I am the head Speech, Debate, and Congress coach at Horace High School, ND.

I have a background in English, Speech, and Theatre Education.

Debate:

Decorum matters, so be polite to your opponents, including in the questioning period. You can be firm in cross while being polite, but there is a line that you shouldn't cross during cross.

Make my job of flowing easy, signpost accordingly and don't rush through your contention taglines.

If you speak so fast that I can't understand your argument and flow your argument, I will have a hard time giving you the win.

I will not make links for you. Also, just because you CAN make a link chain work doesn't mean you should.

If you open your speech with a preview of what you are talking about, I expect the preview to be reflective of what you talk about. Example, if you say you are giving voters, you should give clear voters instead of just talking down the flow.

PF: PF isn't Policy. Also, I'm not sure why people keep trying to add frameworks into PF cases, but they won't play into how the round is weighed on the ballot unless both teams willingly accept the framework.

A good first neg in LD will use their time equally between attacking the Aff case and setting up the neg case; 5:30 setting up the Neg case and 1:30 attacking the Aff case is not using time equally in my eyes. The same idea goes for PF.

I like to hear the voters. Don't just say that something flows to your side though, give the rational and link it for me.

Congress:

Delivery and presentation are musts for me: eye contact, conversational tone, posture, and not just reading off computer or notepad.

I will flow your argument, but I will not make the links for you unless they are incredibly obvious.

Be brave and have fun in the session; this is a social activity. I want to see students willing to get up for authorship. If no one is willing to speak or run for PO that's your cue to be a leader.

Even the second aff/ first neg can, and often should, have elements of refutation in there. For the first 2/3-3/4 of speeches, I expect to see clash, but also new arguments being brought in. This is an activity that requires not only research, but also depth of research. Don't get up there and say that the aff or neg has already brought up a point, but not explored it enough, unless you can back it up with new analysis or additional research. The last few speeches should wrap up the debate, especially if debate has been limited and you know that you are one of the last speeches.

Don't play games and try and make the PO look bad unless they have actually made a mistake. Decorum is at the heart of congressional debate and must be respected. Do not be rude or belittling to your competition; you may be the best speaker in the room, but you will lose favor quickly by not respecting your competition and the activity.

Speech number is irrelevant; however, you had better have a good reason for not speaking on each piece of legislation. Quality of speeches, quality of questions, and quality of overall interaction in the chamber is what will get you the ballot from me.

I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend and uphold your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

Dakota Breen has been the head speech coach of West Fargo High School since 2013.

For interpretation events, she looks for the performer(s) ability to bring their characters to life through voice, movement, and emotion brought to delivery.

For public address, she looks for the speaker's ability to craft a meaningful message that is relevant, relatable, and original. Language and structure are important.

For extemporaneous, she looks for the speaker's ability to answer the question clearly for an audience who may not know much on the topic they have chosen. Delivery is equally important.

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. I competed for 4 years and have coached at 3 different schools. I started observing debate in 1987. I am also a licensed attorney. Your time starts when you start speaking. And you can time yourselves, but my time controls the round.

I don't have a problem with speed, so long as your diction allows it. I understand philosophy and complex ideas. Delivery is important but I judge based on content first. Sometimes delivery can get in the way of your delivery of ideas. I will write my reasons for decision, of which one in L-D is always who showed me their side of the resolution and that their value is superior. I will use the criterion as the lenses with which to view the round/the measure by which we determine who wins the round.

In public forum, I look for argumentation and coverage of issues. Again that content is most important but delivery will have an impact too.

In both types of debate, I expect all to be professional and not rude to their opponents. I do not like snarky attitude. I expect some amount of evidence to support more than just your claims, but your ideas are the most important. Evidence gives support and credence to your ideas.

I debated PF, LD, and a little bit of policy during my time as a debater in Fargo, North Dakota. I graduated from SDSU with a bachelors in psychology, and am nos getting my masters at NDSU for clinical mental health counseling.

General note: Please do not ask each individual in the round if they are ready. Just ask if anyone in the room is not ready. Please make sure to clearly identify your contentions and subpoints. I want to get your taglines down so I can adequately understand and weigh your arguments. Please time yourself if at all possible! I do not want to have to cut you off. In all speeches and cross-fires / cross-ex’s finish your sentence (not your thought) when the timer hits zero.

LD Debate:

• Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.

• All values matter, but why is yours more important in this context and should be focused on in the immediate? Or even better, how can you accomplish both values?

• Criterions do not need to hold moral values itself, rather it’s a lens / means to which you are going to achieve your value.

• Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time. Make it easy for me to flow and understand.

• If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.

PF Debate:

• Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.

• If you are going to refer to cards of evidence by only the authors name make sure to clearly identify the card and author. As a judge, I prioritize writing down the evidence rather than the source.

• If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.

• I also enjoy unique arguments, however if it does not make sense to me or I cannot figure it out without someone explaining it to me - it's not going to work.

• Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time.

• Do not ask "Can I have first question?" It is common place that the first speaker gets first question.

Experience:

I competed in Public Forum from 9th-12th grade, and went to nationals twice for PF, twice for WSD.

General Comments/Preferences:

I value respect above all else. If you are yelling at your opponent(s) or otherwise speaking in a disrespectful manner, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

I don't appreciate spreading. There's a good chance I won't catch everything you say if you're speaking a million words a minute, which will only work to your detriment.

I will never vote on delivery; however, a strong delivery will help me better understand your argument.

PLEASE sign post and speak loudly. I have a hard time following your speech if you don't.

I like a good mix of cards and logic. I strongly believe that some things do not require cards. Whether you use a card or a logical line of reasoning, you need to explain its impact, or it will not be weighed in the round.

I will flow CX. Dominating the conversation will not get you any brownie points.

Public Forum:

I do not buy the "my card is more recent" argument. You need to give me a valid reason why time, or other arbitrary things, matter if you want me to drop your opponent's card.

If you don't link your arguments to the topic, then I will not weigh them. I cannot draw links for you.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have no prior experience in LD, so I appreciate a clear (almost "dummed down") description of your argument, especially if it's more on the philosophical side.

If you drop your value and/or criterion, you will most likely lose the round.

I am a former competitor and long-time speech and theater coach and have assisted with WS debate in our district.

I prefer persuasion over gamesmanship, moderate speed, and a focus on cross-x that is clarified in rebuttal.

I flow, but will not supply the argument for you - it must be made.

Civility is a must.  Subtleties of LD/PF will be lost on me. But intelligent, data-backed claims with a clear warrant will find success.

I have judged LD debate for two years, and I value a coherent argument backed by logical reason. I am not that versed with the tricks necessary to win a debate. I also feel that it is important to note that I value a roadmap and making sure that your contentions are tied back effectively to the position and standing you are advocating for. I flow, but will not supply the argument for you.

I've been around the debate world for about 20 years, competing, coaching and judging, middle school, high school, and college tournaments. I have seen everything and can accommodate your style accordingly. My paradigm is pretty simple: have proper decorum to be respectful of everyone in the room.

I am a recent graduate of Davies High School in North Dakota, I currently attend St. Olaf college. I have been involved with debate since 2017. I competed in PF for one season, then switched over to LD, where I placed at the state tournament all 5 years, was state champion, and nationally qualified twice. I was also the captain of my debate team from my freshman year to my senior year. Basically, I'm very experienced with debate.

Because of my LD experience, I have a good knowledge of "mainstream" philosophers. I was a heavy Kantian debater, so I am very well versed in his philosophy.

Generally, I prefer clarity, explanation, and narratives over dumping evidence or cross applications without any explanation as to why I should cross apply.

The way you speak and present your arguments have a HUGE impact on what information is heard and what is left behind. Don't spread.

Please have voters in your last speech.

I am the parent of a graduated LD debater. I was not involved in debate myself ever, so I only know what my student has told me and what I have seen from the other rounds I have judged.

Please do not speak too fast. I cannot keep up with a super fast pace. Quality of words matter more than quantity of words. If you decide to speak fast, I likely will not get all of your information, which makes it challenging for me to vote for you because I don't know what your arguments are. I will set my pen down if I am confused or if you are talking too fast.

Experience: 4 Seasons of Congress, debate, and speech. State Champion in the ND Senate 2021

Style

Congress: I’m looking to forward debate at any opportunity necessary. I will flow all arguments being made by competitors and will reinforce and rebuttal as I view is most appropriate. People should not switch sides unless considerable evidence has been brought up to motivate you to act as such. If there is poor arguments being brought up by one side and debate dies, I will motion to table the bill or to vote on it. Recesses should not be motioned for period. Just because you did not prepare doesn’t mean you should get rewarded a period of leeway. I will not harass the PO unless someone is being cheated of their chance to speak or the PO breaks a significant rule that may affect how chambers continue or the outcome of awards. The PO is human too and so should be treated as such.

PO: If I am to run for PO, here are my focuses. I’m looking to give everyone a chance to speak. I want an efficient chamber with as little downtime as possible, but I will not compromise my accuracy for speed. Keeping track of speaker order is one of the most vital roles of any good PO. I will also keep speaking order for questions because I understand their importance to participation in any given house. Also, just because you stand for every speaking opportunity doesn’t mean I’m more likely to pick you. Understand your place in speaking order, and your place in the chambers. You have to be willing to listen as much as you are willing to speak.

Debate:

LD: Hey, this is my 4th year in LD debate, and I've pretty much seen it all. Provide clear signposting, if it doesn't make it on the flow, it cannot be weighed. The Value/Criterion is at the heart of LD and so must be prioritized. While I'm not weighing the round on evidence, please try to have something. Having a good clash is what I'm looking for in the rebuttal, and is almost necessary to win the round. Speak clearly and have fun!

I am a first year coach who debated primarily LD and Policy in High School in South Dakota. Debate is an education activity I aim to provide a fair and uplifting experience.

As a judge, here are the primary things I look for:

• Link Work:

  • I look for solid connections between your evidence, warrants, and impacts. Generic impacts without clear links to your arguments or the resolution hold less weight.

• Impact Comparison:

  • I appreciate clear weighing mechanisms. If you do not weigh impacts explicitly, I will evaluate them based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

• Respect and Professionalism:

  • A respectful and courteous tone is expected. Debate is a space for learning and intellectual growth.

• Roadmaps: Please provide a roadmap before starting. It helps me follow your speech more effectively.
• Dropped Arguments: Arguments that go unaddressed will be evaluated as conceded, provided the opposing side flags them.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. Value and Criterion:

   • I prioritize debates that center around a clear value (what we ought to achieve) and a criterion (how we measure or achieve it). These should guide your contentions and impacts. The link between your arguments and the value/criterion must be explicit and coherent.
   • Clash on the value level is highly appreciated; I expect you to address your opponent’s framework.

2. Philosophical Depth:

   • I enjoy rounds where you engage with classic philosophical works or contemporary interpretations that are well-articulated and contextualized. Ground your points in logic, and don’t be afraid to make me think.

3. Clarity over Speed:

   • I judge based on the arguments I can flow. Speak at a pace that ensures clarity. I may call for a card if necessary, but my decision will primarily be based on what was debated in the round, not what’s on your evidence.

Public Forum:

• Clash and Responsiveness:

  • Direct clash and responsive arguments are essential. Engage with your opponents’ case instead of just repeating your points.

• Evidence and Warrants:

  • Provide well-explained evidence. Don’t just cite statistics—explain the “why” and “how” behind your impacts. If there’s an evidence challenge, be prepared to show it during prep or after the round.
  • Quality of evidence matters more than quantity.

• Speaker Roles and Team Dynamics:

  • Each speaker has a specific role. Stick to those and deliver speeches tailored to their purpose (e.g., second rebuttal refuting new arguments, summary consolidating key issues, final focus emphasizing weighing).

Final Notes

• I am tabula rasa (a blank slate) to the best of my ability. My decision will be rooted in the flow and how well you argued, not my personal beliefs or preferences.
• Have fun and give your best effort! Debate is a space to explore complex ideas and grow as a thinker and speaker.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Good luck!

FLOWING:

If typing, I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see my reactions to different arguments. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - Debaters should carefully consider how much evidence they use. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

2 - Impacts really matter. Make sure to clearly state your impacts.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. A good argument will be about argument quality, not word quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions.

Hey there, I'm Nathan Rateau. I'm a Freshman Math Major at North Dakota State University. I debated from 7th through 12th grade and was a state runner-up PF debater. I also currently compete for NDSU's speech and debate team. I've been in Public Forum Debate for most of my debate career so I am more familiar with PF style and format than I am LD, but I have dabbled in LD before so I'm not completely clueless with it.

General comments:

I like respectful debates. Be kind to your opponents, don't talk over them or yell at them. In my opinion, kindness says a lot about your credibility as a debater, so being kind will be helpful to all of us (especially myself, because quite frankly I don't like shouting matches).

I also like fair and honest debates. Don't falsify evidence, take anything out of context, gaslight your opponents, or just straight up lie. Debate is an activity about finding the truth and lies just get in the way.

I try my best to go into a round with as a blank slate, I will not let my preconceived opinions on a topic get in the way of my judging. That being said, I will buy arguments that are more impactful, so please stress how and why the impact of your argument matters.

Finally, have fun. Debate is a great experience and I'm happy to help you enjoy it as much as you can.

PF Specific:

Not much here really, I will say that I am a numbers guy so I like impacts that I can wrap my head around mathematically. However, if you throw numbers at me with no context associated, they mean nothing to me.

LD:

Debate should be focused on value and criterion and how your contentions achieve this value. If the contention debate strays from the value/criterion debate, I'll have a hard time weighing it in the round.

Experience

6 years of Congress, 5 years of Debate and Speech

Competed at Nationals in Congress / World Schools 2021-2024

I currently compete for UND's speech team

Overall

Prioritize speaking clearly over speaking fast. If I don't know what you said, I can't weigh what you said!

If an argument is very obviously logical, please don't try to counter it by asking for evidence. We don't need a card stating that the sky is blue.

I appreciate pretty speeches, but what I'm ultimately judging is content. If your rebuttal is pretty but lacks substance and your opponent's is messy but substantive, I'll likely prefer your opponent's speech.

If you're disrespectful of your opponent(s) in any manner, there is very little chance I will vote for you.

Voters are great, I recommend giving them.

If you ever have any questions for me or you want more specific feedback about your round, I'm thrilled to talk to you! I love this activity and the people I've met through it!

I don't mind a smidge of unseriousness in a round. Have fun with this activity!

Lincoln-Douglas

I did half of a season of LD in ninth grade!

I appreciate some of the more philosophical arguments presented in LD being laid out for me. Once again, a situation where I can't weigh things I don't understand.

The value clash is probably the most crucial aspect of LD judging for me - I appreciate it when LDers apply their value to each of their contentions, and explain why they are winning the value clash in each of their speeches.

Public Forum

I did three seasons of PF in high school!

I appreciate links being made for me in speeches as arguments are made. If you make an argument in your constructive that fails to be linked to the actual topic of debate until your summary speech, I may spend the entire round misunderstanding your argument.

I will not police card dates. Claiming an opponent’s card is outdated will only work if you can show that the argument made by the card has since expired. If not, the card will still be weighed.