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), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. 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.

Bonus speaker points for puns.

I value clear communication, clash of ideas (but not of personalities), and argumentation of the topic (not of the rules of debate). While I understand debate jargon, I do not find it useful in a debate.

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.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Laura Harvey, Jesuit High School

Background: Four year Policy debater in high school, four year Parli debater in college, 20 years coaching debate and IEs. Ten years as head coach at Jesuit High School in Carmichael, CA. I've judged final Policy, Parli, LD and PF rounds at invitationals and national tournaments.

PARLI PARADIGM:

With a policy topic, I am largely a policy maker with stock issue leanings. I want the arguments to be topical, the reason for the plan to be clear (significancy), whatever is keeping the status quo from working to be resolved (inherency), the plan to actually solve the problem (solvency), and for advantages to outweigh disadvantages. In essence, consider me a member of Congress hearing arguments for a plan of action. In my eyes, all debates start from the same basic place: there is a problem. It's a big problem. The status quo is not addressing the problem. This is how we fix it.

Topicality: Both teams need to define and adhere to an interpretation that (1) remains true to the basic intent of the resolution--if the topic is about conserving the oceans, I don't want to hear about space aliens, and (2) gives both sides grounds to debate. I will vote on topicality violations, but only if the given definitions leave the opposing team little room to debate, and/or clearly do not remain true to the perceived intent of the resolution. If you choose to run a topicality resolution, argue why it's a violation (e.g. it skews ground), and present a more fair alternative.

K Arguments: I'm not a fan. They're rarely run well. I've voted for them, but they MUST be specific to the debate at hand. ONLY use K if the resolution, plan, or CP presumes a blatantly abhorant ideology; otherwise, Ks usually come across as elitist arguments designed to confuse and exclude, which doesn't make for a good debate. Run K if you must, but don't rely on it.

CP: I love CPs.

PERMS: I'm not a fan unless they're properly done. Usually, they waste the opposing team's prep time and first 1NC. That said, the NEG should have made their CP mutually exclusive before running it, having heard the 1AC.

PICs: I really don't like plan-inclusive-counterplans. If AFF argues strategy skew, I'm going to be symathetic.

SPEED: In Parli, DON'T. Seriously. This isn't primarily an evidence based debate. I don't need 18 cards piled up under one argument to vote for you, which was the driving motive behind spreading in the first place. If you wouldn't use this speaking style anywhere except in a high-level debate round, it's likely to annoy me. As an educator, I'm looking for ways that you'll use this experience in the wider world. Spreading would not help you convince a jury in closing arguments or brief your member of Congress before a vote. I understand it's common; that doesn't mean I'm going to perpetuate it. If I have to call "clear," I will take a baseball bat to your speaker points.

Flow: I will flow, cross-apply, and extend arguments. I allow off-time road-maps. Use them well.

Impacts: Please, don't forget these. Tell me why things ultimately matter. (That said, there are a few impacts you will have great difficulty running convincingly, like nuclear war and extinction. I've heard these for twenty years. I just don't buy it.)

Warrants: Don't forget these, either. Seriously. Don't.

NON-POLICY TOPICS: Most of the above applies, but in particular:

Value topics: Make sure your value criterion upholds your value. I will vote for the team that convinces me that their value should take precedence, and upholds it best.

Tag-teaming and Feeding: I'm not a fan outside of Public Forum.

New arguments: I don't protect the flow in varsity rounds (I do in JV rounds). Also, I will be sympathetic to AFF responses to brand new arguments made in the 2NC.

I am a parent judge with 4 years of judging experience in Oregon. I value organized, persuasive, respectful arguments with clear roadmaps. If you are using jargon, do not assume that I know these terms that may be familiar to you. As a non-debater, I will not be offended if you oversimplify or explain terms directly to me. In the same vein, if you speak too quickly I will be forced to strike concepts or statements that I did not hear. Please speak clearly and concisely. I value tech over truth - if your opponent makes a statement that is not necessarily factual and you do not refute or contest it - I will allow it to stand. I value closing remarks that demonstrate clear impact analysis.

For all debate formats- Run whatever you want, but for the love of all that's good and right, please, please respond to what your opponent runs, explain your clash analysis, and give me a weighing mechanism.

AND...

LD- Not only should V/VC be defined, I'd like to know your rationale why they are superior over other V/VC you could have chosen. ALSO, have clarity on how the VC gets you to the V. And of course, contrast how your V is superior. In the event your opponent has the same V, and/or tries to claim your advantages through his/her V, clarity of comparison analysis, and reinforcement, are pretty darn important. All too often I'm seeing debaters essentially referring to an opponents position, as if that somehow provides clash. I need analysis of opponents arguments to give me a reason to flow to your side.

CX- I like on-case arguments, T is fine. Not huge fan of Theory when all you know is how to read the canned script of your Theory argument w/o understanding or being able to explain your own argument, same goes for K.

PF/Parli- Comparative Impacts! Logical pace w/o spread- breathe and just explain ideas and clash.

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!

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 competed for six years in debate between high school and college. My history has included being nationally ranked in Public Forum as well as in NPTE/NPDA [college parli]. I placed 10th in the 2016 NPTE competition while debating for the University of Oregon. I have also coached for 6+ years including my time directing Oregon Global Debate Institute at University of Oregon.

I am a critical debater who appreciates critical arguments and performances. I am a non-interventionist, and will not debate for you. Debate should be a free [while safe] creative space where you ought to be able to run whatever arguments that YOU feel are most compelling. I can flow theory, kritiks on both sides of the debate, etc.

I am fine with speed as long as clarity remains present (I prefer speed while reading cards). Solvency is a must, and I do weigh Aff/Neg world comparisons if done correctly. Internal summaries, signposting, and conclusions are suggested.

I will not vote for an argument that does not have a link present.

The most important element in debate for me is impact calculus.

I take rhetorical violence very seriously and will reduce speaker points significantly if it is performed inside of the round.

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)

TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.

---

My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.

Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.

*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.

--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.

--Speed is fine, but please articulate.

--CP's are fine.

--No new arguments in rebuttals.

--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.

As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

I have judged PF for a number of years, so i'm fine with any speed.

Explain your links, explain impacts, and be polite to each other during cross fire.

Make sure to address the framework throughout the round.

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

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, 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.