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.

I´m an experienced former parliamentary debater from the Oregon high school circuit. I will vote based on the weighing mechanism best introduced at the beginning of the round. If no WM is introduced, I will vote on impact analysis.

I´m fine with topicality, theory, counter plans, Ks et cetera, but only when they are well-presented and add something to the debate. If you choose to run a more lay-style or values-based debate, that´s fine too.

Speak and act kindly to one another. 

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.

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.

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.

Judge Jeff’s Paradigm

In the end, I determine the winner of the debate as the team that was most persuasive. Sorry, I am not a very good flow judge.

Tactics that are persuasive:

1. Identifying clearly and calmly articulating the top 2-5 logical arguments for and against the resolution.

2. Ask relevant questions of the other team. Reframe the other teams argument.

3. All points are not equal – I weight them based on relevance/merit/creativity/coherence.

4. Believe what you are saying – If you don’t believe what you are saying, how can I believe what you are saying?

5. Seriousness. I’m am all about having fun and I know this is practice, but practice makes permanent. How you conduct yourself before, during and after the debate does influence other people’s perceptions, including the judge’s (whether that is fair is a different debate).

Tactic that are not persuasive:

1. The shotgun/hyperventilating approach of throwing out as many arguments as possible without regard to relevance. This can undermine credibility of the team and call into question whether they really understand the issue or whether they really believe what they are saying.

2. Disrespectful or snarky comments.

3. Talking just to fill up time. Less is more.

4. Don’t trace this argument back to nuclear war and then argue against nuclear war.