Ashland Grizzly Invitational
2018
—
Ashland,
OR/US
Judges (Friday/Saturday) Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Susan Aaronson
Ashland HS
Last changed on
Wed January 29, 2020 at 2:54 AM PDT
I'm a parent, but have judged approximately 20+ debates and speeches. Please speak slowly and clearly. Most importantly, be nice and professional. I will take off points for unnecessary rudeness during a debate.
I prefer teams to time themselves but will follow with my phone.
Not necessary to shake hands before or after, let's keep germs to a limit :)
Pamela Ator
Ashland HS
None
Ginny Auer
Ashland HS
None
Nichole Barber
North Medford HS
None
Carson Bennett
South Medford HS
8 rounds
None
Malinda Breedlove-Wilson
Illinois Valley HS
None
Gordon Brown
Ashland HS
None
Michele Brown
Ashland HS
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM PDT
I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!
Here's me in a nutshell:
1. Experience
* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles
2. General Preferences
* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.
3. Specific Preferences - Parli
* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.
Caroline Campbell
South Medford HS
8 rounds
None
Sue Carroll
Ashland HS
None
Tyler Cienfuegos
South Medford HS
None
Kayla Crook
Marshfield High School
None
Michael Curry
Sprague High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:24 AM PDT
About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.
About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.
So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.
My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.
Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.
Rebecca Daneman
Ashland HS
None
Michael Datz
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Jennifer Delsman
South Medford HS
None
Last changed on
Fri March 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM CDT
Updated 3/25/22
TLDR; I believe that true tab judges don't exist, but I will listen to any argument and evaluate it within the context of the round. I debated policy and public forum in high school and did NPDA in college.
I competed in debate throughout middle school, high school, and college for a combined total of 8 years of competitive experience. I graduated from a small high school program where I primarily competed in policy and national circuit PF, including the TOC. In college, I competed in NPDA at California Lutheran University. I have done every style of debate at some point, so I am familiar with and ready to listen to anything. For my first year and a half of debate, I was relatively traditional (think politics DA every round), but I became increasingly progressive as my career progressed (i.e. I ran critical race theory on the PF circuit).
Kritiks: I'm familiar with the literature base of most and can comprehend anything. Structure is very important to me here because it is very easy to get bogged down in a poorly structured K debate. If you're reading something kritikal, please explain your K whether I know it or not. If you can't explain your K, I'm probably not going to be super compelled by it. I am a firm believer that debate should be accessible to everyone, which means that your poorly articulated BwO arguments will lose to me every time (especially if you can't answer questions about it). All that being said, I was the kid that read genealogical interrogations in PF, so I will be happy with just about anything.
CPs: AFF has to read a perm. It takes less time to say "perm: do both" than it will take your opponent to respond no matter their WPM. CPs should have solvency to be compelling.
Theory: I love a good theory debate, but make sure you have all parts of a shell and give me reasons why the T matters. If you're answering theory, I prefer line by line down the shell than a blanket response. I don't think RVIs are the best strategy against theory, but I am willing to listen to and vote on them if the teams feel it is necessary.
DAs: Before reading the DA you are considering, ask yourself "does this make sense?" If the answer is no, try again. As long as you can articulate uniqueness, links, internals, and impacts, the DA should make sense. I have heard and voted on some out there DAs, but my threshold for explanation remains high here.
Speaker Points: I think they are useless and generally exclusionary, but I will assign them as the tournament requires. 30 speaks theory takes 10 seconds... do with that what you will.
Everything else: Give me solid impacts and tell me why you're winning. Good impact calc is the fastest path to my ballot. I am fine with any speed and can flow whatever. I recognize that CX is binding, but I don't flow it, so say it in a speech if you want it on my flow.
My general philosophy is that debate should be accessible and equitable. That means a couple of things that could help or hurt you. For one, I am receptive to arguments with an impact in the debate space. It also means I am sensitive to things like gendered language, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. I believe that you should not run an argument that you are not passionate about, and likewise that if you are passionate about something that you should run it no matter how strong your coach thinks it is.
If you have questions, please ask in round!
If I judged you and you have more questions for me that you didn't get to ask in round, email me at kdhenin@callutheran.edu. I will do my best to get back to you before your next tournament with anything that might help you, and I am happy to send you my flows if you think they will be helpful to you.
Last changed on
Sat November 10, 2018 at 1:00 AM PDT
I am a parent judge though I have judged Parli numerous times at other tournaments in Oregon and at NPDI last year.
Please speak slowly and clearly and only run technical arguments (like theory) when absolutely necessary and explain them when you're using them since I'm not very familiar with them.
I will do my best to judge you on the merits of your arguments rather than your speaking style. I will vote for the team that is most convincing.
Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.
David Paul Doyle
Ashland HS
Last changed on
Fri November 9, 2018 at 2:24 AM PDT
I am a parent judge though I have judged Parli numerous times at other tournaments in Oregon and at NPDI last year.
Please speak slowly and clearly and only run technical arguments (like theory) when absolutely necessary and explain them when you're using them since I'm not very familiar with them.
I will do my best to judge you on the merits of your arguments rather than your speaking style. I will vote for the team that is most convincing.
Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.
Kate Dyer-Seeley
Ashland HS
None
Quinn Earle
Willamette HS
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 11:22 AM EDT
Experience: Competed: 2012-2016 and Coached 2017-Present
I will judge based on argumentation, logic, and the reality of the situation.
I prefer no off-time road-maps, you have a speech limit keep it within that and the grace period, please.
PLEASE NO SPREADING, if I can't understand you it will be difficult for you to win the ballot.
Don't be rude.
Stay organized if you are bouncing all over the place it will disorganize my flow and it will be hard to ensure you get the W.
Stay on topic and stay within the parameters of the resolutions, don't pull anything too crazy that completely changes the wording or the intentions of the resolution.
Use short taglines for your contentions if you can. I don't want to spend half your speech trying to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be, make it clear right from the beginning.
Don't talk down to me, your partner, or your opponent(s). I will not tolerate this and will result in a lower score.
Make sure you have your cards ready because if I don't believe that you're presenting truthful/faithful evidence I will double-check them and if you don't have them it may not work out in your favor.
Matthew Eldridge
Illinois Valley HS
Last changed on
Mon June 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM PDT
When I judge CX debate, I am a STOCK ISSUES judge. I do consider Topicality but still expect the issues of the debate to be dated. I look heavy on the Aff to prove they are SOLVING for a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THE STATUS QUO. I honestly don’t like fiat and will accept a counter Politics DA to be run. I flow and vote on my paradigm.
When judging LD Value: I give a lot of weight to values presented in the round. It is really hard to win the round if you lose your value, although I do pledge to vote on the flow.
When considering events like World Schools, I expect the speaking team to accept questions unless it 1) is interrupting current flow of ideas 2)The opposition is using the act of asking questions as an abusive means of owning another team’s speaking time. Also, spread defined by more than 3 sub points will not be accepted, flowed, or considered for voting. Like all styles of debate l, please ask for my vote, give me voters, provide road-map and sign post, please.
Last changed on
Mon June 8, 2020 at 4:41 AM PDT
I competed in Public Forum and Radio in high school and have been coaching for 3 years, judging for 5.
Above all, please be respectful. This includes your opponents, teammate and judges.
I expect competitors to time themselves in round (IE & Debate). I can keep up with a fast paced speech but make sure that you can maintain clarity. I will flow debate rounds, so I value organization and will vote on the flow. Short taglines are very helpful for keeping track of contentions.
Polly Farrimond
Phoenix
None
Kayla Fennell
Ashland HS
None
Tara Frazier-Rice
Ashland HS
None
Faith Gadling
Sprague High School
None
Danna Gibson
Ashland HS
None
Josh Gross
Ashland HS
None
Jason Harris
Willamette HS
8 rounds
None
Katherine Hernandez
South Medford HS
None
Aubry Hollingshead
Ashland HS
None
Coi Holloway
South Medford HS
None
Danielle Howard
Illinois Valley HS
None
Elena Hynes
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jacob Ilten
South Medford HS
None
Dean Jackman
South Medford HS
8 rounds
None
Aura Johnson
Ashland HS
None
Katie Kantrowitz
Silverton HS
None
Donald Kirk
North Bend Sr HS
None
Wendy Laird
Sandy HS
8 rounds
None
Nikolas Lindauer
Ashland HS
Last changed on
Fri October 6, 2023 at 9:02 AM PDT
I debated in high school and studied philosophy in college. No types of arguments are off limits, so if you've been saving a performative K AFF, now's the time. That being said, if it's really weird, it would be good to run it by your opponent first for the sake of having a good round.
Don't try to convince me global warming is a myth or racism is over. Other than that, each round starts with a blank slate. No new arguments in rebuttal speeches, tell me how to weigh your arguments, and don't belittle your opponents. I don't flow CX, but it is binding.
Joseph Livni
Ashland HS
None
Mat Marr
Ashland HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:10 AM PDT
Updated January 2024
Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.
My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.
Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)
I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.
Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.
I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.
I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.
Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.
Good skill and have fun.
Specific event notes:
Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.
ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.
Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.
I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.
For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com
Paul James Joseph Martin
Hire
None
Paul James Martin
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Robert McAdam
Phoenix
None
Michael McCandless
South Medford HS
None
Stephen McClanahan
Silverton HS
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 12:52 AM PDT
Debate through high school (2009-2013), primarily Lincoln Douglas
Coach of the Silverton High School team (2015-2019)
Clash
You can pick up cheap heat from dropped defense and impact out into oblivion - which, admittedly, can make the difference - but if I feel you're being abusive impacting out, I have no problem saying so on ballot. Use any weighing mechanisms/cards to make your impacts believable and I'm a happy judge.
Specificity is key. I want to see pin-point accuracy in the line-by-line; so much of debate skill is economy of ideas, and I want to see you use what matters. Tell me exactly in the card where you are at all times; just that little bit of extra time keeps us all - including yourself - on track for the offense you're generating. If you're being intentionally vague to cover, you should have considered dropping the point.
Personal Notes
Any case/k/etc that requires you to take my laptop from me is an easy win for your opponent. If you follow through with Baudrillard and take it without asking, I will listen, but the second I get my laptop I sign the ballot.
Tamara McPhilomy
South Medford HS
None
Last changed on
Fri March 15, 2024 at 10:10 AM PDT
Public Forum debate is not designed to be a talk as fast as you can debate. It is designed to be spoken at a clear and reasonable rate and pace. As a newer judge I want to be able to keep up with the debate.
Doug Miller
Marshfield High School
Last changed on
Fri November 22, 2019 at 11:52 PM PDT
Quality beats quantity every time. There's no value to speaking as fast as humanly possible. If I can only catch 50% of what you say, you're wasting 50% of the time you have.
Arguing the meaning of a common word may work in a deposition, but won't win a debate.
I prefer no off time road maps. If you wish to lay out your speaking plan, please do that in your allotted time.
Asking my paradigms, then ignoring them almost always ends with a loss.
Last changed on
Wed May 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM PDT
Background
I did parli and extemp at Ashland High School in Oregon. I also occasionally did LD and PF including on the national circuit and at NSDAs. I ran a really wide range of things in high school, and I love creative debaters. I studied broadcast journalism in college, so this topic excites me. Have fun and let me know if there is any questions before the round.
TLDR
Do:
Run what you want
Collapse at the end of the round
Have structure and signpost
Don't:
Shadow Extend
Read something you don't understand
Say all Ks are bad
General
I'm five years out now, but I think I can still keep up. I will vote on almost anything, but I am lazy, so please make it easy for me. That means explain your arguments, why you won them, and why that means you won the round. Anything you want me to vote on, should be in your last speech, regardless of debate style. I will disclose after the round if I can.
Speed/Speaks
Vocal inflection should not disappear when you go fast. That is especially true in later speeches. I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. Speaks are about clean speeches with good strategy. An overview never hurts.
DAs/CP
Case debate is fun. I am down for generics, but that does open you up to non uniques easier. I will probably not vote on politics unless the link is really good. CPs are underutilized, especially advantage CPs.
Kritiks
Ran them a fair amount when I was debating. Please understand the K you are running. Links are key to everything. I am pretty sympathetic to the perm if there is no clear link. I am most familiar with whiteness, cap and anthro. High theory needs to be explained, but I am open to it and familiar with a lot of the general ideas behind it. Identity Ks are great, but saying you deserve the ballot only because the debate space is unfair an uphill battle with me. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.
Theory
Default to competing interps, no RVIs and theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but it is stronger with it than without it. If you want me to vote on it you need to make sure each part of the shell has clear offense that you extend. More specific interps are going to give you a better shot at the ballot and better speaks
Framework
Default is net benefits/policy maker. I am fine with anything however self serving roles of the ballot are really annoying and if they have no warrant, then they are easy to get out of for your opponent. I am comfortable with most of the major moral theories that are used. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know.
Weighing
Default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise.
Evidence
The warrant is the thing that matters no matter the style. Put me on the email chain or tell me what cards you want me to call. The more card calling I have to do by myself, the more I am having to intervening.
Miscellaneous
I believe in terminal defense, so going for try or die when you have conceded you solve nothing is not going to win you anything.
Tag teaming is all good, but don’t be that team that tag teams the whole time.
Shadow extensions are bad. Arguments need to be extended throughout the round.
Jargon is meant to make debate more efficient, not more exclusive. Use whatever terms you think you can get your point across best with.
If you have questions or want to talk more about a round I already judged you in, email me at karl.moeglein@gmail.com or message me on Facebook. Feel free to clarify anything you want to before the round.
Rob Moeny
North Valley HS
Last changed on
Mon June 17, 2019 at 2:38 AM PDT
I love World Schools Debate and have been coaching the South Oregon teams since NSDA started hosting it at the National Tournament. I believe you should adapt to the style you are given, so please consider what the expectations of this activity are before you enter into the round. Beyond the generic expectations of WSD, here are the things I'm specifically looking for:
A collegial atmosphere: Debate is about more then the win-loss record. Respect your opponents and the activity.
A broader world view: WSD asks us to join the community of nations and debate in a less US-centric model. That said, this year's topics are very US based at times. I will consider that when weighing your ability to adapt to me expectations.
Logical, well-supported arguments: You do not need to overwhelm me with evidence, but I do expect to hear some. The Tag,Card/Tag,Card approach is not going to win my ballot. Be sure you explain your ideas and listen to each other's evidence.
Good luck, and let's have a great round.
Jazmine Molloy
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
madolyn molloy
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Miykael Moore
Ashland HS
None
Bashira Muhammad
Ashland HS
None
joshua Newman
North Medford HS
None
Frances Oyung
Ashland HS
None
Ellen Pfeifer
Mountain View HS
None
Karl Pryor
Ashland HS
None
Naseem Rakha
Silverton HS
Last changed on
Sat December 15, 2018 at 1:45 AM PDT
For debate: Clear and concise. Polite. No spreading.
Elijah Rakha-Sheketoff
Silverton HS
None
Bryant Rominger
South Medford HS
None
Max Rudd
Sprague High School
None
Harriet Saturen
Ashland HS
None
steve saturen
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Beth Scholes
North Valley HS
None
Gordy Seeley
Ashland HS
None
Sarah Silver
Ashland HS
None
Adrienne Simmons
Ashland HS
None
Joe Spurgeon
St Mary's
None
Last changed on
Fri December 14, 2018 at 11:33 AM PDT
Tl;dr Debate is a game, so have fun. Just please don’t have fun by pushing other people out of the space.
Background
I competed in parli and policy for Ashland High during all four years of high school. I was pretty active in both the Oregon circuit and the NorCal parli circuit.
Approach to Judging
I don’t believe debate occurs in a vacuum. One of my least favorite paradigms I heard in high school was “If you tell me the sky is yellow, I’ll believe you unless your opponents dispute it.” I know the sky is not yellow; please don’t flat out lie to me in round and hope your opponents miss it. That being said, I will not answer or extend arguments for you, or make cross applications for you.
Also
If you want me to vote for you, make it easy. That means final speeches should include impact calculus and weighing.
General
Please don’t shake my hand. Nothing personal, I just don’t want to get sick and I don’t know where your hands have been.
If I don’t give you feedback in round for whatever reason, you can find me after and I’ll probably be willing to discuss the round with you.
I’m fine with tag teaming, but if it gets excessive then it may be reflected in your speaker points.
Use questions wisely.
Be respectful to your opponents. You’re trying to beat them in a debate round, not verbally abuse them. If someone is startlingly rude or offensive, I’m open to hearing rhetoric turns but would rather avoid this situation altogether.
Krtiks
I will listen to whatever you want to run as long as you can justify its relevance to the round. I was pretty into kritiks in high school. I mostly ran cap, neolib, and absurdity, but I read and heard all sorts of other stuff. That being said, the thing I hated most about the circuit towards the end of high school was that teams started to get away with assuming that the judge knew the argument. Just because I know the argument it doesn’t mean that I will warrant the claim for you. Performance is super fun; I read parts of FDT by YG in a couple rounds last year. If you’re performing something or rejecting the resolution and you don’t have good framework blocks, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Theory/Topicality
I dig crazy theory rounds as long as they’re well structured and warranted. I defer to competing interpretations but if you can prove that reasonability is better for a specific instance, that’s cool too.
Counterplans
If you have one, justify why.
Condo?
Fine.
Speed
I can understand most speed pretty well, but in my experience in high school I only met a handful of people who could actually spread clearly. If you trade speed for clarity it’s gonna be tough to vote for you. If you use it to push your opponents out of round, it will be reflected heavily in your speaker points, but probably won’t lose you the round because I have yet to hear a convincing speed theory interpretation. Please don’t do that though.
Jennifer Stephens
Marshfield High School
None
Marta Tarantsey
Sprague High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun December 16, 2018 at 6:05 AM PDT
Be the kind of opponent your coach thinks you are.
Clash flows better.
Clarity is good; topicality can be. Running T for the sake of running T is not.
Last changed on
Fri December 14, 2018 at 12:48 PM EDT
BS Psych. Reed College
MS Sped. Portland State University
Middle school math and science teacher
Business owner and non-profit board member
Very little debate experience
Alexander Vasquez
Grants Pass HS
None
Kristi Walker
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Traci Walker
Ashland HS
8 rounds
None
Gypsy Warrick
Marshfield High School
Last changed on
Sat January 19, 2019 at 8:37 AM PDT
Debate:
I have a difficult time hearing, so please speak slow enough for me to understand you, when you spread and I cannot follow I will rank you down.
Please be respectful, follow your opponent's case and make sure you have good clash.
Please limit jargon, anyone off the street should be able to understand your case, big words don't win cases.
IE's
Again, I have a hard time hearing, please speak to the back of the room.
I look for you to have a connection to your piece. I want to feel that you understand the emotions that you are portraying.
For Informs/Expos/Extemp/Impromptu/Oratory - I would like you to have some energy when delivering your piece, just because it's not an interp does not mean that it has to be monotone.
Mike Wehr
S. Eugene H. S.
None
Carolyn Wetzel Moeglein
Ashland HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon June 14, 2021 at 4:52 AM PDT
I have been involved on and off since 2013 as a parent judge, originally in Debate, more recently in Extemp and Impromtu Speech.
There are a few things that I appreciate from speakers.
1. Organization is very important to me. Clearly labeling your contentions and any other points will make it easier for me to follow your arguments. I do flow to the best of my ability, and if you signpost during your speech, I will have an easier time flowing and your arguments will be more clear. A final wrap up that pulls it all together is always appreciated.
2. Your last speech should be focused on why you have won the debate basically writing the ballot for me. Do not rehash arguments that have already been made. For debaters to be successful they will explain how they are winning what has already been presented by clarifying and comparing impacts.
3. Speed is not something I am comfortable with yet. Speaking clearly is helpful.
4. I will do my best to keep my own biases out of the round, but there are generally accepted truths that should be followed. The more outlandish your argument, the more you need to back it up. I like evidence, and am willing to be convinced, but it is your job to convince me.
Hazel Wheeler
Ashland HS
None
Gregg Williams
North Bend Sr HS
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 9:09 AM PDT
In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:
CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.
LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.
Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.
Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.
I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.