Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

I am currently a student at Louisiana State University studying rhetoric. I am on the LSU Speech and Debate team, and participated in speech and debate throughout high school.

I enjoy standard debates that are direct and stay on topic. Even if the debate hinges on one argument by the end, give a good overview of how it applies to the whole resolution and not a small aspect of it. I don't like to see debates that harp on only one subject or contention without offering any other notable points.

I like to see clear argumentation - state throughout your case why you're saying what you're saying and where exactly this clashes with your opponent's argument. I don't like to see arguments that seem to be brought up randomly, and I don't like to see arguments that are presented too late in the debate for there to be a good clash.

I heavily value a kind and professional debate, as this is meant to be an educational experience. Rudeness (in speech or in demeanor) or a lack of professionalism will result in a loss of points from me.

Overall, my decision will go to the debater who presents the most logical and coherent case and best defends the clash with the opponent's case.

I am currently a Graduate Assistant Coach for the Louisiana State University Speech & Debate Team. This team currently competes in IPDA and AFA IE. However, I have experience coaching NEDA and NFA LD.

I competed in NFA LD during my undergraduate career for four years at Otterbein University (with my maiden name, Parson).

I have previous experience judging high school LD debate, but did not compete in high school.

Tabula Rasa: I would consider myself a judge rooted firmly in the value of education over all else. However, I default tabula rasa in all debate rounds. I believe that the judge's role in any debate round is to interpret the quality of debating and to weigh the round dependent on what the debaters argue. It is not my role to make a judgement based off of arguments that are not presented or clearly articulated.

Particularities about Arguments: I do not have any particular arguments I do not like or will not listen to. I believe the debate should be guided by what the debaters want, not the judge. K's, Topicality, Theory, Conditionality... all are AOK with me. However, I do have a low threshold for bad arguments or arguments not articulated by the competitors well. If your opponent asks you to clarify and you cannot do so, I can be easily persuaded by your opponent that the argument should be dropped from the round.

Speed: I can keep up. However, if your opponent asks you to slow down or clear, and you fail to do so, your speaks will be significantly hurt.

Joshua D Rogers Paradigm

B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics

Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)

Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University

Experience:

Oratory and Communication experience in High School

Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work

Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015

Basic Judging Paradigm:

I will judge the flow

I want substantive arguments and clash

Weigh your impacts at the end

Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points

Don't talk down to the judge

Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate with strong theoretical argument and links, but just citing them without showing how they apply will not help you out.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination, though I will still judge the flow.

LD Note: Impacting your arguments in a practical way is important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.

Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.

Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable; but must be applicable and the links should be strong.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

Hi there! I'm glad you're reading this. A little about me: I debated LD for 4 years in high school and competed in IPDA for 4 years of college. Every form of debate is a little different, but overall each round is going to come down to clash and impact weighing. That's how you will win my ballot.

A few things:

Speed: Please don't feel the need to impress me with speed. You will impress me more by being a good orator, having clarity, and signposting. Going faster than snail pace is fine, though. Remember, I'm not an idiot but I am *very* out of practice with spreading. Please send me cards before the round (dena.winegeart@gmail.com), but if you insist on spreading, slow down for tags and analysis. If I lose you, I will stop flowing. I won't disrupt you by saying clear-- you know when you're being unclear.

Theory/Abuse: Fairness and education come first. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of theory debates, so try to avoid them if you can in front of me. If not, then overexplain it but still respond to other substantive arguments in the round. Please don't run T just for the sake of running T. I don't think it's reasonable and I think you had better have a good reason to run it. Show me why your ground is limited because of what your opponent did.

Framework: I love framework debates in LD! I think that's what makes LD so different compared to other styles. If you're going to run a certain framework, make sure you understand it and can explain it well. Truly, that is how you will get the highest speaks from me.

If you run anything that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. in front of me, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will be sure to inform tournament staff/coaches promptly. I don't tolerate it and neither should you.

Everything else is fair game! If you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask.