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 and I work tab at Nationals). 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.

I’m a second year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

I value respectful interactions between competitors and ask that participants try to enjoy themselves.

I judge debate events based on three domains, feel free to ask me about them.

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, 11 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

For 2024-2025: I am done with Court Clog. Run it at your own risk of me evaluating your cards on my own.

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

1. Speak at a normal conversational speed

2. Roadmap and signpost

I'm a dad judge :) be polite and respectful. I am hard of hearing, please do you best to look at me when you speak and slow your speech cadence if you are able

My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate.

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

Policy: I'm open to everything. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you. Kritiks are valuable to debate because they can have an impact on our discourse. But if you are shoe-horning a Cap K into every round, I will expect you to do more Link analysis to prove it's worth discussing in the round. I will vote down time-suck procedurals. If your opponent is not topical, Topicality serves a necessary purpose. Just don't waste time in the debate by running it because you think you have to.

LD: I favor Traditional LD. I reject Progressive tendencies in LD. I understand why it can be easier for judges to make decisions based on whose extinction impacts are better, but I think that does a disservice to LD debaters to rely on speculative link analysis that leads to exctinction. I do not want Policy in LD. Do Policy if you want to run K's. Do not spread. The Value and Value Criterion are of the utmost importance, do not skimp on explaining these and how they function in the round.

PF: I competed in PF. PF should be the most accessible. Assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain everything clearly and in simple terms. Don't assume I have preconceived notions about how countries exist or will act. You have to establish the problem, and you have to clearly explain your analysis (your links) and how you get there.

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

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

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

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

For email chains: bharrison@pps.net

I value clarity, organization, and kindness. Speak clearly, convince me. Have fun!

No spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will judge only by your speech presentation skills —which will be low because you're speaking too fast.

Please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read. Summarizing is fine but I can probably tell if you are just filling time.

In debate, please be kind to other debaters. You can be argumentative, but if I feel like you are picking on someone in a personal way, especially a novice, I will be less convinced. I tend to be more receptive to well researched arguments that you can back up (I’m a professor). If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

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.

Hello folks,

I am a novice in Speech and Debate, This is my second time Judging.

I think competitive debate sharpens your ability to research and analyze problems, think and listen critically, express your thoughts clearly and fluently, and better understand public affairs. It increases your confidence and poise and provides constant intellectual stimulation.

In terms of speed, please go at brisk conversational speed.

Clarity over speed. Give me organized arguments with clear signposting. A well-explained argument beats a rushed wall of words. Structure and logical progression matter more than the quantity of claims. I need to understand your causal mechanisms and how your arguments connect.

Hi, I'm Jas Liu. I currently coach debate at Roosevelt High School. I use they/them pronouns. I'm a former NPDA debater for Whitman College, won top speaker at NPDA and placed 2nd at NPTE my senior year (2024). I also did 3 years of high school policy. put me on the email chain -jasxlliu@gmail.com

I was a K debater in high school with moderate success but ended up debating more policy in college. I feel confident judging anything you throw at me and will vote on (almost) everything as long as it's well warranted. For carded debate, I would prefer you debate off the warrants of your cards instead of just extending your tags, otherwise I will misunderstand your argument, read your card myself, and come to my own conclusions. If you have any specific questions, just ask me before round or send me an email.

Please don't be rude to each other. It's ok to be competitive, but if it's excessive I will tank your speaks and drop you.

1/25/24 update -

i will have a very hard time voting for a theory position if you do not give me an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters to evaluate it. if you want to run condo, CP theory, or an RVI, please keep this mind

i will only evaluate analytics i have on my flow. if you are spreading too fast for me to catch your arguments, they will be lost.

I'm a first year and parent judge, as well as a retired veteran currently working for the government.

Make sure you thoroughly explain your value and value criterion to me. I need to understand what you're arguing for.

Why do you win this round? Explain why you best fit under the winning Value Criterion.

I want logic behind your arguments. You're providing evidence, but how does it tie back to your framework and support your case?

Answer these questions, be clear.

I am most often persuaded by arguments that:

1. Have some grounding in real-world impacts, rather than being purely theoretical.
2. Clearly connect each contention to your weighing mechanism.
3. In situations where each side has a different weighing mechanism, I find it compelling to hear why your side's weighing mechanism is better to evaluate the issue. In cases where each side has chosen the same weighing mechanism, I want to hear why your interpretation of the weighing mechanism is correct.

In terms of style, I tend to prefer a more conversational pace rather than a rapid-fire delivery. I find those more difficult to take notes on/track flow. While I expect language to be relatively academic/professional, I think that overly technical or jargon-y language can confuse rather than clarify an argument.

I expect good sportsmanship and professional conduct before, during, and after the debate. While I respect someone rebutting an opponent with rigor, I will deduct speaker points for argumentation or questioning that I think is clearly meant to be disruptive or unsettling to another speaker.

- Off-time roadmap and clear delineation of contentions (and rebuttals) PREFERRED.

- To me, spreading is not good debating. I can only judge you on what I can hear and understand. Make sure that I don't miss the amazing point you're making by speaking too quickly.

I look for support and confirmation of your facts sighted within your contentions (your cards). If you use a source such as a study or statistic please sight it during debate/speech.

Please number your contentions and layout a road map of your arguments. When rebutting opponents contentions advise why their contention is not accurate and how or why your contention should be weighted more.

While speed is important, do not speck so quickly that your argument is lost. It is better to have two clear, concise, and poignant contentions then three which where spoken so quickly I am not able to follow them.

If you state that you want to create a program and sight the cost I am looking for how that program is to be paid for. An example is if you were to retrofit schools for health and safety and the cost is $500 billion how is this going to be funded.

The cadence/flow of your speech and debate is very important. Intonation is important to keep speech from being too flat.

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

1. I am a seasoned veteran in the space with competitive experience at the high school and college level. Roughly 5 years in total in competition. I have been a full time judge and coach for just under 10 years. So you can understand that I am able to understand most arguments and positions one may choose to run in a given round. With that in mind certain position pertaining to theory or K shells I would rather not see in events outside CX. If a parli round does involve a Counter plan or a T sheet of some kind, I can roll with it as long as it is well explained and reasonably fits in the scope of the resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate well organized and cited argumentation that is delivered clearly and succinctly. Overly rushed or impassioned delivery can detract from understanding. This will not decide a round, but will be reflected in the notes.

For performative pieces such as Poetry or POI, I prefer when performers do not break the 4th wall unless it is intentionally part of the piece. Do your best to look beyond the audience and pick points around the perimeter of the room to deliver your piece.

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 traditionalist: 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 counter-plans 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.

I am a new judge. Just slow down, be calm, and do your best!

I am fairly new to judging. Competitors may self-time. Please make your statements as clear and well-organized as possible to help me keep track of your arguments. I prioritize civility and appreciate professional and supportive competitors.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

Hello folks,

I am a former head coach--and current assistant coach--of West Linn High School's Speech and Debate team.

In my mind, debate is fundamentally a way for you (both teams) and I to engage substantively with a complex topic. I like intellectual rigor and good-faith clash with your opponents. I am really turned off by the debate being turned into a game, rather than a debate, so take that as you will.

In terms of speed, you can go at a brisk conversational speed, but if your speed interferes with my ability to understand you (or if you are not particularly articulate), then I will stop flowing.

Some pet peeves:

1. I am a lay judge. For those of you who love progressive debate, I'm glad you do. I'm also really sorry--I am not the judge you want. If you make the choice to just pretend that I am a progressive judge, it will probably end badly for you, for no other reason than I just don't have the knowledge and expertise! Have a lay case that you can bring out. You should probably have one anyway.

2. This one is really petty. Please don't thank me for being here--and your opponents and your partner and your coach and your friends or whatever--at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to drop you because of this, but if you read my paradigm before the round, try to remember. It grates.

Background: I teach AP Lang and Comp. I've been an English teacher for 16 years. I have a PhD in Educational Studies - Curriculum Theory.