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

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.

File sharing: Please make sure you are making a speech doc and not just sending whole files and then reading things in a different order than from what is presented. It can make things confusing for everyone in the round and throws me off if I think you didn't send the evidence when it's just four pages down.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

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

About Me:

My name is Gabriel Elmosleh, and I'm a Sophomore at Clackamas Community College. I did speech and debate at Clackamas High school for two years, and I competed in Parliamentary/Policy debate, and extemporaneous speech.

I'm a big fan of off time roadmaps for debate events. (Regular ones are appreciated too in speaking events).

When it comes to Policy or Lincoln Douglass, I love Kritiks, and I'd describe myself as a fan of progressive debate. As such, I'm ok with spreading, but if you could maybe slow down a little bit for me to understand, that would be great. However, If you aren't able to complete your speeches in time, feel free to not change your pace. That's on me for not being able to keep up. Traditional debate is also ok, I just find it super duper boring.
Also, it would be great if you could send me your cards, or add me into an email chain for LD, just because I'd like to be able to keep up.

When it comes to radio, inform, extemp, impromptu, and other speech types that aren't exactly acting heavy, I'll try to give tips on the delivery of your speeches, such as your tone, speed/pacing, enunciation, etc, but tbh at the end of the day that's not super important to me, as long as I can understand you, (unless all of the competitors are so good, and I'm forced to really nitpick). To me, what really matters is the content of your speeches. Obviously, when it comes to speeches like Dramatic Interpretation (among others), I'll care more about your general delivery.

When it comes to any of your speeches, as long as you have the ability to cite sources, I want you to cite sources. I don't like to hear "When it comes to (INSERT SUBJECT), (PERSON) says blah blah blah). I'm a journalist. I want to hear exactly who is saying what. If they don't have a name/username, they don't exist as far as I care.

I'll try to give the best feedback I possibly can. Sorry in advance if it's not as in-depth as you'd prefer. I'm relatively new to judging.

abby.holland.ut@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)

CCHS '24 (2N all 4 years)

she/her

policy

middle school

most of this probably doesn't apply beyond the general notes. Please extend warrants and evidence from speech to speech. Impact calc and judge instruction is super important! if you're interested in high school debate I'd love to answer questions!

general

tech>truth

I'm fine with any speed just please enunciate and slow down on analytics. if I can't understand you I'll call clear twice and then stop flowing. slow down a tiny bit on online debates

please explain acronyms at least once so I know what you're talking about

I've been told its pretty easy to tell what I'm thinking based on my facial expressions, I don't know how much this translates to debate rounds

TL;DR: I'd rather watch a good round than a round that's worse because you overadapt to me, so do whatever you want just explain it well. Everything below are just my preferences and ramblings. Impact calc and judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are really important to me, line-by-line is great, the more work you do to minimize judge intervention the easier my decision is and the less confused/frustrated you will be with my decision.

DA

DAs are great, run whatever as long as you run it well. Case-specific DAs make me very happy and super generic DAs make me sad but I understand their use.

I LOVE politics DAs! That being said I think generic links such as PC are usually poorly explained (PC is fake change my mind). I have a higher threshold for voting for vague links. Specific links are amazing here and I think you should know how key politicians would vote in the world of the DA. (bonus points if you have a CP that avoids the ptx DA with specific evidence key politicians would support the CP)

I'm not a huge fan of intrinsicness but I'll vote for it

IMPACT CALC please! zero risk is a thing, framing can take out a DA if its done well

CP

Great, you do you. Specific CPs are better. Please have solvency advocates and a net benefit. I don't like boring process CPs but I'll vote on it if you're winning the argument. Stop writing CP plan texts that are multiple paragraphs long (looking at you 2Ns).

I lean neg on most theory, except I'm aff leaning on multi-actor fiat. uniform 50-state fiat is silly. condo is good

you should debate judge kick

T

These aren't my favorite debates, but if this is your strat go for it. contextualized interps are better. Please slow down a little on analytics

I won't vote for aspec hidden at the bottom of a T-flow, label it clearly. This also means I'm more lenient on 1ar answers to hidden aspec

Case

Case debate is really underrated! Utilize in-depth case debate and case turns!

K v. Policy Aff

I love these debates, a one-off k debate against a soft left policy aff is probably my ideal debate.

I've read cap, queerness, security, and anthropocentrism. I have some knowledge of afro-pess, fem, setcol, and a little bit of baudrillard (although I really dislike baudrillard). Feel free to read other Ks, just make sure to explain them clearly!

if your K is secretly just a CP + DA in a trench coat pretending to be a K it probably loses pretty easily. I'm going to pick a framework based on the flow, not a middle ground. Line-by-line debate is better than super long, not contextualized overviews. Also please be able to actually articulate what the world of the alt looks like and how it interacts with the aff.

If you have an element of performance, make sure to link it back to your solvency (also I think performance is super cool and would love to see more of it!)

K affs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I don't have much experience with K affs, but I think they're great! Just make sure to explain it well. I think they should have some link to the topic

I don't think I'm qualified to have a leaning on K affs v. FW, I'll vote for either. fairness is an impact, but I prefer it as an internal link

KvK

I have almost no experience with these debates but I think they're cool, so do what you will with that information.

Policy Affs

I love soft left affs! Please have a solid framing page

2as please make your plan text mean something, wtf are fiscal polices designed to facilitate regulated market socialism

LD

I'll probably judge this similarly to how I would a policy round, please explain how your value/criterion frames your impacts!

other events

I have less experience in speech, but I'm excited to judge all events so don't be worried!

Misc

Be a good human! Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Read re-highlights don't just insert them

your off time roadmap should tell me what order my flows go it

I'll evaluate dropped arguments as true, but you still have to extend a warrant and explain why it means you win for me to vote on it

I'll probably dock 0.1 speaks if you say "I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

I'll give +0.1 speaker points for mean girls or legally blonde references in context (movie or musical)

feel free to ask me anything

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=244725

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Topic Knowledge: I do not teach at camp, so I will be a very poor judge for arguments that rely on following "meta norms" established by camp. I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments; I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship. I am also very unsympathetic to gripes about this topic as I believe case specific neg research should be the default model of debate.

Debate: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year, so debaters who develop good topic knowledge generally out-debate their opponents. That being said, I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round itself. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better. I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am firmly neg, but I try to leave bias at the door and end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, Iwill "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give credence to in-round voters.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission and reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you.If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do thatbeyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: Neg ground should be a product of neg research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

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.

EMAIL

schmittkyla@gmail.com

BIO

Hey y'all—I'm Kyla. Any pronouns are fine. 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. Over the years, I've coached most events. Now in college, I do CARD, which is most similar to CX.

PARADIGM

Housekeeping

Yes, I'm fine with off-time roadmaps (flow order only), self-timing, and open cross (just don't talk over your partner when they are the lead examiner/examinee). Speed is cool, but I do dislike spreading that lacks clarity (i.e., can I tell that you are actually saying words?).

Philosophy

I mostly strive to be tabula rasa, unless whatever you’re saying exceeds my most generous levels of reasonable doubt. In other words, I'll do my best not to let any implicit argument not made in the round influence my decision—however, I will also not vote on arguments that I know to be blatant misinformation/bigotry (e.g., that the "median American voter" would know to be untrue). That being said, it's still your job as debaters to oppose these arguments when you encounter them. I'll probably make a note of it on your ballot if you don't.

As for what I personally value, evidence is important and I will weigh it as such, but I LOVE analytics and would much rather hear incisive analysis in your own words than just a bunch of cards read at me. I will pretty much automatically like teams that actually engage in substantive in-round clash, evidence analysis, etc.

Speech Organization

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 sleep-deprived, so make your arguments easy to follow). If you have time, overviews are great. 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.

[updated for the iowa caucus 2024]

​

portland urban debate league

‎​

please add me to the email chain - avneetsid28 [at] gmail.com

i only flow your speech but glance at the doc when questions arise (clipping, misconstrued ev, bad cites)

‎​

i’ve been coaching for a couple of years now and really care for this activity and all the people in it, and i can only hope for the same from you. you win when you are kind, creative, and clever & i truly believe you can achieve this when you try your best.

‎​

it is my job to adapt to you, and your job to write out my ballot exactly as you think it should be written.

‎​

(yes, please read your k in front of me.)

frameworks that rely on excluding the k, disengaging with theoretical debate, and severing from your advocacy make me sad.

t is never an rvi, things like "limits bad" are better arguments, so please make them.

do affs have the burden to be "reasonably" topical? probably. very low threshold for what this means.

teams that convince me to reject the res have arguably clashed with the topic enough to make me believe it's bad.