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 have been a coach for five years, and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 25 years, teaching communication skills. I am seeking clarity and want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. Please emphasize your points so I know that they are important, and remember to pause on occasion so that I can take in your ideas.

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

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

Be kind, be professional, and have fun!!

I’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 am a parent with 2+ years of experience judging both individual and debate events.

* Spreading: I try to flow all contentions but may miss some in cases of high speed delivery. I favor well developed arguments over trying to overwhelm other side with sheer numbers.

* Theory: Please explain arguments without relying solely on jargon, but if you over-argue your points, I'll assume that you have nothing better to say.

* Voting: I favor competitors that present the most logical arguments, and clearly explain how impacts of their case outweigh those presented by opponents. To win my vote on framework arguments, they must be well developed with clear links to your case.

* Other Preferences: Questions should be concise and relevant, not long rebuttals with a half-hearted question at the end. I don't consider road maps to be off-time. The clock starts when you begin speaking, and I will cut you off if you go more than a few seconds over time.

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

Debate:

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

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

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

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

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

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

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

I am focused on helping students improve their public speaking and presentation skills. I competed in speech events as a HS student, and have given many presentations, speeches, and public addresses in my career. I have been officiating and judging competitive events (athletic and academic) for 20 years.

The 2024-25 season is my rookie year as an assistant coach, new to judging at speech and debate tournaments.

I have spent the past 25 years in the corporate training world presenting to groups across the world.

I value good independent research and thoughtful analysis of both sides of a topic.

I value voice inflection and appropriate pacing of presentations.

Debate:

Better research, better presentations of contentions and better counter information of opponent’s contentions wins the debate.

“Don’t bury the lead”…if you speak too fast and present too much information you will increase the likelihood that one of your key arguments will be lost.

Be kind and respectful.

You're amazing and should feel proud of being here today.

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

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

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

Unique note to Public Forum. Regarding a plan in PoFo. I align with Oregon rules. Pro can have a generalized idea of how we might put a policy into practice. They don't need all seven planks of a plan as in Policy. Still, Con can certainly ask questions about parts of the plan such as, " how would we afford this change?"

Final note on PoFo. When the NSDA (then, the NFL) brought in Public Forum Debate, it intended to haveonly lay judges. No coaches, former debaters or even long time parent judges. This debate should be understood by people outside our speech universe. I honor that.

Final note on LD. One of my debaters observed that "all debate forms gravitate to Policy Debate." We see spreading too PoFo and counter plans LD. I believe that each form should offer students a different learning experience. Therefore, for LD, I look to the Values debate. What world are you asking me to uphold and how is it tied to the topic and how will we know it is being upheld (the criterion) in the future. Finally, (no.really. This is the end of this paradigm.. . .most likely) I don't buy Morality as a value.

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

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

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

Event Specific Paradigms

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

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

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

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

Last updated December 2023

Speeches and Debates:

I look for the simple yet important stuff. Eye contact, not having nervous movements, not having filler words, good enunciation, and good speaking speed. Even if your speech was interesting and compelling, not having these skills will hurt you when I am judging.

It is ok to have direct communication and be passionate, but don't be condescending or insulting. I will not allow a rude person or team to win a round.

Debates (some of this information might not apply to your type of debate):

1. Be clear about your argument and go point by point.

Ex for Parli. My first contention is _______. My claim is __________.
My warrant is __________. My impact is __________.

Policy and Lincoln Douglas debaters doing Parliamentary rounds: You need to debate in a parliamentary format!

2. Talk at a reasonable pace, I do not like spreading. When you are refuting make sure that you say which argument you are addressing.

3. Impacts are the make and break for me. Make me care. Tell me what super bad or super amazing things will happen and how that benefits the world. Go all the way. Don't just say "WW3" - the earth is destroyed due to nuclear radiation, there will be mass starvation and famine, no drinkable water, etc. Tell me those things. Go all the way.

4. Do not just throw debate jargon around and expect that to be considered a proper refutation. If something is non-unique tell me why. If something is non-topical you need to have a full topical argument (standard, violation, impact, alternative, voter). I will not consider debate jargon to be a proper rebuttal.

I am a communication judge. I like students to communicate clearly, give real-world examples, and have clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I want to be able to flow and understand the debate without having the evidence flashed to me. Please make sure the taglines are clear and not too long. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form, but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy, but I am not a fan of K's. In PF, I will do a simple flow, but not a line-by-line.

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.

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

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

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

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.

My biggest one is manners. Be professional and kind to your opponents. I also value organization and a smooth delivery of information.

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.

1. Be respectful to each other. We should all leave a debate round, having gained something from the round.

2. Keep me on the flow. Organization is key to a successful debate. Signposting is helpful. Spreading is OK, but if it's unreasonable, I will not be able to flow your speeches.

3. Make sure all claims are warranted, with reasoning: Every claim must include clear reasoning and evidence, and you should explain how it ties back to the resolution or your position.

4. Tabula Rasa: I will never make a connection/conclusion unless it is specified outright.

Be Objective

Believe more in Science and reasoning

Positive Energy

i'm a college freshman at UO, double majoring in econ and accounting, future law student, and i coach at SEHS. :) he/him

experience: did CX in HS for one year, LD for one year, and parli off and on. did every speech genre.

my paradigm is solely about policy, but most of this will apply to other debate formats. if you have any questions about non-cx formats, ask me in round. fine w/ theory, k, philosophy, speed. looking for clash and structure.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

if you have any questions about how a round went, please email me @ below or see me after round, yes, completely after the round, not in the debate room!! bring your flow (or upload pictures on email) if possible! im happy to answer any questions

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

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

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

speaks:

focused mostly on rhetoric, clarity, argument quality. obviously, if you’re a big jerk or super homophobic etc, you’ll get very bad speakers and an immediate vote down too

base speaks is 27, i go under if you're abusive, i often give out 30s -- not to "perfect debaters" but if i feel that you had a good round

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

speed:

OK, slow down on analytics for me please

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

respect:

if you’re being super disrespectful, i’ll report you. immediate vote down for any -isms or -phobias. obviously

you can address me by kieran, "you", or judge/judges. just not my last name. i've heard too many people butcher it lol. do whatever you prefer

i struggle with eye contact in round and really in general, especially in CX. please don't take it personally, i'll try my best

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

for real paradigm:

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

tech > truth, game theorist judge

meme arguments? cool. performances? cool.

i'll prob know more abt economics than the avg voter but consider me moderately informed on everything else.

rhetoric and voter issues are incredibly important to me!! tell me why you win! tell me why i am signing my ballot for you or voting on a certain position!! ur speaks will not only reflect it, but i'll be more likely to vote for you

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

BASIC HOUSE-KEEPING

keep your off-time roadmap to like 5 sec max pls, should only be paper order

i don't dock prep-time for sending the doc.

i don't dock prep-time for checking the other teams cards unless it's excessive. if they're paper cards im checking post round too!!!

i will time you, but self-timing is encouraged.

idc if you sit or stand

tag-teaming is fine. i don't care who asks the most questions. i don't often flow cx (i just like to listen) but attitude is important to me!!

i understand most jargon

aff leaning on condo

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

K

cap, qpess, biopolitics and (most) alts = i understand well (that doesn't mean explain it poorly tho just because ik about it)

afropess, afrofuturism, set col, death, property, race war, virilio = basic understanding‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

i <3 K debate

i'm okay with soft left aff's and k-aff. pref towards k aff/soft left over policy aff. i enjoy learning new things. :)

how i evaluate K: links, impx and alt. address alt well as aff and neg. i'd prefer to vote on K than anything else. i find that good K debate focuses around our own advocacy and our own viewpoints and ideologies. tell me why voting for a certain team is harmful/good for debate or for the world or for education or whatever ur going for.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

T and theory

obviously these are a bit different but this is just kinda general, you can ask me in round if ur curious

most important part of any case -- always address adequately. idc what kind of T/theory you run just ensure it at least kinda makes sense.

how i evaluate T/theory : trad way to evaluate. interp, violation, standards, voters... if you don't hit every part of T and it's imperative to my ballot, you will lose. if you drop T as the aff, you will lose.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎

CP

cps are fine, i love PICs and do not view them as abusive/bad but i can still vote on that, love the ballot PIC

how i evaluate cps : perm(s), mutually exclusivity (functional, not textual), solvency, uq

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

case specific da's > generic da's, duh

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

1 - k and k-aff :)

2 - theory

3 - t

4 - cp

5 - da

6 - tricks :,(

I competed in policy debate and extemporaneous speaking at a high level in high school and was a policy debater in college and worked at a few summer institutes and was an assistant coach for a couple of different high schools and Speech and Debate was my home for many important and formative years of my life. I love the activity and I'm grateful the everything its done for my life and for the opportunity to give back via judging during my daughter's career.

As far as the debate activities go, my ear is not as fast as it used to be but I'll catch most citations with years. I'm open to any arguments and will generally reward the team that did the best debating in the round and I appreciate teams who use their final speeches to explain why they should win. Off time road maps are great but don't use them to sneak in arguments ("and then I'm going to talk about how my opponent dropped my 2nd contention"). I also don't care for a 30 second cross x question that is really an argument with a question mark awkwardly tacked on the end, just use cross x to set up it up and then address their bad answer in your speech.

As far as the speech activities, I've judged Exempt and Impromptu and Oratory quite a bit, I have some experience with the other speech events and little to no experience judging the drama events but happy to assist where needed.

Please be kind to each other. These days are long and hard enough as its is, nobody (including me) needs that negative energy added to the mix. Some stuff is unavoidable but if you go out of your way to be rude it might cost you speaker points.

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.

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.

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.

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