Tabroom.com

Jean Ward Invitational

2018 — Portland, OR/US

LD/PF/Parli Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ameena Amdahl-Mason Clackamas HS

Glenn Armstrong McMinnville HS

Last changed on Wed January 16, 2019 at 2:07 PM MST

Speech Judging: As the parent of a speech participant I've been judging speech and debate events for a year now. I have found that you guys know what you are doing and do it exceptionally well. I am here to judge, not critique but more to judge how much I have been moved and persuaded, or impressed with the depth of thought that has gone into a piece and how well it has been expressed. I've seen very great performances from confident polished performers and have rated them lower than other performers who, quite frankly struggled but, did better in what appeared to be their ability in providing a more thoughtful piece. So I judge based on the criteria for each event and making sure you follow the rules you are given and after that its all about the beauty depth and thoughtfulness that is in the piece and the performance. In the end it I weigh it up like this.

Rules: Did you follow the rules (20%).

Speaking Skills: Enunciation, speed and pauses, volume (20% +).

Content: Subject and connectivity, can I follow you, does it tie together. Not the quality of the subject but how well it was pieced together, simple points if done right are remarkable (20% +)

Believable: Was there heart and conviction? Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham", actors (not in film) on Broadway, my college Chemisty prof. History prof. Writing prof, and of course my high school lit teacher. All transcended enthusiasm and were what they were speaking. That will get (40%) weight as long as the other 3 were in check or better.

Public Forum Judging: I am the "Public" in Public Forum. I am a parent of a speech(er) and have never done debate myself. I have judged PuFo. since last year and seen the best in the nationals tournament, so I know what is good. That being said I do not know the technical aspect of the "sport" but rather enjoy a good well fought game. I like clear points that are backed by evidence and some common sense. I expect every point or argument to be addressed, if not it flows to the side that brought it up. Of course I won't consider any new argument in the last round that will not be able to be addressed. I go in these with an attitude of "I know nothing". Cross can be a game changer if you are able to show flaw in the others argument and/or it can be just a ho hum time where nothing is gained or lost. Civility counts. I don't mind if you talk fast I can speed listen but make your points clear if you want them to stick.

Speaker points are based on the first round I see of the day. They are usually 27 if they are good, great gets 28. by the end of the 6th round the 27 may be the lowest score of the day or the 28 may have been the best. Again I come in with a clean slate and do my best to compare quality of speaking with the talent of the day. I also look at capability. I have seen debates when the debaters could hardly pick their eyes off their shoes but they spoke so clear and with thought they received high points.

David Barringer Oregon City HS None

Janet Billups Cleveland HS None

Caroline Campbell South Medford HS None

Robbie Cantrell Gresham-Barlow HS None

Terrell Cunningham Cleveland HS None

Michael Curry Sprague High School

Last changed on Tue February 12, 2019 at 12:49 PM 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.

Susan Day Lakeridge HS None

MG Devereux Woodrow Wilson HS None

Todd Dizon Southridge High School None

Sruthi Eapen Sunset High School None

Catie Easter Gresham-Barlow HS

Kelly Fennell Lakeridge HS None

George Ford Gresham-Barlow HS

Sarah Foster Westview High School

Simon Gao Lakeridge HS None

June Gerst Century HS None

Donna Graville Lake Oswego Senior High School

Jennifer Griffith Gig Harbor None

Chuck Hamaker Southridge High School None

Brooke Hansen Southridge High School

Dana Hawthorne Tigard HS

Kristine Igawa Beaverton HS None

Rob Illig S. Eugene H. S. None

Sue Jepson Hood River Valley HS

Patrick Johnson Westview High School

Megan Jones Glencoe HS None

Jeff Koegler Lincoln HS

Last changed on Sat December 19, 2020 at 3:55 AM PDT

Updated: Dec 2020

he/him - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Head coach in Oregon. Strong background in economics. Like trad and progressive rounds.

Speech Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.

LD Paradigm:

TL;DR version: Speed is fine. If your argument is obscure or poorly linked/warranted, I am not going to do the work for you. I like good theory, but frivolous theory generally gets underweighed even in drop situations. I default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. I will vote down a debater that creates a toxic environment for debate. Debate is a game. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability, particularly in cases where the probability delta is negligible. Assume that I am familiar with the topic, but do not assume that I am familiar with your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine. Online debates make comprehension more challenging. Speech docs provide some solvency. I recommend that if you have been told you are unclear, that you slow down and/or enunciate.

Argumentation:
1) I will not "connect the dots" on your arguments. If it is a complex argument, break it down to the point where an intelligent observer could follow you. Assume that I am an informed judge, both on the topic and in technical debate.
2) Topicality. I will vote on topicality. The debate can occur on whatever ground the debaters agree on and I am ok with that, but I will default back to topical ground. To win topicality, the neg needs to show me how the Aff has abused the the fairness or educational aspects of debate AND give me the bright line of minimum responsibility the Aff should have used (and why). Conversely, the Aff wins T by showing how their argument answers the resolution substantively. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning Topicality does not mean that Aff wins the round. Topicality is a prerequisite to debate, not a reason to affirm. I prefer to err on the side of Aff meeting topicality, so Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge or why the challenge is wrong/unfair/removes substantial aff ground/etc. You do not have to spend 2 minutes answering T. Disclosure by itself is not an answer to a T challenge. (I think this is overkill, but I have had debaters challenge me post round on how I weigh T, so here it is.)
3) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first. I find it troublesome to vote on negligible probability increases even when magnitude is maximized. Your best bet is to make your magnitude argument, but spend time showing the change in probability.
4) Claim, warrant, impact. Warrantless arguments are not weighed. There is no such thing as implied impact. Warrants can be evidence, clearly explained reason, or analytics.
5) Drops are not "true" arguments. Extend and impact them if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
6) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. Inconsistent weighing methodologies (ie "weigh this way for me, but another for my opponent") is a good way for me to ignore your weighing. You can win arguments under multiple weighing mechanisms.

K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K should have a solid link.

Theory:
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't. Save yourself the time.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater.
4) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", the creation of a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
5) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations. Skip the flowery "education is why we are here" nonsense and actually tell me what the violation is, why it is a violation, and why I should sign the ballot now.

Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Determine preferred methods of evidence exchange before the round. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.

Speaks: I consider 27.5 (27 on Oregon circuit) to be the average speaks, however I give 29+. Better points are achieved through clarity, professionalism, and technique. Points are deducted for rudeness, poor technique, and incomprehensibility. Speed will not impact this evaluation, unless it becomes unclear or sloppy.

Misc Prefs:
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If I feel offended (thats pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) I prefer substantive debate to theory debate and generally err towards substantive debate. This doesn't mean I don't find value in theory, but I tend to undervalue bad theory in order to evaluate substantive debate.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Pref list:
Plan/Value/Phil/LARP 1
K 2
Theory 2
Tricks 5
5) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
6) My pronouns are he/him.
7) Just call me Jeff.

Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.

Disclosure: I feel like disclosure is a settled discussion. For Nat Circuit, disclosure should occur on any case that has been run before. For Oregon circuit, I do not have this requirement.

Policy Judging Paradigm:

TL;DR: Send your speech docs to koeglerj at gmail dot com. Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. I prefer substantive debate.

Argumentation:
1) I vote on topicality. Be topical. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff needs to answer why they meet or why the challenge is illegitimate. That's it.
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms. Look at it this way: if you have harms that have infinitely small probability, that is how much weight I will give them in the round.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Theory is fine. I don't vote on frivolous theory. If your arguments are asking me to evaluate what is "fair" or "educational" you need to clearly tell me what those terms actually mean, otherwise you are asking for my preconceived notions, in which case I tend to undervalue the argument.

K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K must have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.

Preferences:
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If I feel offended (which is pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) Run any argument you want, but I tend to favor T over K Affs. Use them at your own risk. No prejudice against them, but I feel that a burden of proof exists on the affirmative and that is tied directly to the resolution.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
5) My pronouns are he/him.
6) Just call me Jeff.

Theory:
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got. Please fully explain your violation and ensure that your interpretation actually demonstrates the rule that has been violated. Please define what you mean with terms like "fairness" and "education", though I find this is less of an issue in policy.
4) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.

Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser. I will read your evidence. This is one of the few times I will intervene on purpose. If I catch your evidentiary violation, I will vote on it.

PF Paradigm

I am fairly flexible in my PF paradigm.
1) Speed is fine. Be clear and provide evidence to your opponent after your speech, if requested.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaker points if only one partner ever answers questions. Questions should only be asked by the two speakers from the immediately previous round.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first. Extremely improbable impacts won't impact the ballot significantly even if they are "big stick" impacts.

Parli Paradigm
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation.

Jennifer LeSieur Clackamas HS

Henry Lininger Springfield H.S. None

Tom Lininger Springfield H.S.

Santosh Mahindraker Westview High School None

Nancy Maloney S. Eugene H. S. None

Mat Marr Ashland HS

Last changed on Sat October 8, 2022 at 3:30 PM PDT

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

Amanda Marshall McMinnville HS

Susan McLain Glencoe HS

Kaden Meyers Sandy High School None

Jason Miller Lake Oswego Senior High School None

Kaitlin Mogan Tigard HS None

Madeline Otto Gig Harbor

Last changed on Mon January 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM PDT

Hi, I’m Madeline Otto.

I debated three years of LD pretty successfully in the Washington circuit. I got a TOC bid and went to nationals, and am currently three years out.

tl;dr: I am fine with speed and will say clear as many times as necessary, I’m fine with any position you want to throw at me as long as you are able to explain it well.

I am a tabs judge, so I will vote on any argument that you make and explain why that argument means you win. However, some things to keep in mind:

- Speed: I was a fast debater in high school, so I am fine with speed. I will say clear as many times as necessary, but if I am saying clear that means I can’t flow you, and a potentially winning argument might escape my flow. To help with both my and your opponent’s flow, please enunciate author names, tags, and interp texts.

- Strats: I am fine with a wide variety of positions so don’t be afraid to go for a dense or confusing position. However, please be able to concisely and clearly explain your position if needed. I will not vote for you just because you are running the next big thing. I would rather hear someone run a stock position extremely well than someone who runs a dense/out there position very badly.

- Theory: I have had my fair share of theory rounds, but I never acquired much of a taste or greatness for theory. As a result, my threshold for theory is pretty high, and would prefer not to see a round devolve to a frivolous theory debate. That being said, don’t let me stop you from running your A strat. If you want to run theory, BE VERY CLEAR HOW YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE IT. If you simply use jargon and tell me to evaluate via competing iterps or reasonability, I’ll have to use my own understanding of the terms to evaluate the round which may make you very sad/mad/frustrated. The easy way out of this is to tell me what you mean by competing interps or reasonability, so I will be able to effectively evaluate it.

Speaker points

I see speaker points as a way to tell you how much I enjoyed your debate style, etc.

Easy ways to get a 30:

o Be clear. Don’t make me yell clear 50 times throughout the round.

o Run your position very well

o Dominate CX

o Be sassy (without being rude)

o Be confident

o Effectively collapse in the last speeches. (This will make me very, VERY happy)

o Compare evidence (this will also make me very, VERY happy)

o Debate framework (not enough people debate framework very well and it would make my day if you completely wrecked the framework debate)

o Extending well (that means the claim, warrant, impact)

Easy ways to not get a 30:

o Making me yell clear 50 times in a round

o Not clashing with opponent’s case

o poor organization (especially in last speeches)

o Not extending enough/sufficiently

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask/discuss before the round starts, or just look me up at the tournament. I would be more than happy to talk about my paradigm/strategic decisions you make (or made)/etc with you J

Alexander Parini Woodrow Wilson HS

Matthew Parker South Medford HS

Kat Podlesnik Pendleton High School None

Clint Rodreick Phoenix None

Robyn Rose Lake Oswego Senior High School

David Saenger S. Eugene H. S.

Cheryl Schultz Woodrow Wilson HS None

Justine Seidel Lakeridge HS

Melissa Sikes S. Eugene H. S.

Patrick Smith McMinnville HS

Last changed on Sat January 19, 2019 at 7:04 AM PDT

GENERALLY

I’ve judged a decent number of debates - around 500 or so. I was a policy (CX) debater in college. Recently I’ve focused on PoFo but have experience judging LD, BQD, and Parliamentary as well. I’m a political moderate and consider myself fairly open-minded. I try not to intervene in debates and won’t interject my own political or philosophical point of view. One possible exception is that your argument has to make some degree of sense. For example, if you argue that President Trump is a tomato and that this is a reason to vote for you, I’m unlikely to vote on that even if it’s dropped by your opponent.

I’m fine with off-time roadmaps and you can time yourself. Being organized is important to me - I want to know what argument you’re addressing. It also helps to number your arguments. I like final speeches that clearly explain and weigh key arguments. Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees - that is, don’t get so mired in detail you lose the big picture - particularly at the end. Don’t get too serious - have fun with it. Smile. Have a sense of humor. It’s possible to be funny and persuasive. Be polite. These things will help your speaker points and persuasion.

PUBLIC FORUM

Keep in mind it’s Public Forum - a style of debate designed to be presented to a random public. Anyway that’s my mindset as a PoFo judge - I pretend to be John/Jane Q Public. Therefore talk like a normal human being - not a robotic chipmunk. Be clear. Don’t just throw out high-level terms and labels - explain, particularly in the last speech. Probably the single most important way to win my ballot is to explain clearly why your points are more persuasive than your opponents’ and why those particular arguments are the key to winning the debate. To use a cheesy war analogy, it’s not about winning every “battle” (argument/contention) but winning the overall “war” and that requires direct clash on key positions and, towards the end of the debate, weighing them. I used to focus primarily on the flow. I still flow, but now I focus more on understanding your points and that is going to require an investment of your time to explain your position. Don’t assume I get it and don’t be afraid to invest what little time you have on the essential arguments. I have to actually understand them and that’s a challenging thing to do well given the time constraints.

POLICY/LD

Please don’t go too fast. I understand that going faster lets you introduce more arguments, but I don’t want to vote for a team simply because they’ve introduced more arguments than their opponent can sanely answer. In fact, I personally feel speed is currently a flaw in LD and Policy and partly explains the decline in the number of teams participating in Policy debate and rise of a PoFo. Quality over quantity. I’m pretty good at flowing but I won’t flow what you don’t clearly articulate, or vote for a position I don’t understand, even if it’s technically extended on my flow. Understanding is key and it’s a heck of a lot more challenging for me to understand complex theory delivered at warp speed. Finally, I’m not a big fan of Kritiks. I prefer that we debate what the voters chose for us to debate. Additionally, I don’t think it’s realistic to mentally process the exceedingly intellectual content of most Kritiks given 1) the speed at which they are delivered and 2) the time constraints in the debate. My opinion is that there’s a place for that sort of deep thinking/exploration of fundamental assumptions and it’s an awesome form of debate called BQD.

PARLI

First, choose the topic carefully, eliminating topics obviously slanted towards your opponent. In my experience, Parli topics are often inadvertently slanted towards one side. It’s not easy generating topics perfectly weighted for Pro and Con. Worry less about your knowledge of the topic. Worry more about eliminating slanted topics. I won’t intervene but why make things hard on yourself by choosing a steeper mountain to climb?

Give me more than just conclusions - explain logically how you arrive at those conclusions. I like clear analysis. Stay organized as far as what arguments you’re addressing so I can flow the debate well. In your last speech please don’t get overly detailed- the line-by-line debate is more important in constructives. In your last speech slow things down and focus on the major points. Too many teams get lost in too many details in their final speech. Weigh the round and don’t waste time on arguments that don’t matter. Recognizing what is most important and focusing on that in sufficient depth is very important to me. Don’t go too fast - especially in your last speech. I’m a former policy/CX debater but I’ve fallen out of love with speed. Talk normal person conversation level speed or just slightly faster. Imagine what speed a grandparent would expect and if this imaginary grandparent would likely ask “why are those crazy youngsters talking so fast?” then please slow down. I call it the “Annoyed Grandparent” paradigm. ðŸ‘´ðŸ» I think the trend is that speed is falling out of favor and I’m a fan.

You may time yourselves and I’m fine with off-time roadmaps. I’m not aware of any other particular pet-peeves.

Donald Steiner Woodrow Wilson HS

Last changed on Wed June 10, 2020 at 12:50 AM MST

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.

Pam Stringer McMinnville HS

Last changed on Tue January 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM PDT

First things first, I am a parent judge. That does not, however, mean that I am an incompetent judge, but it will mean that you will want to avoid cutting corners with clarity and explanation if you want your points to hit home with me. I have two years of judging experience in debate, and have judged LD, PF, and Congress, so I am familiar with the characteristics of these different events. I always flow the round, however I am not an expert at flowing, especially speed, so at the end of the day the ballot will go to the team who truly convinced me, not the one with the most points on the flow. That being said, the flow is the main tool I use to guide my decision, especially in tight rounds.

More specifics:

1. Courtesy: I expect a respectful, professional* debate. I have a zero tolerance policy for any kind of bullying or discriminatory behavior (ex: purposefully misgendering an opponent, etc.) that makes the debate space unsafe for it's participants.

*I won't drop debaters based on rudeness if they are running something performative, or based on dress. I am referring to the manner in which you interact with your opponent and your judge.

2. Progressive Arguments: As I said before, I am a parent judge. I am open-minded to any strategy or type of argument you want to run, but I most likely will not be familiar with more progressive strategies. If you are running progressive arguments or strategies, be sure to explain what the intent of the argument is and why I should vote for it. I am smart enough to understand these strategies if you take the brief time to introduce me to it. I understand topical Ks, Plans and Counterplans, and theory. If you're running anything beyond that, you may want to help me understand what it is your doing and it's purpose.

3. Speed: I can't flow speed, however I understand that at some tournaments it is the norm. If you are going to spread, I need to be able to view your case in order to flow it, whether that be done through speech drop or an email chain etc. Anything that I can't read, nor can I understand and keep up with won't be flowed, most likely won't be processed, and will essentially go to waste when it is time for me to decide who has won.

4. Theory: I won't weigh frivolous theory. This means if I don't believe that the theory argument is addressing something within the debate that seriously harms the nature of the debate space, it is not going to help you in a round that I am judging. To me, theory should be reserved for instances in which A) a debater is way out of line in their conduct, or B) standards of fairness come into questions (topicality, switch-side debate, time skew). Voting on theory for me is rare, the harm would have to be something big, but if you convince me that something that is happening is bad for debate and that my ballot should not encourage that behavior I will weigh your theory argument.

Michael Timmons Silverton HS

Matthew Trujillo Tigard HS None

Sebastian Ward Sprague High School None

Katie Wilson Lakeridge HS

Last changed on Fri February 7, 2020 at 9:44 AM PDT

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 opponents 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.

Beau R Woodward Lakeridge HS

Login to Tabroom:

Jean Ward Invitational

2018 — Portland, OR/US

LD/PF/Parli Paradigm List

Judges