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 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.

I debated four years in high school and four additional years in college (NPDA). I have spent the last five years coaching debate and judging nearly every other weekend.

Policy/LD - I have significant experience judging both events and am comfortable with all speeds, strategies and arguments.

Parli - teams should debate the resolution unless there are significant problems with it. I believe parli should primarily be a limited prep event, I do not often vote for canned cases that teams just try to apply to every resolution. I am comfortable with policy, value & fact debates and believe that as long as they provide group and stay topical, the aff gets to set the parameters for the round. Speed is not a problem as long as you are communicating. K's are welcome on the Neg and I treat them as any other argument. But every K (no matter how much you like it) does not fit in every round.

I am a senior LD debater at Ashland High. I've debated on both the traditional circuit and progressive/national circuit and can be down with whatever style you are passionate about. 

1. Being courteous, respectful and kind is of utmost importance to me (and I hope it is to you too).

2. Run anything that you are passionate about. Run arguments that make you proud to be a debater. Run arguments that you believe in. We will all enjoy the debate more for it.

3. Be CLEAR. Explain your arguments

4. As for speed, I'd give myself about an 8/10. Slow down on tags and analysis and we will be friends. I will call clear twice but after that I will put my pen down. 

5. As for Theory debate, I believe that this type of debate should be reserved for special cases where a debater is ACTUALLY being abusive. Don't just run Theory willy-nilly because you consider yourself one of those debaters that "always wins on theory" or has that "extreme theory backfile for anything that your opponent says ever." 

6. IMPORTANT: tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Whether it's Value/Value Criterion, ROB, weighing, whatever it is, you must tell me how I should evaluate the round and why I should evaluate it that way, otherwise I decision will be much more subjective. 

7. Additionally, I evaluate who won the framework, but I don't vote here. The winner of the framework debate determines what offense I can look to in the round. I don't care if you win some random turn on a contention if it doesn't have an impact back to the winning framework. 

Things I will not vote for under any circumstance: racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, personal attacks, disclosure theory. 

Have fun. Your style of debate is important. You are important. 

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

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.

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.

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.