of the block). 1AR can use new evidence and arguments only if its in rebuttal to arguments from the 2NC. Any new arguments from 1NR, 2NR, or 2AR will not be on my flow.

Congress

PO: I will be judging you based on how good of a job you do following procedure. If you repeatedly need correction, your rank will go down, if you are flawless it will go up. Your job is to lead the chamber to the greatest debate possible and your rank will be dependent on how good of a job you do of that

Everyone else: Good speeches are a must. Especially in competitive rounds you only get a handful of opportunities at this. Giving solid arguments (especially in early speeches on legislation) is crucial and will impact your score greatly. Furthermore, those giving speeches later in a piece of legislation (there is no specific number, but once arguments become repetitive is the general time), give summaries and rebuttals. There is no need to bring new arguments in on speech 6 for aff, take time to address the opposing arguments and summarize the debate for both your colleagues and the judges, and effectively doing this is crucial to both a good debate and your ranking. This is not saying that rebuttals and summaries are more important than constructive speeches, as those who make solid arguments that come up in the debate repeatedly are great ways to get points. Questions are also crucial to a good debate. Asking tough questions and trapping your opponent (especially in direct questioning) are signs of a good debater. Being able to remain calm and answer tough questions are also signs of a good debater. Congress is like ice cream: the scoops themselves are your speeches, but the toppings that really make it pop and stand out are your questions. Mixing both of those is how you rank high in a Congress round.

This is not a tabula rasa judge; on the contrary:

"Making an evidence presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. To maintain standards of quality, relevance, and integrity for evidence, consumers of presentations should insist that presenters be held intellectually and ethically responsible for what they show and tell. Thus consuming a presentation is also an intellectual and a moral activity."--Edward Tufte (Emeritus Professor, Yale University),Beautiful Evidence(https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_be).

In Policy Debate:

I expect the affirmative to present a standing problem in the status quo that they can solve by means of a plan that affirms the resolution. I expect the negative to explain to me how their opponents have failed on one-or-more of these simple tasks, or why the problems they see with the plan their opponents presented outweigh the benefits.

(Why am I a boring "stock issues" judge? Because the framework is useful in the real world, see also https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selling-project-proposal-art-science-persuasion-6028 -- they rework HITS to PCAN but it's fundamentally the same.)

None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can enunciate. None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can think. I will be judging the debate as presented as I hear it and I should not need to judge evidence as written (and if I do then something bad has happened).

Speakers will time themselves, the person asking questions times Cross, I time prep and prep goes until your opponent is successfully able to see the evidence you handed/flashed/emailed to them.

Addendum: The best policy debates (with high speaker points!) get progressively wonkier/nerdier as each team tries to get to a level of detail that their opposition hasn’t done the work/research to know. If you know Scott’s Seeing Like a State then you can pretty much guarantee that there’s going to be a likely breakdown in plan-as-written somewhere, the question is: can you convince me that you know what it is (neg) but have accounted for that contingency (aff)? To quote Saxe (via Foucault): “It is not enough to have a liking for architecture. One must also know stone-cutting.”

In Values Debate:

I expect the affirmative to have a clear and good motivation they want to lead me to action with, a means of measurement showing me that the action they're advocating supports their motivation, and some evidence to support that the action tilts those means of measurement towards their sense of goodness. I expect the negative to explain to me why the affirmative's reasoning is faulty on any of these levels, or present a superior competing motivation (similarly structured) that is advanced by rejecting the resolution.

(If you need more guidance on what this looks like, might I recommend watching this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA)

In Public Forum:

I expect both sides to present coherent, defensible research boiled down to relevant talking points. This event is about doing a lot of draft and prep work so that you start and stay at (what is for you) the heart of the matter while you are on the clock.

(This is far harder than it sounds to get scripted even once, and has to be re-done month after month after month -- the disciplined cadence of perpetual research-to-presentation is what you learn from the "Public Forum" debate format.)

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

Spread (overly rapid delivery) - Due to tintinitis (ringing in the ears) I cannot fully understand 'spread' and thus if I cannot understand what the competitor is saying, I cannot give credit for what is being said, or the ability to 'flow' my notes so that I can judge accurately.

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

Heyo! I'm Adam Moeglein (He/Him), I debated at Crater HS until 2022 and now go to Oregon State. email for whatever: ajmoeglein@gmail.com

I competed in LD and parli for 4 years, and broke at nat circ tournaments a few times. Practice your dumb shells in front of me pls :>

TL;DR

Explain stuff. Evidence and speed are meaningless unless you have a story to back them up with. Best way to get through to me is advantage structure/whatever standard your given arg has, because I already know what args slot where in a narrative

I disclose, so don't run anywhere after round

Speed is fine, but I have information processing issues so pls just send the doc

Run anything

Bigotry bad >:(

General Stuff

signpost as much as possible. If you don’t I’m probably wasting 5 seconds tracking where to write what you’re saying instead of listening to what you’re saying

The only unchangeable assumption I make about the world is that logic exists. Everything else needs a warrant if challenged

I ran security, cap, and a Dr. Seuss performance in my career, as well as Rawls, Kant, and Baudrillard. And I think I might understand Heidegger and Nietzsche? Maybe?

I generally think probability >>>> magnitude but try me cowboy

I won't flow cross but I do believe its binding

Procedure

Tag teaming is A-okay. I'll only flow what the speaker is saying though.

Shadow extensions generally don't work

Stand or sit or do a little dance while you speak, I don't care

If the roadmap is more than 5 words some bad thing will happen karmically in the universe

Theory!

Be explicit and precise with your shells. I won’t assume parts you don’t give me

RVIs are acceptable if that's your mojo but I'd rather see another shell saying something like "Debaters can’t run X arg" to keep the round organized

semantics arguments like Nebel are meh unless you have a pragmatic reason to vote on it, or an analytic dump that throws my preference for pragmatism out the window

At bid tournaments disclosure is standard procedure in LD. Look into it if you're new to big tournaments! I will vote on it

I'm happy to listen to friv stuff, just give me a story to vote on

K

Don't make tags complex. winning via confusion is cringe

I'd be happy to hear a K-aff but I don't think they're strategic. Happy to be proven wrong though

Explain your lit well. Make it link. I'm voting on the consequences of an aff ballot, not some impact card your alt can’t possibly hope to resolve

I competed in Public Forum in High School at Rowland Hall (UT), and did BP in College at Lewis & Clark. I currently coach for Catlin Gabel (OR).

If you plan to share docs, please make an email chain titled "Round [X] Aff-[Team A] Neg-[Team B]". My email is mulfordc@catlin.edu

my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

-weigh arguments in the round. Make your case the easiest path for the ballot.

-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round.

-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response.

-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

how I determine speaker points:

-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks

Other

-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

-speed-if I can’t understand you, ill say clear.

-I often vote for teams with fewer, well reasoned and weighed arguments than ones which dump arguments on me. You also risk that I will miss arguments.

Include me on the evidence chain: myhre_joshua@salkeiz.k12.or.us

I have experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli. I debated in policy throughout high school and some in college.

I am out of practice with flowing speed. There's not a lot of fast policy debate in my region. I appreciate slowing down and clear articulation on taglines as well as theory/framework arguments. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing if you don't oblige.

I am willing to listen to any form of argument - I have no particular bias against kritiks or any kind procedurals.

Topicality - I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting on topicality. If you want to go for T then it needs to be a substantial part of your 2NR. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability unless you clearly articulate your impacts.

If you want to make theory an argument, I'm willing to listen. I can be convinced that conditionality is either good or bad depending on what happens in the round.

I tend to think K's are okay, although most debaters can never really tell me what the alt actually does. If you want to make a framework argument, then go for it.

Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.

Extra speaker point for whoever can make the most clever Dune reference.

I am relatively new to the debate and speech judging. I am a parent and a lay judge. Please do not spread or speak too fast. Please be polite and time yourself. Thank you.

Extensive Policy experience on the national circuit in high school and college (Lewis & Clark). A prior participant and judge of Parliamentary, IE's and other speech events and activities. Related moot court experience and a practicing trial lawyer. It has been many years since I last participated in or judged organized speech and debate events. I appreciate clearly articulated and structured arguments. I set aside personal biases as much as possible.

I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.

Also, be polite.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.

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.

Civility always. Ethical frameworks > than economic ones (i.e. people over profit).

Harmful, racist, profane or inflammatory language is intolerable.

I respect sound reasoning and articulate rationale, passionate argumentation in pursuit of the highest good.

Experience: I am a parent Judge, who has been judging for two years n both Debate and IE. I have two children who competed/compete in both Debate and IE.

Paradigms:

I like good eye contact, and teams that work together well.

Give me the resolution before the round.

If you want to use theory like Ks explain it well.

Spreading will get you marked down.

Be respectful to your opponent.

I take strong consideration on presentation considering voice projection, speed, tempo and eye contact. I also consider organization to be important meaning that you have introductions, main points and conclusions.

All Debates:

Feel free to time yourself but my time counts!

I don't mind "Off Time Road Maps."

Looking for good organization with clear concise ideas supporting what you are trying to convey.

In LD and Public Forum; I don't like speed, this is not a sprint is a marathon of information make me understand.

Courtesy to Opponent (includes abusive behavior or interrupting the other team let them finish statement n questioning). In Parli when talking to your partner during presentation do it quietly not to interrupt the speaker.

In Parii my expectations have risen due to the use of internet. I am expecting good quality work and quoting of sources will be a must to support your contentions.

"Pretend I am dumb as a rock and educate me!"

My paradigms are few and fairly simple. This is partially for your own information as well as a way I can remind myself when asked in round.

1. I am a seasoned veteran in the space with competitive experience at the high school and college level. Roughly 5 years in total. I have been a full time judge for almost twice as long. So you can understand that I am able to understand most arguments and positions one may choose to run in a given round. With that in mind certain position pertaining to theory or K shells I would rather not see in events outside CX. If a parli round does involve a Counter plan or a T sheet of some kind, I can roll with it as long as it is well explained and reasonably fits in the scope of the resolution.

2. Given my experience you may think that I can keep up with speed. Mind you I can but it is not something I particularly care for. What I like to hear is well thought out and warranted points that best describe your position. I'd much rather see 2 fleshed out contentions rather than 5 blippy ones you hope to out-spread your opponents on. Along side this if (Pertaining to everything not Parli) if you have a card and you read it, explain what you just read or how it connects to the overall thesis of the contention/argument. Don't just read a study or a statistic and expect the judge to do the work for you.

3. In cases where a definition or the value criterion/weighing mechanism is a point of clash, I want to see good argumentation explaining why I need to prefer your side over the other. DO NOT assert that you are in the right for one shallow reason or another. Explain why the debate should be looked the lens you believe it should. On the same page, if you have a value you want considered, try to tie your case back to it. IE, when explaining the impacts of the case show or reference it is the more utilitarian or more just impact. You get the idea.

4. -LD can disregard- I believe partner-style debate to be exactly that, a partner/team sport. So if you wish to confer with your partner at any time at all during the course of the debate, fine. I encourage it. That being said, please be advised I only flow and focus on the words coming out of the currently timed speaker's mouth. Meaning if your partner says something to you or helps you answer a question during cross that is fine, but if the speaker does not audible say it, I will not care and likely disregard the comment. Therefore, make sure you and your partner are communicating effectively to make sure all cases notes are properly presented.

5. When is comes to question and answer periods (cross examination or questions in parli) REFRAIN from making any argumentative statements/questions. Any and all questions should be purely clerical in nature. Meaning, please limit your question to matters pertaining to explanation of statements made by the opposing side. If you want to ask about mechanics of a plan or to explain a point more, that is fine. Along the same line, please keep question periods civil. Do not step over your opponent until they have finished their answer. Lastly I do not flow during cross examination periods. If there was something brought up in those moments you want to be addressed, bring them to my attention during your time.

6. Simply put. BE. COURTEOUS. I cannot stress how much I despise overly hateful rhetoric, calling out the other team in a demeaning way, and just overall cockiness. Be kind, be conversational, be nice. No calling the other team racist, no blaming groups of people for current global crisises, no homophobia. Makes sense? It should.

7. -Parli only- With the dawn of internet prep I think it is more incumbent on the competitors to have some evidence. Now granted evidence does not win debates and I won't take a lack of evidence as a reason to prefer. That being said I expect more fleshed out contentions and hopefully a stronger debate. If you can provide evidence and leverage that as a voter cool. I really would like to hear at least one full citation from each side.

If you have anything more specific to ask in round, be my guest. I will answer straightforward and honestly.

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.

schmittkyla@gmail.com

Hey y'all—I'm Kyla. A little background on me: I did speech and debate all four years of high school. Over the years, my main events were first PF and later parli, but I also have limited competing experience with CX and BQD. I coach most events, including LD. In college debate, I do CARD, which is most similar to CX.

I mostly strive to be tabula rasa, unless whatever you’re saying exceeds my reasonable doubt. In other words, I'll do my best not to let anything not said in the round influence my decision—however, I will also not vote on arguments that I know to be blatant misinformation/bigotry (that the average American adult would know to be untrue). Still, it's your job as debaters to oppose these arguments when you encounter them and call them out for what they are, even if the misinformation/bigotry is not outward but more insidious, and I will make a note of it on your ballot if you don't.

Throughout the round, please signpost and be organized in your responses and extensions. I love a good, orderly line-by-line analysis, and I strongly dislike not knowing where to flow your arguments (I’m coaching/judging a debate tournament—there’s a 99% chance I’m going to be tired, so make your arguments easy to follow). In your last speech, be clear about why you've won. Voting becomes harder (and more biased) when you don't give me explicit, technical reasons why I should vote a certain way. Substantive voters, impact calc, or comparing worlds are a few good ways to do this. My personal preference is for impact calc.

A few notes especially for CX debaters but also for everyone: please don't assume that I have memorized every convention of your format. Instead, explain to me what arguments you're making and why they matter; don't just throw out a bunch of jargon and expect me to ascertain its full significance. I can handle speed, but if you’re going to go fast, I want clarity. Please be accommodating of the needs of others in the room.

Finally, be polite and gracious to your opponents and judges! People are taking a lot of time out of their days to make these tournaments happen. Let’s keep debate a positive and educational space.

I did Policy debate in highschool, College parli, and college LD. So I have some experience and can judge any type of debate.

I am open to any style of debate, whether more kritik focused or policy.

I will vote on theroy that as long as youre winning the flo0w and have standards and voters

Make sure you extend your arguments and have competitve and impacts with magnitude, probability, timeframe.

Use framework if possible, to frame yourself ahead in the round.

Overall I like debates that are respectful, have good clash, and are creative in their case and/or argumentation.

1) Be polite.

2) Provide clear links.

3) Signpost for me, I want to know where you're at on the flow at all times.

4) Have fun!

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

New Judge. I encourage clear speech, good content, committment of the participant and adhering to guidelines, as provided for the event. Keen to share from my experience at work and life and learn from yours as you develop it for our future.

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.

My priorities for judging any debate are

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

2) clear and organized arguments.

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

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

I am a novice judge.

I am an engineer by profession. I am used to sitting in presentations and in technical debates.

I find it easier to follow crisp, cogent arguments delivered with clarity.

I sometimes have trouble digesting the arguments if speakers rush through them.

Since I am new to this, please feel free to remind me if I am missing a step or about specific rules that are supposed to be applied during a particular phase of the debate.

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School and am also assistant debate coach for Sam Barlow High School, both in the Portland, OR area. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events. For Sam Barlow, I specifically coach their WSD team.

I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but maybe more k heavy - both on the aff and neg. I judge on the tech and flow of the debate and will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter (I have seen it happen, don't be that person, I will do anything from vote you down and tank your speaks to potentially, depending on the round, report you to tab). Have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be happy hearing a policy aff and a DA / CP / T debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Speed - I am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would, for your sake. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top percentiles of speed, you're probably fine.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're on the link level or the alternative or the perm debate.

Pet Peeves:

1. Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
2. Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
3. Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

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.

I am a former debater and IEer from 1999 to 2007 and then I coached collegiate speech and debate from 2007 to 2009. I am passionate about this activity and enjoy judging when I can. I have done almost any IE or debate event you can think of. I did 4 years of collegiate Parli debate with an additional 2 years of coaching the activity. In high school I did LD, Congress, and Ted Turner (now Public Forum) debate and a variety of different individual events.

Policy/Debate Paradigm - While I have never done Policy as a competitor, I can flow and follow almost any argument you want to make. I warn you of three things about me:

1) You need to explain the argument you are making or I am willing to ignore the argument. If you explain the argument and provide me with realistic impacts I am happy to vote on pretty much any argument you want to make. If your impacts are poorly developed or are overly dramatic (global destruction, millions dead, etc) I will probably give your position very little weight. I do not know what your cards say so take the time to explain your argument. I will usually make my decision by weighing the quality and likelihood of potential impacts. I was a plan/counter-plan/dis-ad/topicality debater myself, but I have voted plenty of times for well developed critical arguments as well.

2) If you flow me out of the round that is your problem, not mine. I have a lot of flowing experience, but am by no means the fastest. I have from time to time missed arguments because speakers have gone too fast. I will do my best to keep up, but you go too fast at your own risk. I am not saying you need to go slow, just be careful.

3) I really like to see people having fun in this activity. Be creative and be nice to one another. I know it is easy to get wrapped up in argumentation and become passionate about what you are arguing. Always remember that this is a game that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you cross the line between being competitive and being a jerk, you will not find me to be very happy with your performance.

Have fun and good luck!!

Andrew Wilson

Hi, I’m Trevor

I’m currently studying English and Education at Oregon State University.

I’m a former Parliamentary debater and Extemp speaker with four years of experience in high school.

For Debate

I primarily judge on major points and impacts. Signposting and good clash summarization are essential for me to understand what the important pieces of your argument are.

I am tabula rasa, so I won’t connect the dots for you other than the broadest layers of your arguments. Make your points clearly and engage with your opponents in the same way.

Please be courteous at all times to everyone in the room, I will not hesitate to give exceedingly rude teams the loss even if they’re performing better.

The ultimate impact of debate is educational value for all involved, so keep this in mind when creating and presenting your cases, and in your conduct in-round.

Notes on jargon/spreading: I can and am willing to handle only so much of these. Make sure you are clear in your presentation and try and limit the amount of debate jargon you are using. Ultimately these arguments should be based in the real world, and as such they shouldn’t be completely incomprehensible to listeners unused to debate language. That being said, I’m pretty experienced so I won’t mark you down unless you’re being over the top. But please don’t spread.

For Speech

I have experience competing in Extemp, but when it comes to judging I will try my best for any speech events I am assigned.

Clear speaking, emotional impact, limited distractions, all good stuff. Also follow the rules of your event, please, I will almost always give the loss to, for example, an Oratory that is read and not memorized. Follow the rules, and I will do my best to judge based on the quality of the speaking and the thought put into the content.

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Paige Yi (she/her/hers)

pyi@csd8.info

I have been involved in the speech and debate world for several 7 years and have previously coached.

Overall, I expect a respectful, well-structured debate. Essentially, keep it organized, explain things clearly, clash, and don’t be rude to your opponent.

I prefer off-time roadmaps.

Please keep your delivery clear. I’m not a fan of spreading, but as long as you are speaking clearly and are organized in your debate, I can accommodate. If I cannot understand what you are saying, however, I will not flow it.

I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.