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.

Hi! I'm a college student ('26) who did 4 years of speech and debate in high school with Ida B. Wells in Portland, OR. LD was my main event but I also did Impromptu and Extemp and a little bit of Radio, Oratory, and Parli.

I mostly did traditional debate, so that's the kind I'm most used to. However, I have a baseline familiarity with some progressive stuff (plans, CPs, theory), so if that's your jam, go for it! Just be clear and inclusive to people that don't have as much experience with circuit debate. If you want to run a kritik, I'm willing to vote on it but please let me know before the round. If you have any more specific questions about this stuff, ask!

Tech over truth / tabula rosa / no judge intervention. These all mean the same thing to me: I will evaluate the round based only on what is said, rather than my preexisting knowledge or opinions about it. I won't do any of the work for you: if your opponent says something that's clearly inaccurate, or drops a point, or does something abusive, it's on you to call that out. This also means I am open to whatever you want to read. Weird or nonstandard arguments are totally fine (though of course I hold them to the same evidence standard as anything else).

Please don't spread. Speed is fine as long as it's not crazy. I might say "slow" during your speech if you're going too fast for me to flow. You have my permission to do the same to your opponent, within reason.

Stuff I like to see in round: direct clash, impact weighing, clear signposting, clear voters.

More on "clear voters:" in your voter speech, the best way to win the round is by telling me exactly why you should win it. Write my RFD for me! Line-by-line analysis in a voter speech can be important, but you'll always be better off keeping that to a minimum and focusing more on an overview of what arguments you're winning and why they are significant.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, just be reasonably concise. And please signpost in your speeches, even if you do an offtime roadmap, so I can tell where you are on the flow. "Now, onto the first neg contention" or something like that is great. I WILL get confused and just not flow if I don't know where I'm supposed to be flowing.

Organization is super important to me. Especially if you are making more than 1 response to an argument, please please please number or letter those for me so everything is neat on my flow.

I am always down for a pun or a little joke. No pressure though.

If you have any questions after the round about my decision, email me: preston.bushnell@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from you :D

If you want to know more about any part of this paradigm, just ask! Happy to expand :)

Good luck! You got this!!!????

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

I grew up in a very argumentative family that used both emotional and logical/rational arguments. I also did some LD debate in high school (pre-computer and pre-internet) so it was a bit different in how you researched and presented arguments.

I am extremely partial to strong linkages, and arguments that lack explanation of linkage and impact I find less or even non-compelling and borderline heresay.

Speak with clarity and slowly to have the most clear voice and impact of your arguments! If you can't be understood or clearly heard then the words won't matter much.

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.

This is my first year as a parent speech and debate judge. I have one high school student who is a novice debater this year.

I appreciate reasonably-paced speaking. Don't rush. Make eye contact with me.

I am a physician and appreciate good empirical evidence.

And don't forget to have fun!

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!

Debate experience: 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, as long as there was also strong logic/reasoning balancing. Spreading is a tool, but being able to articulate, explain, and communicate is the key to a strong debate. For the round, what is said in a debate are the voting issues, not what may be written on a brief. I appreciate signposting and avoiding logical fallacies when cutting evidence. (ie. if it says it might happen and you drop that word in your speech to say it will happen, that is a logical fallacy--just because something might happen, doesn't mean it will!) When discovered in a round that evidence is misrepresented or strip-quoted--changing the impact or intent of an article by eliminating words/context, it is thrown out and may result in a loss.

Follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate--ie. no new arguments in rebuttals, dropped issues in speeches, tag teaming restriction, current/relevant evidence, credible sources, etc.

The best debaters are those who are able to get specific as to why they are winning a round, not just saying they won the first advantage or issue--but they are able to explain how their argument won and the impact.

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).

I’d like to see well-structured arguments with clear warrants and impacts. Delivery is important to me, so please, no spreading, and speak clearly and confidently (I do really enjoy humor as well). Logical contentions and rebuttals are definitely appreciated — no slippery slope arguments. If there’s an impact, it should be stated and well explained. Overall, I’m looking for creative points and well-presented cases.

Avoid technical speech & debate jargon and communicate clearly (not really fast). Treat each other well: do not be aggressive, patronizing, etc.

I debated the CX topic for '23-'24 (fiscal redistribution) and competed Nat Circ with it as well as OR circ. I was 1A/1N. I also did LD in '23 and did Parli off and on from '22-'24. I'm a college freshman at UO. :)

I've also done nearly every speech event genre, and done every debate except for PF. (I've done extemp debate and SPAR!)

I’ll do general paradigm and then specifics for each debate. It'll go CX, LD, PF, Parli. You can ask me specific questions in round too.

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN FOR CX! kerezvani@gmail.com

Speaker points: Focused mostly on rhetoric. Whoever is the most convincing will get the highest speaker points. Obviously, if you’re a big jerk or super homophobic etc, you’ll get very bad speakers and an immediate vote down too. Base speakers are 27 – you can go under (typically if you're being very rude) or over and I like to give them out.

Convincing > Good analysis > Smart arguments > Organization > Easiest to understand

Speed: I’m okay on speed but prefer for everyone to be a little bit slower since I can have some issues understanding fast speed.

Respect: I don’t mind some passive-aggressiveness in debate, and I’m looking for confidence, but be nice. I’ll immediately vote you down for homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, or being a jerk. If you’re being super disrespectful, I’ll probably report you. Be confident, but most of all, be a good sport. Debate is fun, so let's make it fun for everyone.

Don’t call me by my first name, it takes me completely out. I know some debaters see it as a respect thing, but it really pulls me out of the round. You’re not appealing to me as a person, you’re appealing to me as a judge. Address me as judge/judges.

While I love confidence, being a prick and talking down to me, other judges, or your opponents is super disrespectful and will get a vote down if I notice it several times. Not everyone has the same resources or background as you do, and I am big on equality.

Economics: I’m super passionate about the economy. I am an Economy and Accounting double major. Don’t BS me about the economy or run econ DA’s/AD’s/Contentions if you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about. I won’t auto vote you down because of it, but it’ll be in your ballot, so you don't fall into this again. I probably know more about the economy than you do, so bad econ points won’t fly with me. There's a good chance I will link you some resources if you talk about the economy in your ballot/RFD -- this is my passion!!!

-

CX/Policy:

-

I’m a game theorist judge for the most part. I will NOT vote on death, homophobia, racism, transphobia etc good. I'm cool with absurd stuff but it stops at any hatred. Tech and truth both have their places in their respective rounds, but I do view debate as a game. However, that doesn't mean that debate can't be a great place for advocacy about changing debate and our own ideologies. I accept both arguments but personally view debate as a competitive game where we can also make friends, learn, and improve.

Anything goes as long as you’re kind, respectful, and it makes sense. If it’s a meme argument, at least make it convincing, or ensure that it (somewhat) makes sense.

I’m okay with K, CP, T, etc. Run whatever you want, but make sure it’s easier to understand. Trapping your opponent in something they don't understand and refusing to explain it when asked is bad etiquette.

I will vote rounds on Cost-Ben only if it comes down to weighing the round with costs and benefits, unless a different framework is specified by either team.

If I say “clear” more than twice and you don’t slow down, especially on anything that’s not in a document, I’ll stop flowing. Slow down on analytics and taglines, but you can speed through cards as long as they're in the doc. If you have physical cards, I will ask to see them. If you mention Gilmore Girls during your speech and/or cross, I’ll give you .5 speaks. May the best Gilmore Girls fan win! My favorite character is Luke.

I’m BIG on rhetoric. Even if you have more cards than the other team, convince me WHY you win on this argument or these cards, and WHY I should believe you. This is part of my paradigm where I sway trad – rhetoric, emphasis, and really guiding me to writing my ballot for you is super helpful for me and is important to my ballot. You should be writing it for me. At the end of the round, I should not have to pretend I'm a debater. In all debates, the team that can tell me why they win (and if both do, whoever does it the best) is the team I most often vote for.

Please signpost! Tell me where you are. I can go without signposting, but I’d really prefer not to. If you have bad signposting, it won’t automatically make you lose, but it can be a tiebreaker if it’s especially bad.

Tag-teaming is fine, but ask your opponents before.

I willnever disclose who won/lost post-round in OR circuit. Please do not ask me to.

Do not run abusive arguments. Try not to overload your opponents with off-case just to kick it all later. It’s a strat, and not one to always be looked down upon, but at least be reasonable haha. 10+ off is too much in my opinion, but not an auto vote down. It also has a time and place. If you can tell your opponents are newer, don't be extreme.

Fiat – This word gets thrown around a LOT in debate, meaning "let it be done." I am one of those judges that will give Aff reasonable fiat most of the time – that in the Aff world, it's passed right away. We are the debating the should, not the how or the would. However, place emphasis on "most of the time." If you give me an argument that tells me why the Aff shouldn't get fiat power, I'll hear you out. You can run Politics DAs though, and post- and/or pre-fiat arguments are fine too. The more you can explain to me why I shouldn't give them fiat, the better.

K – explain your alt well. If you’re asked questions about the alt, explain it as much as you can, as it’s often the hardest part to understand and the most important part of your K.

I know a good amount about Cap, QPess, Biopolitics. Those and most Alts related with them will go by just fine with me, and I have a basic understanding of Afropess, Afrofuturism, and Property. I ran a Bipol K with a Wonder alt in HS.

I evaluate K based off links, impacts, and how strong/weak the alt is. Perms are important and if you don’t perm the alt or talk about the alt as the Aff, you will probably lose. K-Aff is fine too, but this is Oregon, so unlikely for me to see haha.

T – This is the most important part of any case that has T. It should always be addressed before anything else. If you drop T as the Aff (if they haven’t kicked it) and the Neg can convince me on T, you will lose. Extra-T is fine too. Running T on novice case limits is a bit odd to me, but I’m still down to hear you out. I think it's perfectly fine to run T on specific words that they are not meeting, even if it's 49/51.

Tell me why your definition is better than the other teams' definition. Does it increase education, scope, research, etc.

CP – CPs are cool, and so are multiple perms. Just at least explain WHY you can do the perm. Is it non-unique? Can it be done first? Give me something here! CP should make sense, and it’s alright if it’s a little vague, but it should still have a set-out plan. PICs are cool too.

Obviously, DA’s, AD’s, and on-case are perfectly fine.

The one DA I absolutely hate is court clog. Not an automatic vote down but I have a lengthy history firsthand with the legal system working as a legal clerk. There’s a good chance you will not know more than I do, which is fine, but I really do not like it. I dislike it because courts are always clogged and if we take any action that leads to legal changes, it leads to court clog. Basically, it's non-unique.

-

LD:

-

I’m perfectly alright with prog LD, and since I’m CX-focused, I can understand it. However, trad LD is still important to me.

Explain your value and (value-)criterion as well as you can. This is my biggest voting part – if you can connect them to your case, that’ll be big in the round. I will always vote on value and criterion unless it comes down to stronger contentions. Most of my feedback will be addressing your value and criterion if I don't feel that it's fleshed out enough. I also believe that all of your contentions should be linked back to it, and when you give me voters, it would really help for it to be in there.

With LD, I’m super Truth > Tech. It’s a morality debate, so don’t run things that don’t make sense morally and aren’t factually true.

-

PF:

-

I've only ever judged PF, so my experience doesn't go much beyond that. When judging, I like to see clear impacts. I want to see an impact story and clear links. Don't just tell me why voting for you is good, tell me why voting for them is bad. When both teams tell me their side is better, but not why the others is worse, it's super hard to write my ballot.

I often find myself voting for one side based off of a single impact or a single contention. I'd really rather it not be that way, but a lot of amazing rounds come down to just one impact. To make you standing better, extend all of your arguments.

Your final focus should have been set up in your summary. Don't make a whole bunch of new arguments in your summary. This is the most important speech especially for impact calc -- why do your impacts outweigh? What am I doing by voting for your side? If the status quo is good, tell me why it's good.

Being kind and offering your opponent questions doesn't make a big difference in my ballot but I do love to see it.

-

PARLI:

-

You should always have definitions in your parli case. No one likes definition debates, but sometimes they must occur. Tell me why your definition is better and leads to a stronger/more educational/overall better debate if we have to lead to a definition debate.

I'm not looking for evidence as much as I'm looking for explanations. I don't really pay attention to how much evidence you have, and it can really actually hinder you. Your case shouldn't have a lot of evidence, especially since internet is a pretty new addition. Link it back to why you're right and why they're wrong.

Please, please don't ask questions when they have already stopped talking. I've seen this before and I will not allow them. The speech is done -- ask your questions while it's still going on. Also, parli is not the debate in which to ask confusing questions. If you can make it as clear as possible, it helps all of us and doesn't waste too much of your opponents speech trying to understand what you're talking about.

And please actually do ask questions. Try to aim to ask at least one question per round.

-

At the end of the day, I do strive to be reasonable. TL;DR -- be nice, play fair, and have a good time.

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.

LD and Public Forum;

I don't like speed, this is not a sprint is a marathon of information make me understand.

Parli

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

My expectations have risen due to the use of internet. I am expecting goodquality organization and quoting of sources will be a must to support your contentions.

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

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

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

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

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

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

Debates are meant to be educational for all, clear to listeners, fair in competing content and skill, and charitable to the opposing side. As your judge, I want to see your side take seriously the responsibility to educate the room on the topic at hand, assuming little to no prior knowledge. Your judge approaches each topic with an open mind, so you should be filling my mind with exactly what you want me to add to my flow. Educating means speaking at a reasonable pace for understanding. Every person in the room should be able to follow your arguments clearly, the first time around (or, if applicable, through cross-examination). What this means is you are speaking slow enough, signposting often, stating links explicitly, and impacting your arguments. (Don't just tell me I should value safety, liberty, democracy, etc. Persuade why I should value it or why it matters.) Furthermore, if you sense your opponents are less experienced, knowledgeable, or prepared, leave them room to still engage in the debate and learn something. This means asking good questions and answering questions in a helpful manner. Finally, winning arguments take down the BEST argument from the opposing side, not the worst. Follow the philosophical principle of charity, assume best intent, be courteous, and practice empathy.

DON'T squirrel, run topicality unless absolutely necessary, fabricate evidence, talk over others, spread your case, drop arguments, use derogatory language, or engage in personal attacks.

DO prepare a strong case, speak well, practice mutual respect, read and think critically, and seek not only to win arguments but to understand other viewpoints.

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.

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. Even the status quo can be an alternative -- just please demonstrate that there is a better alternative to aff, 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.