I've coached for 10 years but this year my coaching has primarily focused on getting our speech team up and running. I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments. That means I probably do not know the acronyms you are using and have a rudimentary understanding of IP rights because my coaching focus has been elsewhere.

Put me on the email chain mdcdebate@gmail.com

Speed: You should go 60%-70% of your top speed in front of me, and slow down on analytics. I'll clear you once and after that if I miss an arg then it doesn't exist to me.

*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

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

For debate events, I will be evaluating for clear speaking, signposting, and civility. I do not want spreading.

I prefer debates based on the topic and less on semantics and definitions. If you run K or T, be prepared to explain it clearly to me

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.

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

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

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

Talking at a good pace, not speed talking is preferred. I'm looking for clear topics and contentions.

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.

Hi! I'm Alicia, and I debated at Northland Christian for 4 years in Houston, Tx. I currently attend Portland State University, and am majoring in Criminology and Criminal Justice on the Pre-Law track.

I have experience in a variety of events such as LD, Extemp, Congress and Worlds. My goal as a judge is to evaluate arguments in the round as they are laid out to me. I will not intervene with what I think is the best argument, but what I am told is the most important argument by competitors in round.

Debate is a safe space, if I hear anything racist, transphobic, ableist, sexist, etc. there will be an immediate loss, and report to Tab.

Remember to have fun, I get there is so much preparation into ANY event, so just debate/do the best you can do!

What I Want to See in a Worlds Round:

- I want things to be extremely clear. This looks like explaining why an argument is true, why it's important, and how it interacts with your opponents case/arguments. Not doing this makes it extremely hard for me as a judge to know what arguments matter more, and why I should be voting off of it. If you aren't explicit with your arguments/characterization then I won't buy it.

Note: This also looks like signposting specific arguments, numbering responses if you have multiple, etc.

- It's not enough for you to simply win that the other side is bad, but ALSO why YOUR SIDE IS BETTER!!If you do this it makes it SO MUCH EASIER as a judge to compare both worlds as it played out in the round.

- I think clashes are incredibly important!!! Throughout speeches having arguments condensed in this way allows you to prioritize what matters most in order to win which i love! While I'm fine with line by line speeches, just be aware I will then evaluate the round based on what arguments you did respond to/which ones you spend the most time on.

- PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE.When it comes to offense vs. defense, I would much rather vote on offensive material because there's more comparative work done when giving offense. This also means having fully flushed out-arguments, and being able to properly weigh them

-Stick to the heart of what the motion is talking about. Yes, to some degree if both teams can't agree on FW then you can focus on that, but it's definitely not the most strategic way to win a round. Some of the best debates focus less on winning the little things, and more about focusing on the big picture of what a motion might be asking you to defend/oppose.

-BE CONSISTENT THROUGH ALL SPEECHES! If your 1st speaker says one thing and then your 2nd speaker says something completely opposite, then it really harms the arguments being made. In an ideal world, a team should stick to the arguments they plan on collapsing on in the 3. I think consistency is oftens what can save a round, and should definitely be prioritized

- I think style is important BUT not essential in order to win a round. At the very least, you should sound passionate about what you're debating about. Think of style as a tool to leverage the importance of your arguments. This maybe looks like having humor in your intro, or emphasizing strategic mistakes in a way that makes the other side appear they've lost. Don't force your style to be something that it isn't, just be you:)

-This should be a given, but PLEASE be kind during round. It's one thing to know the people you are debating but another when you are just inconsiderate to those either new to worlds/making rude comments. Speech and Debate is a safe space, so please keep this in mind when debating. On my part, I will try to give balanced feedback->What both teams can work on, Why I voted for a side, what arguments were good and which ones to leave out, and what I liked in your speech and what I think you can work on.

For Speech:

-For Extemp please have relevant sources(tell me the date and year/where you are referencing your evidence from)

-PLEASE do not make up sources.

-At the very most, sound passionate. Speech is all about emotion, and even in Extemp this is no different. When explaining your points I want to at least see you care about the issues you bring up. This looks different for everyone, but at most I should be able to tell you care about what you are talking about.

-Make sure the points you give are relevant to the topic you talk about. I think the biggest thing is having points that sound too similar, having unique points that still circle back to the topic really help strengthen your speech.

For Congress:

-PLEASE do not be pad dependent. It's one thing to look down every once in a while when reading evidence, but it's another when you look down for something like an intro. If you come well prepared, it should show by your ability to memorize the important parts of your speech.

-Make points that make you stand out. If you provide me with points/arguments that haven't been mentioned, I will notice and your ranks will reflect that. However, it's one thing to make a new argument that is relevant in round, and one that isn't. Use your best judgement when making new arguments.

-Even if you have a late round speech, please try to engage during the round. Asking questionings is a big thing I don't see, and so asking questioning throughout show that you are engaged. If you are asking questions that are strong, I will make note of that.

My speech experience extends only to extemp, but debate-wise, I’ve done pretty much everything with the most emphasis on parli & policy. I’m fine with speed, but if this is a debate round for something where you’re going to go at it, add me to the email chain (towne.korbin@gmail.com). Also, please ensure you clarify where you are reading from so that if there is jumping around, I can follow your cards/flow.

A handful of other quick but helpful things

• Off-time road maps are something I like, but stick to your basics; don’t draw it out.

• Self-timing is preferred, and it will help you pace yourself. Use a stopwatch that counts up with you, not a timer that counts down. It helps to ensure that if you do go over, it’s not for too long.

• I will time you and give you 15 seconds of grace unless the event specifies otherwise; in that case, please double-check and let me know. That is a large cushion, please do not go over.

• I’m very familiar with T shells & K’s; just run them correctly. Please make it extremely clear why it is A priori; otherwise, I’m going to view it as equal to another contention.

• Good things to emphasize include impacts, timeframe, reversibility, probability, and severity. Don't try and feed me some 1% chance nuke war bs. Please.

• I’m not a lay judge; I like organization, but you can win an argument and not be organized or talk pretty. (Please signpost, don’t ramble.)

• Just because I’m not a parent judge doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explain yourself & your advocacy clearly. Make it clear why you win and not your opponent.

• I’d rather not judge a definitions debate. I doubt you want to debate one. If the two definitions are truly that different, convince me why yours is better, and let's leave it at that, or better yet, show me why you win under their definition too.

• I might have more event-specific paradigms and preferences; feel free to ask.

Don’t be mean, I’ll drop you. Full speaks in debate rounds if you make the other team laugh. If you don't know, ask & we'll figure it out. Email me with any questions.

The most important part of any speech is a clear, organized structure that is enhanced with persuasive arguments. Each speech should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion, with smooth transitions and effective signposting to guide the listener. Students should not only present their points clearly but also convey their significance in a compelling way. When they articulate the impact of their arguments, it truly enhances their overall effectiveness. Ultimately, I’m excited to reward participants that showcase both a structured approach and engaging persuasion, as these elements are essential for a successful debate experience.