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 :)

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.

Updated Jan 31st, 2020 for Stanford

Tldr: I vote on the flow. Read whatever you want as long as its inclusive. Speed should be fine. Debate is a game so use the best strategy you can. I love theory & cps and am okay with kritiks. I don’t protect so call POOs. Be nice. Don’t shake my hand. Ask me any specific questions before the round starts.

About:

-Pronouns: she/her/hers

-I competed for Ashland High School for 4 years mainly in Parli (went to ToC my Junior and Senior year). Most of my experience was in lay debate but I prefer flow/ think it’s more fun. You do you though.

-Freshman in college so this will be my first time judging/ not debating at Stanford : )

General:

-I vote based on the flow but don’t want to do any work for you. Please weigh, collapse, extend, and be organized.

-Read whatever arguments you want to as long as their not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-Debate is a game so I appreciate good, creative strategies/arguments

-I default to net benefits. If you’re using other framework please explain and justify it.

-I don’t accept shadow extensions so if something is read in the PMC it needs to be extended by the MG for the PMR to leverage it. Same with the neg.

-I do not protect against new arguments so please call Point of Orders.

-Please accept at least one question in every speech. I will vote on POI theory if it is run well.

-Tag teaming is fine but I will only flow the words from the speaker’s mouth.

-Please read interps/ texts twice. I will be very happy if you give me and your opponents a copy of the text.

Speed:

-I am fairly comfortable with speed as long as you’re clear.

-If needed I will call slow once and clear twice per speech if I can’t understand you. After that I will just put my pen down.

Case:

-I prefer AD/DA structure with uniqueness, links, impacts.

-The more specific and warranted the better.

-I don’t like voting on blippy arguments or arguments without clear impacts. If you want me to vote on a conceded argument please clearly explain its relevance/impacts.

Theory:

-One of my favorite parts of the debate as a debater. That being said, not a fan of frivolous theory just to run it and it is not likely to win you the round.

-I’m fine with anything i.e. POI theory, meta theory, 30 speaks (if extended) etc. just please don’t use it to purposely skew your opponents out of the round

-Please have all parts of the shell if you’re reading theory with clear impacts and underview.

-I default to competing interps.

-I default to drop the argument unless you specify otherwise.

-I will not vote on just a conceded standard unless it is well articulated and extended.

-Please tell me theory is a-priori so I can weigh it above case and articulate where it should be weighed if Kritiks are in the round.

CPs:

-Please use CPs to your advantage! I love them

-I’m fine with anything i.e. condo or PICs as long as you can win the theory debate

-Perms are a test of competition not an advocacy unless I am told otherwise

-If your opponents run a CP please make the debate better be fully responding it it i.e. solvency deficits, perms, disadvantages to the CP, etc.

Kritiks:

-I don’t have much experience with Kritiks but I’m fine if you run them just please be organized & clear

-I’m likely not familiar with your lit base unless it’s cap and I can’t vote on things I don’t understand so please explain

-Don’t run a K unless you have solid links

-Please tell me where to weigh it if theory is also in the round

-Not a fan of K Affs but the debate space is yours so if you run it, do it well

Be inclusive:

-Be nice!

-Please address your opponents by “my opponent” unless you know their pronouns.

-Let me know at the beginning of the debate if there’s something you need/want that can make the space more accessible for you i.e. sitting instead of standing during speeches.

-If you’re reading sensitive material please include a trigger warning in advance, i.e. before the round or before your speech.

If you have any questions you can email me at hdoyle23@cmc.edu, FB message me or ask me before the round.

This is preetty short, but please let me know if there are any more specific questions, whether in an email or before the round.

In general, I will vote on anything you put out there as long as it's well argued etc. I'm pretty much completely tabula rasa. I will vote on things I personally disagree with or wouldn't do if you win that argument.

I did 3 years of policy debate in high school with some LD and parli mixed into that. In my senior year I ran a soft left aff and a fem performance aff, to give you some idea of the arguments I'm familiar with. I'm doing APDA in college so my reent exposure to policy is pretty limited. If if you have any questions about my paradigm or have questions after a round, my email is laurelmeddins@gmail.com

Specific arguments:

DAs: I mainly went for DAs in high school. In varsity I expect them to be well linked and impacted. If not, you're going to have a harder time getting my ballot in the 2ar. Specific are always preferable to generics.

CPs: I strongly believe that a CP can be the most strategic argument in debate. I'm a big fan of PICS but I'll also vote on theory against them.

Theory/T/FW: I have a relatively high threshold on theory but can be persuaded to lower that depending on the argument. I'm generally not a big fan of any of these types of debates (partly because I was never very good at them, tbh) but also because I find them repetitive. If you want to go for theory or FW or T in front of me feel free to, just make sure to argue it well.

Ks: I'm reasonably comfortable with basic Ks, but it really depends on what you're running. Feel free to ask me before the round for specifics, but as a general rule I don't understand anything too, too advanced. That being said! I love learning new things but you're going to have to explain things well to me. If you're reading something I don't understand and do a bad job of making it clear, I'm probably not going to vote for you.

Speed is good but I haven't been around debate for 6ish months so please keep it reasonable. Use CX to your advantage and you'll get more speaks, pretty generic. If you're conflicted about where to pref me or have any other questions feel free to shoot me an email or know that I'm tab enough to probably adapt to whatever you're doing.

For LD, same as for policy, I understand that the V/C debate is important but honestly I prefer the actual policy debate. Obviously still read the V/C stuff but if your last speech is JUST about the framing it might be harder to get my ballot. Other than that, everything is the same as policy. I did a few tournaments in LD so I'm reasonably familiar with the format.

[Tom Lininger, the debate coach at South Eugene High School, wrote this paradigm on January 20, 2017. ]

David Gingold is a lawyer.  He is the father of a freshman debater at South Eugene High School. He doesn't have a lot of experience judging high school debate, but he previously judged middle school debate.

He is smart, familiar with current events, and careful to listen to all sides before making a decision. 

To maximize your odds of succeeding when you argue in front of this judge, you should do the following: speak at a comprehensible pace, provide plain labels for your arguments, clash as much as possible with your opponent, behave civilly, and weigh the debate in later speeches. Use all your time, but don't repeat yourself. Avoid jargon that is unique to the debate world. Provide an off-time roadmap if possible.

If you have questions about this judge's preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts.

I competed for four years during high school (4-time OSAA State Championships qualifier, 3-time NSDA National Tournament qualifier) and coached the season following my graduation. I'm familiar with all forms of debate (except Policy... we veered away from that) and can handle reasonable speed. I'll drop my pen if I can't keep up.

Really, above all else, you probably know what you're doing if you're reading my paradigm so don't abuse the round or your opponents, don't embarrass yourselves, and win my flow if you want to win the round.

[The author of this page is Tom Lininger, Marjorie Lininger's son.]

Marjorie Lininger is a retired principal and teacher who worked at several schools, including Ashland Junior High School, Hedrick Middle School, and South Medford High School.

She does not have much experience judging high school debate, but she used to teach speech at Ashland Junior High School, and she competed in speech and debate when she was a high school student herself.

She is smart, familiar with current events, and careful to listen to all sides before making a decision.

To maximize your odds of succeeding when you argue in front of this judge, you should do the following: speak at a comprehensible pace, provide plain labels for your arguments, clash as much as possible with your opponent, behave civilly, and weigh the debate in later speeches. Use all your time, but don't repeat yourself. Avoid jargon that is unique to the debate world. Provide an off-time roadmap if possible.

If you have any questions about this judge's preferences, please feel free to ask before the start of the round.

I've been a debate coach at South Eugene High School and Springfield High School (both in Oregon). I'm also a law professor at the University of Oregon. I was a lawyer before I became a professor.

I'm not going to write too much here because this is YOUR round. From my perspective, speed is fine, any K is fine, any competitive CP is fine, esoteric theory is fine, and T is also fair game (but rarely dispositive unless the aff has really overreached). If you prefer a straight-up policy debate, I'm fine with that too. I'll listen to anything. Just build your arguments carefully and explain why you think you have won.

When I flow, I devote a separate sheet to each argument. I'd appreciate a brief off-time roadmap in advance of each speech so I can put my flow sheets in order. You'll make a better record if you give a plain label for each point.

Be a good sport, don't whine, and above all, have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have a fair bit of experience judging, starting with middle school debate for two years including nationals. I'm not a flow judge, but I take notes and do my best to follow arguments made, dropped, countered, etc. I'm not into lingo or clever devices. I'm a journalist by profession and cover the California Legislature, regulatory agencies, and various state and federal courts. This means I get paid to listen to people debate or make arguments to me directly every day. When I judge, I want to see a clash on the topic and good critical thinking skills. Convince me that your position is the correct one. It's that simple.

Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.

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.

While I take into account technical points, I mainly base my decisions on the much simpler premise of who was most persuasive in their argument and the way they presented their argument. If you speak so quickly that I can't understand what you are saying, or that I have to work really hard to understand what you are saying, I hold that against you. I encourage you to imagine we are in a real life setting, and you are trying to convince me that you are correct, and your opponent is wrong.

I am a Presbyterian minister who writes and delivers a speech (sermon) every week, which is designed to persuade people. When I judge I am interested in the following:

1. Well crafted arguments--I expect people to present logical, concise and tight arguments for their team. I am more interested in quality than quantity, so throwing a lot of words on the table in rapid fire succession does not impress me. I want the argument to be clear and follow a logical order. I also expect the the various arguments to support, inform and build on one another.

2. Rhetorical ability--this is closely related to the above, but is more about HOW you say rather than WHAT you say. Both are important. Verbal illustrations, similes, metaphors and most of all an unpretentious but sturdy vocabulary is important. Humor would be entirely appropriate when used well. Inflection of voice, and the ability to speak clearly are important as well. If you have something to say but lose in the delivery, you have undercut your own argument.

3. Ability to move the hearers--I want to hear that you believe in what you say, and that you want the people in the room to believe it with you. Be persuasive, and try to move the people hearing you to your point of view. Convince me that your argument is right!

These loosely correspond to Aristotle's three points of rhetoric--logos, pathos and ethos.

Background: I have judged Middle School Parli for many years.  This is my third year in High School Debate. I am very openminded, but here are some things to keep in mind:

I prefer arguments that are organized and have evidence to support contentions. 

Redundancy is OK. Better to be redundant than to be unclear.

I have little patience for teams that complain about things that they can’t control, such as the other team’s manners or technical issues in the debate. I can tell if a team is using abusive tactics and I don’t need that pointed out to me. I don’t like complaining.

I hate it when people say “I urge a strong ballot”. What does that even mean? A ballot is a ballot, there is no such thing as a “strong” ballot. Do you want me to write an X on your ballot with blood? A win is a win and a lose is a lose. Please stop saying this phase.

Don’t swallow your words. Please speak loud and clear.

I’m open to any type of argument, but you’ll need to explain it to me for you to win. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. (This includes nontraditional arguments)

Biography:  I am retired from a 30-year career as a Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley, with extensive experience in verbal communication and persuasion.  In my young adulthood I was a Jackson County Commissioner where I chaired hundreds of public meetings.  Over the past decades I have served as MC for numerous events including weekly meetings for a year as a Rotary president, as a presenter to large goups on civic and political issues many times, as the host and MC at dozens of political events involving US Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and local officials, and as live on-air pledge host on Southern Oregon Public TV and Jefferson Public Radio over a hundred times.

     In the past 18 months I have traveled to New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Nevada, and Massachusetts to observe speeches and other messages by presidential candidates, including multiple observations live and within 2 to 15 feet of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and many others.   I examine the content and body language of their presentations and report it in daily posts to my blog, UpClose with Peter Sage at www.peterwsage.blogspot.com   My intent is to examine and report on content, positioning, and persuasiveness--not to be a partisan advocate of a point of view.  The blog looks critically at how presidential candidates, campaign surrogates, and others frame and present policy arguments.   Contestants interested in what I find persuasive can read a few blog posts, both pre and post election.

    I studied public policy issues in government and history at Harvard as an undergraduate and continued this study at Yale, where I did a Master's paper on political messaging by Archibald MacLeish.  However I consider the primary influence in my education to be my practical experience in persuasive communication talking with clients about the merits and demerits of investments.   I spent 30 years watching people make decisions.

Debate Experience:   I participated in speech and debate for four years at Medford High School and won first place in Interview and Oxford Men's Debate at the Linfield Debate Tournament, at that time (1965-67) the largest debate tournament in Oregon.  A few years ago I judged a couple of high school debates but have done no debating or judging otherwise.  So I am rusty, at best, at formal debate scoring.  Take that in mind.  

What I look for:  I look closely at presentation skills including body language, tone, confidence, and word choice, which I consider to be very influential in the overall persuasiveness of an argument.  Of course, successful argumentation requires marshalling evidence and trains of logic, and it stands or is rebutted, and I track those arguments.  

      I consider a significant part of persuasion to be post-decision rationalizations of what seemed to "make sense" to the judge.   Judges may wish to be analytical as they check through scorecards and decision trees but I think they mislead themselves.  The scorecard analysis is written to fit the decision; the decision is rarely made from rigorous analysis--and this is generally true regardless of what the judge may express.  The judge is the last to know what really shaped his or her opinion. 

[Tom Lininger, the debate coach at South Eugene High School, wrote this paradigm on January 20, 2017. It has since been updated]

Melissa Sikes is the mother of a junior debater at South Eugene High School. She has some experience judging high school debate, but please no spreading.

She is smart, familiar with current events, and careful to listen to all sides before making a decision.

To maximize your odds of succeeding when you argue in front of this judge, you should do the following: speak at a comprehensible pace, provide plain labels for your arguments, clash as much as possible with your opponent, behave civilly, and weigh the debate in later speeches. Use all your time, but don't repeat yourself. Avoid jargon that is unique to the debate world. Provide an off-time roadmap if possible.

If you have questions about this judge's preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts.

I am an inexperienced judge, but my son is a 4-year parli and policy debater at Ashland High School. I have some previous judging experience, however not at a high level. 

My priorities for judging any debate are

1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.

2) clear and organized arguments.

3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

Hello All,

My name is Anna Werthaiser and I competed in LD and PF all throughout high school. I am a freshman in college and absolutely love judging. I have competed in parli before, written cases as in-class projects and know how it's structured. My mom was the Ashland coach for six years so just because I only competed in LD and PF doesn't make me a "lay" judge.

Speed:

I'm perfectly fine with speed as long as you are also perfectly fine with speed. If you have not done any spreading exercises and think you can just "talk fast," most likely, I won't understand you. Just like any person, if I can't understand you, your flow WILL be blank.

The flow:

Please signpost. 'Nuff said. Roadmaps are quite a gift. Use them. If both opponents are okay with off-time roadmaps, I don't care either way.

K's:

I love a K just as much as any other judge but don't read me the whole book on philosophy. No, I don't read everything on all philosophers but a brief synopses is nice.

Framework:

Please don't make it a framework debate because who likes those? Those who uphold their framework and/or their opponents will win in my eyes.

Be nice to each other and don't be rude. Debate rounds are suppose to be professional and debaters should be polite. No need to be nasty. Show off a little. I want to know what you know and please don't assume I know anything because like any good judge, my prior knowledge and opinions will be left at the door. Can't wait to experience such talent, and congratulations on TOC. Good luck.