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 competed in a variety of speech and debate events for three years in high school. I'll evaluate any argument if you have a solid internal link story. If you're capable of spreading, please make sure you discuss this with your opponent and make sure they are able to understand fast talking. If you speak more quickly than conversational speed, please take extra care to enunciate.

I’ve judged debate before but I’m pretty inexperienced. Go slow and explain your arguments, please signpost!

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.

I want a civil debate with clash and clear arguments. I don't like speed if you don't have clear organization and appropriate emphasis.

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.

I have zero debate coaching experience, except for collegiate British Parliamentary Debate. I wish this event had plans and counter-plans. Clash above all. No speed, I will not listen. Voters are necessary, but I will evaluate the round as a whole.

I do not tolerate hate or abuse of any kind. Don't be rude .

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

I like the spirited debates where teams listen to the arguments presented and provide intellectual challenges in the round. I’m the type of judge that appreciates politeness. If you find yourself being condescending, check in on whether your arguments are truly good. A better intellectual path will stand on its own.

Experience: I debated in both High School and College and coached for a few years. I was never the top debater on a team, but I appreciate the time and focus it takes to research, write and practice this art. If you run a good kritik or a creative case, explain it well and I’ll recognize it as just as legit as a traditional approach.

I prefer roadmaps and off time is fine, as is signposting throughout your speech. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win my vote in this particular round. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll win every Contention, so, synthesize the impacts and share your logic with me in your final speech.

I'm a parent who has judged debate over the past four years.

As far as presentation goes, I find speed and spreading difficult to follow -- clear communication is crucial for me. I appreciate good road maps, signposting, and when debaters provide voters at the end.

As far as the line-by-line argumentation, I look for whether a team flowed its argument through and also when teams drop arguments. Be sure to identify drops on the flow and be organized in your line-by-line responses.

I like clear, articulated impacts. I also need easy-to-understand explanations of why your opponent's stated impacts actually work in the opposite direction of what they're claiming. Make sure to explain your reasoning. Analyze the scope and be sure to weigh the impacts of your arguments against the those of your opponent. This is especially important in final speeches.

As I am a "lay judge" I am not well-versed in theory and am unlikely to vote on it. Same with kritiks.

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.

Background- I debated for Sprague High School in Oregon, went to multiple national circuit tournaments in LD with fairly good success. I now debate College Parli for Lewis and Clark College.

General Debate thesis:

This space is for you, not for you to conform to my ideologies. So, if you want to judge in a certain way or change the normal practices how I ought to judge, please provide me a method to do so (ROB, Alt, etc.)

However, without some other alternative I normally default to the flow of the argumentation that is presented, and the framing of how I should evaluate certain arguments.

Flashing doesn’t count as prep, and please add me to email chains: cgesik@lclark.edu

Specificities:

Theory/T:

I will have a lower threshold than most on theory, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t execute it well in front of me. I will need a clear interp and counter interp in order to resolve the questions about the text of the interp, and whether certain “I meets” or “we meets” are true. Something that is also very helpful for me when going for theory is weighing between interps and standards, so I can have a cohesive ballot story in the end.

I Default to Competing Interpretations, No RVI, Drop the arg on most theory, but drop debater on T.

Meta Theory is good, but I’ll listen to arguments that say otherwise.

Disclosure theory for me is in a grey area for me, I won’t paradigmatically oppose it, but I’m pretty convinced by people from small schools don’t have to disclose. However, if the other debater has similar resources or access to the community as many large schools have, or if it is egregiously under covered, I will vote for it.

K’s:

They’re pretty cool. I don’t have any particular preference as to what literature you read, but if it some dense postmodern criticism please go slower on tags. Also, it would be nice to have a ROB, but if you don’t that is fine.

Kritikal aff’s:

They’re cool as well. I’m pretty open to wherever you would like to take the discussion as long as it will not be traumatizing to anybody in the room. Other than that, just give me a reason to prefer your method, and Ill adapt. Theoretical arguments are legitimate against these positions in my mind, but you would have to win it in order for me to vote on it.

Da’s: I dig them. The good ol Disad outweighs and turns case is pretty compelling.

CP: don’t really have any preferences here. Whether PICS, International CP’s, States CP’s are justified, that’s up for you to decide.

Framework in LD:

I don’t have a preference as to what framework ought to be evaluated. That is something for y’all to decide, so if it is won the flow ill evaluate the rest of debate through its lens. If there is a presumption or permissibility/contingent standards in the framework, go for it. But something that is lacking in a lot framework debates is the lack of comparison of meta ethical standards, and weighing the rest of the debate through such lens.

Speaks:

Im fine with Speed

If you are clear on tags, I really don’t care too much on the clarity in the card. If there is something wrong in the text, that is burden of your opponent to call.

I reward speaks base of strategy, not off of speaking or clarity.

I tend to give high speaks, averaging a 28, nothing below a 27 usually, and if there are strategic decisions made on both sides ill give 30’s.

Evidence:

If there is a evidence violation, please make it a cohesive argument, and pointing to parts in the card to where I can verify the violation.

Clipping is bad, so if there is video support of the violation I will give a L 20.

If there is a dispute between what a piece of evidence claims, please say why is the text of the card different from the tag, point to a quote in the text, and ill determine whether such claim is valid.

Extensions:

I have a low threshold on extensions, especially in the 1ar in LD. So, if you just say “extend X tag” I will do it. But you should probably do further analysis on how that effects the rest of the debate for strategic purposes.

If you have any questions, you can email me at cgesik@lclark.edu.

Competed for 4 years for Glencoe High School in Oregon. 3 years of PF locally and nationally. 1 year of national circuit LD. Incoming freshman debater at KU. Add me to the email chain- josh.gibbenspf@gmail.com

I'm fine with speed if you feel comfortable going fast. Keep in mind that I flow off speeches not the speech doc so if you aren't clear, I won't flow.

Kritiks: I love Ks but just know that I was stuck in PF for 3 years so I'm not as well versed in most lit. I read SetCol all year in LD, whether it was topical or not. I’m admittedly not the best judge to evaluate a highly nuanced k debate, so if you’re going to read this style of argument in front of me, have a good understanding the argument and explain it clearly.

Don’t do huge overviews on the K.

How you frame the alternative might be the most important thing on the kritik. Kritiks are essentially non-unique disads, but they can become offensive when the alternative creates uniqueness for the links and solves them. Properly organizing the K is a really hard thing to do so I honestly don't expect it to be perfect.

If you’re reading anything aside from SetCol, expect needing a high level of explanation to make me understand the argument (obviously if you’re reading SetCol, still should explain it).

DAs: these are fine. Not much to talk about here. I like DAs that are PROVEN to be a net benefit to the counterplan, don't just say it is and not explain the warrants behind it.

Counterplans: These are good arguments, sometimes too good (delay counterplan). CPs are sometimes cheating and are sometimes not cheating. I have my own opinions on what CPs I know I will go for theory on in a round, but won't bring that in while I'm judging. Just win that your CP isn't cheating and I won't drop the argument.

Topicality: I'm fine judging T rounds, just don't make the interps ridiculous. That being said, I am not a fan of reasonability because I think it invites too much judge intervention so I default to competing interps. That doesn't mean to not read reasonability in front of me. It just means if you do, you're gonna have to press hard on that part of the debate. T is never an RVI, the aff shouldn't win just because they are topical.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

General Overview:

I am a first year college parli debater for Lewis & Clark College in Oregon. In high school my main focuses were Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. That being said, I'm okay with speed, as long as you speak clearly. I will only say "clear" once in round if I can't understand you.

When judging PuFo:

1) If it becomes a card swapping time suck, I will dock significant speaker points.

2) CX is for you as the debaters to have an opportunity to ask questions and gather more information about your opponents case. I do not flow CX, so there is no need to try and make an argument in CX. In this spirit of curiosity and education, please be respectful in CX. There's no need to get nasty. I will deduct significant speaker points for either grievance.

3) I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job as the judge to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read, not your job to adapt to me. Therefore, I won't reject you arguments on face or weigh impacts based on a personal preference ( i.e. environmental v. nuclear).

4) I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out for myself at the end. This requires impact framing! I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow w/o having to insert my own analysis. This means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.

Moderately experienced judge with high school debate experience.

Prefer moderate speaking rate - need to hear it to flow it.

Arguments must be substantiated with evidence.

Arguments must be refuted if you do not want them extended.

I want clash, compare your ideas and convince me your arguments carry more impact.

I don't want evidence debates. Debate the topic.

All information must be presented in round to be considered.

I appreciate voters.

Off-time road maps okay.

If done outside of cross, evidence review will be against requester's prep time.

Prefer you time yourselves. I will keep the official timer.

Experience: 3 years of policy, one year of Congress lol. Four years out.

Speed: I’m fine with speed (rusty so bear with me), but if you don’t slow down for the tags and authors I will most likely have trouble flowing your evidence.

If you're going to be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. please save everyone the pain and just concede the round at the start.

PARADIGM:

Topicality – I have a very high threshold for topicality. Unless there is obvious abuse, I find it difficult to vote neg on T. That being said, if the aff does not handle topicality well, then I have no problem voting neg. I don't really buy RVIs.

Kritiks – Okay with Ks, I've run cap, fem, and orientalism, so I'm relatively familiar with the terminology. Otherwise, you need strong analysis/OVERVIEWS for me to really understand. If you use jargon without defining it, I may not understand what you're arguing.

Framework – Bottom line, I need you to tell me why to accept/reject FW, and how that affects my evaluation of the round. Without framework/without clash on competing frameworks, I default impact calc.

Counterplans – If you’ve got a net benefit and prove competition, I vote for the CP.

Theory – I usually won’t view theory as a reason to vote down a team; I will more likely reject an argument. You have to prove actual abuse (unless it's dropped).

Tl;dr – I don’t like judging debates that are super heavily evidence based. I need good analysis and argumentation in your own words why you should win the debate. USE OVERVIEWS!!! Also I'm rusty so bear with me.

@ Varsity CX (and really every team tbh): I really want to understand all of your super kritikal and advanced arguments, but honestly sometimes I struggle. So if you want me to evaluate your case accurately, you've gotta have some pretty sick overviews by your second constructive or you've probably lost me.

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.

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.

10 years judging and coaching PF—9 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions--two online years), 7 times at Nationals

Add me to your evidence email. brandonc@svsd410.org

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

tbd

yo what up

lejakenneth@gmail.com email me with questions or further feedback you would like! Always down to help anyone in the community.

I am Kenneth (he/they) I am the head spontaneous and parliamentary coach of Lincoln High School. I think also head of Speech/Interp? My man Ben Harrison works in the labs of Big Tournaments, and we all do the most we can for our students. I care about my students very much, but if you are reading about this then you probably care more about my experience than my love for them lol. I attended* college at Lewis and Clark and am studying both Philosophy and Rhetoric and Media Studies. I did parliamentary debate and some speeches in high school. In college I did college debate for a while, found it was awful and inaccessible, and switched to speech and did that for several years. I was nationally competitive in both, and it was a very enjoyable experience that I would encourage many to consider. Speech that is, not college debate ;) In my time I have debated in Parliamentary Debate for 3 years, Public Forum for one, NPDA for one. Speech events I have performed in are Impromptu for 6ish years, Extemp for 3 years, Prose like twice ever. Poetry for a year, Info for two, Persuade for two, After Dinner Speaking for two. In high school I never did nat quals, but won state in Parliamentary Debate my senior year. In college I nationally qualified and competed on a national level in NPDA one year, extemp three years, impromptu two, ADS two, Persuade one, Info one, Poetry one. My prose and poetrys are unanimously acknowledged as having never been good :) As you can probably tell I have done nearly every event or debate format so I am a jack of all trades sort, hence my love for teaching and coaching.

TLDR for events:

~Don't say thank you!!!!!! Number of thank yous I have heard since adding this to my paradigm: 123

It is far far preferred to end speeches with a powerful memorable line or thought. Thank yous ruin this completely and ruin the ending tone of a speech.

Debates:

Say you all deserve 30 speaks, it takes 8 seconds. I will give you 30 speaks. speaker points are bad and sexist, you know the drill.

1. Policy: Anything goes. Frivolous Ks run in bad faith will be dropped. Ks cannot be kicked, if you kick a K you are running it in bad faith. If this is confusing or you have questions, please ask me about them before the round.

2. LD: Ts okay. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

3. Parli: Ts okay within reason. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

4. Pofo: Run theory in pofo I dare you :) please don't actually. I also flow cx. Don't change how you approach cx, I just think if it is said it should have flow to refer to it.

5. BQD: I hate all philosophers. Logos is your friend, not ethos. Also don't be a sociopath and any morality arguments will probably be fine. This means you too LD.

6. Worlds: ...bruh

Speech events:

Ask yourself "why is this argument made in this event and not another".

7. Impromptu: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Impromptu is best when you use a complex range of material for examples with unique interpretations and arguments for why they support your thesis. Please do not ever use yourself as an example. If you do it once you won't rank first in the round and if you use more than one self inserted example you are bottom two.

8. Extemp: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Make an argument and convince me, easy as that. Also if you do not DIRECTLY answer the question you rank behind anyone that did, which can result in an auto last.

9. Informative: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through educating the audience about a specific thing that exists, and having some form of interpretation of what this information means and its impacts.

10. Oral Interp: This format is a little strange, but it is mostly the same as whichever style you decide to do (informative/ads/etc.) with some form of persuasion often incorporated.

11. After Dinner Speaking: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through humor with deeper thematic points and overall themes throughout your piece. I value substance of the argument heavily, so more laughs doesn't win a round in my mind, although no laughs is pretty detrimental. These laughs are mine though lol, I don't care what the audience thinks I'm the judge. This may seem rough but this helps prevents things like stacking rounds. Additionally, I don't always audibly laugh and can appreciate the art and skill of a speaker without audibly laughing. It is just the nature of the event and who I am. That being said, do not be afraid to give it your all, I appreciate the commitment and challenge of this event, so swing for the fences.

12. Poetry: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through complex and overlapping pieces of poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

13. POI: Same as Poetry, except the material used is much more diverse in medium than just poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

14. DI: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through depiction of character and character progression and story. If there is not a central character, or implied "common" character, your piece will be harmed significantly. I have seen sets for this, but the best DI's I recall have all been singular pieces.

15. DUO: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through the relationship between two people. Singular pieces way way preferred. It is harder to convey relationships if your characters keep changing. I have seen good sets, but I highly discourage it unless you absolutely know what you are doing.

Eventually I will write some manuscripts about each event individually and add them here. The thank you count will keep me coming back to this.

I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.

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!

I did 4 years of LD and Parli in high school and then competed for the University of Oregon in Parli and Policy for 4 years.

I've been coaching high school debate for 3 years in Oregon and have had a high amount of rounds lately.

Comparative analysis is important to me. Weighing your arguments (probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc) against your opponents will get you far in rebuttals. Please help me write my ballot for me.

Critical debate is great but one of the reasons communication and lay judges seem to hate it is when teams refuse to explain the thesis of their position. A brief explanation of your position goes a long way and should make critical debate better for everyone involved. And ideally it will make critical debate easier to embrace among the rest of the community. So give an short overview or underview, it's easy. I promise

Going for theory is cool. Badly going for theory is not. So if that's the position you want, go for it. For the whole rebuttal. Seriously. Unless it is completely unanswered, It's very hard for me to justify voting on a theory position if you spend 30 seconds talking about it in the rebuttal and then try to go for everything else too.

Other than that, have fun. Don't be mean. Debate is pretty neat

My Speech and Debate experience includes competing in Individual Events and CEDA debate as an undergraduate student at the Universiry of Oregon (1988-1992) coaching Debate at Willamette University while I was in Law School (1002-1995), and judging High School and College Speech & Debate as a parent of debaters at McMinnville High and University of Oregon.

I have been a trial lawyer for 30 years. I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective - that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.

Be smart and speak well.

Real World Policy Maker

Teacher and Coach

speech and debate coach 47 years

Member of National Speech and Debate Association (NFL and NSDA) since I was 14.

Parli/POFO: Just ask me in round, I don't have much to say about either of these even though I did them the most. Basic things are: I like signposting, impact calc, plans/cps, coherent policy solutions, and mutual respect. Things I don't like: K's (never ever ever ever run a K in parli with me, if you do, it's a guaranteed loss.) Seriously, I will mark the ballot for the other team the second I hear one. theory, and PICs.

LD: Here are some basic things that I want to see/ don't want to see. But first, my philosphy as a judge. I am a policy making judge plain and simple. Take that as you will. If you think that your out of the box policy solution will work, then by all means run it. If you can convince me, past my better judgement, that nuking China will provide solvency, then you kind of deserve to win. I have been convinced by things like that, and I've run them myself. NO K's. Not now, not ever. You don't need to run a K if your opponent is being racist, I can probably tell. Just make sure to make it known how you feel, and I will weigh that. It doesn't need to be a completely formal arg. Theory is ok if you know how to do it. It's unlikely that it'll be weighed heavily on my ballot. Not a flow judge. I flow, but it isn't a huge part of my ballot. Just make sure to sign post and do some impact calc. If you do no impact calc, I'll go with whatever the most likely impact is, not the greatest magntitude. Please do some clear values and criterion, they're important.

TLDR;

I don’t like progressive debate (I won’t drop someone on this alone, but you run a severe risk with me if you choose to go off the rails.)

I do like traditional debate (take that as you will) and policy making. I’m a policy making judge and nothing would make me happier than if you accommodate. I do have a stomach for outlandish policy if you can prove to me it’s the most advantageous vote in your specific round. Want to nuke the moon? Fine, just prove to me that it is the best option in THIS round.

I DON’T LIKE K’s AND I WON’T WEIGH THEM

I do like proper decorum. Adjust to your round though if it’s an outlandish topic, I will be more inclined to accept outlandish behavior in those situations. In fact, I’d prefer it. Keep it respectful and NEVER get personal or even give the impression of a personal issue being formed. All debate happens in hypothetical spaces, keep that in mind if you start to feel strongly during a round.

If you have any questions after a round or if you want to threaten me after I drop you, email me. kanenmcreynolds@gmail.com

Quality beats quantity every time. There's no value to speaking as fast as humanly possible. If I can only catch 50% of what you say, you're wasting 50% of the time you have.

Arguing the meaning of a common word may work in a deposition, but won't win a debate.

I prefer no off time road maps. If you wish to lay out your speaking plan, please do that in your allotted time.

Asking my paradigms, then ignoring them almost always ends with a loss.

In general, I am a very pragmatic judge. Old school Cross-X debater, so I really love it when people use C-X to set up their arguments or catch their opponent off guard with something they didn't expect. Top half debates are fun, but definition clashes or weighing mechanisms will very rarely carry the day with me, but if its a novel argument I haven't thought of, it can definitely contribute to a win. I'm all about impacts, harms and solvency. When talking about inherency, you need to truly understand what it means and that the status quo is already doing it.

Not a huge fan of counterplans, unless the topic wording is so skewed so as to not offer the Negative much ground or pose serious morality issues. The burden of proof shift then occurs and most teams in negation that I have seen are not skilled enough to run these persuasively. I try and suspend my own biases and think I am pretty open minded. A FIERCE independent politically and a fiscal conservative given my career in economics.

This is not a tabula rasa judge; on the contrary:

"Making an evidence presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. To maintain standards of quality, relevance, and integrity for evidence, consumers of presentations should insist that presenters be held intellectually and ethically responsible for what they show and tell. Thus consuming a presentation is also an intellectual and a moral activity."--Edward Tufte (Emeritus Professor, Yale University),Beautiful Evidence(https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_be).

In Policy Debate:

I expect the affirmative to present a standing problem in the status quo that they can solve by means of a plan that affirms the resolution. I expect the negative to explain to me how their opponents have failed on one-or-more of these simple tasks, or why the problems they see with the plan their opponents presented outweigh the benefits.

(Why am I a boring "stock issues" judge? Because the framework is useful in the real world, see also https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selling-project-proposal-art-science-persuasion-6028 -- they rework HITS to PCAN but it's fundamentally the same.)

None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can enunciate. None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can think. I will be judging the debate as presented as I hear it and I should not need to judge evidence as written (and if I do then something bad has happened).

Speakers will time themselves, the person asking questions times Cross, I time prep and prep goes until your opponent is successfully able to see the evidence you handed/flashed/emailed to them.

Addendum: The best policy debates (with high speaker points!) get progressively wonkier/nerdier as each team tries to get to a level of detail that their opposition hasn’t done the work/research to know. If you know Scott’s Seeing Like a State then you can pretty much guarantee that there’s going to be a likely breakdown in plan-as-written somewhere, the question is: can you convince me that you know what it is (neg) but have accounted for that contingency (aff)? To quote Saxe (via Foucault): “It is not enough to have a liking for architecture. One must also know stone-cutting.”

In Values Debate:

I expect the affirmative to have a clear and good motivation they want to lead me to action with, a means of measurement showing me that the action they're advocating supports their motivation, and some evidence to support that the action tilts those means of measurement towards their sense of goodness. I expect the negative to explain to me why the affirmative's reasoning is faulty on any of these levels, or present a superior competing motivation (similarly structured) that is advanced by rejecting the resolution.

(If you need more guidance on what this looks like, might I recommend watching this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA)

In Public Forum:

I expect both sides to present coherent, defensible research boiled down to relevant talking points. This event is about doing a lot of draft and prep work so that you start and stay at (what is for you) the heart of the matter while you are on the clock.

(This is far harder than it sounds to get scripted even once, and has to be re-done month after month after month -- the disciplined cadence of perpetual research-to-presentation is what you learn from the "Public Forum" debate format.)

Bio:

Attended Seattle Academy (2010-14) and Lewis & Clark College (2014-18). Coached Lincoln HS (Portland), The Bear Creek School, Seattle Academy, Lewis & Clark, Lafayette College, Concordia University-Irvine. Mostly did speech stuff but I've been around a lot of debate(rs). Currently a law student at Seattle University (class of 2026).

Paradigm Proper:

I think I'll be judging some LD and PF in and around Seattle this year. Here are a few adaptations to make in front of me.

1. I prefer that we minimize nonsense during our time together. Examples include: wasting time, stealing prep, linking everything to extinction, frivolous procedurals, unnecessary rudeness. A good litmus test is if your coach, school principal, parents, and the authors of your arguments would approve of your conduct, I'll be fine with it.
2. I am a big picture judge. I want to be able to tell the losing team a coherent, several-sentence story of what I am endorsing and why I am endorsing that instead of what they want me to endorse. This means I value judge instruction! Tell me why I'm voting for you, why your arguments are more important than your opponents', what the central question of the round is and how I should go about evaluating it. You are unlikely to win on a bunch of dropped blips. You are more likely to win because one or two well-developed arguments convinced me that voting for your side is preferable.
3. I will flow the debate and determine a winner using my flow. Please signpost, stay organized, and respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Well-developed dropped arguments are true, but you still have to explain why they matter. I will only vote on arguments that you introduce in the first half of the round and appear in all of your speeches in the second half of the round.
4. I'm decently well-read. I majored in Econ, I'm in law school, and I read the news regularly. Assume I know about the world and topic but maybe not the specifics of your argument (especially acronyms).

Speaker points:

I totally give 30s. Be the kind of person I would recommend novice debaters go watch in elimination rounds. You start at a 26 and can gain (or lose) up to one point in each of the following areas:

1. High-quality research, and high-quality understanding of your (and your opponent's) research
2. Smart choices, critical thinking, and in-round strategy
3. Strong delivery, word economy, and rhetorical skills
4. Kindness, good attitude, vibes, and a sense of humor

Closing thoughts:

If I look or sound grumpy, it's been a long day. I promise I care a lot and I'm excited to watch your debate. I have enormous respect for the hard work and research you put in, and I can't wait to listen to what you have to say and try to give some helpful feedback. If you have any requests or need any accommodations, feel free to ask. I am also happy to answer any questions you have before or after the round.

I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.

Also, be polite.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

I competed in CX then Paril debate from 2005-09. I now coach LD, Parli, and PF. Open minded, progressive friendly judge.

Jean Ward Update, 17 January 2019:

Nothing new - just note that everything below applies equally (to the extent that it applies at all) to policy as well.

Parli TOC Update, 19 March 2018:

Hi! I do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

The rather long paradigm below is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to parli as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask!

I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. Please be respectful, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please number and organize your arguments. I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me, and you may go as fast as you like.

12. Call the point of order. I'll likely know if something is new, but I'm averse to making that judgement alone.

Critical/Preclusive Notes

If I am judging you and the building is far away/you, for whatever reason, don't have enough time to read this, then just ask me before the round and I'll summarize it for you.

If asking me specific questions before the round would be more time efficient, comfortable, or helpful for you, then I’ll gladly do that as well/instead. If there’s something you need to know about my judging that is critical to how you wish to engage in the debate, in whatever way, then I will be as honest and forthcoming with that information as possible, and I hope that you will be comfortable with asking me any necessary questions.

The below paradigm only discusses LD, because that’s the event that I did most in high school and prefer to judge. However, anything within it that isn’t LD-specific applies to other events as well.

About Me – Geographical and Competitive History

I debated for four years at Sprague High School (class of 2016) in Salem, Oregon. I began with Parli and Public Forum, but then switched to LD and debated both traditionally and on the national circuit for roughly 3 years from then on. I qualified to NSDA Nationals 3 times in LD, and earned 2nd Place in Extemporaneous Debate there my sophomore year, and 15th place in LD there my junior year. My senior year, I qualified to the TOC in LD and went 4-3.

I now do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

About Me – Argumentative History

As I said, I debated both progressively and traditionally, so I’m familiar and comfortable with either style, or something entirely outside the traditional definitions of either.

I would hope that the types of arguments I have read/now read don’t have any influence on the way you wish to debate, or the ways that I am predisposed to adjudicate rounds, but for transparency’s sake, I’ll list them here.

I preferred to debate fast and technically. In LD I preferred thick philosophical frameworks, strict interpretations of those frameworks throughout the round, as well as my fair share of tricks. I didn’t really have a “pocket K” in high school, but I enjoyed reading Jungian Psychoanalysis, the Hierarchal Complexity Kritik that many have read in LD recently (perhaps best called “Oppression Weighing Bad”), Spivak, Neoliberalism, and some others. If you would like to see what I read at TOC my senior year to get a better idea of what I was like, feel free to look at my 2016 Circuitdebater page.

In College Parli I’ve branched out. I almost never cared much for LARPing (roleplaying as the government and loosely using a utilitarian/consequentialist calculus) in high school, but now I do. I’ve grown to really enjoy reading T/Theory, and I enjoyed debating the Elections DA until the Uniqueness came to a sad and surprising end recently. As for Ks, I’ve read Rancière, Welsh, Agamben, Nietzsche, and Virilio.

My Broad Paradigm

Because I think that Phil/FW debate is dying in LD, I’ll boost both sides’ speaks to reward engaging in an in-depth framework debate. An example would be Emotivism vs. Deontology.

I want to leave as much to you and the other debater as possible. I do not want to be selfish and try to impose my conceptions of debate on you. I'm judging because I like watching debate, not because I like only a certain kind of debate. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should. Whether that's LARP, tricks, theory, performance, Ks, something brand new, something everyone else does, whatever it is, that's cool.

I really want to be a low anxiety judge—I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

Defaults

The presence of nearly any argument in the round that has bearing on a paradigmatic issue means that I will abandon my search for an appropriate default and use that argument to frame my evaluation of offense. (I say “nearly any” because it’s a question of whether such an argument has bearing on that paradigm. “Util Good” may be a reason to prefer comparative worlds, but the fact that the sky is blue likely doesn’t imply truth testing, for example. My tolerance for my own intervention is so low, however, that I would like a response to such supposedly-frivolous arguments nonetheless.)

I don’t really have a set of things that I could call defaults. What I would be inclined to default to is context sensitive and depends on what exactly happens in the round. If both debaters assume/agree to Util, but don’t justify a comparative worlds paradigm, (over truth testing, offense-defense, best justification, etc.) of course I’ll default to comparative worlds. I prefer that things like that are justified though, particularly if there is a conflict and it matters, such as the common case of one debater truth testing and one comparing worlds.

Please justify the paradigm for evaluating theory, such as competing interpretations or reasonability. Reasonability scares me a bit because I don’t like the idea of me “gut checking” things, so if you win that reasonability is the best theory paradigm, then please clarify it further. Establishing a ‘brightline’ for reasonability would help everyone understand, engage, and evaluate your arguments on theory that depend on it.

If I had to default between competing interps and reasonability, I would choose the way that has the least direct causal impact on my evaluation of the round. This method of defaulting is one that I will attempt to use on other paradigmatic issues as well. Essentially, if someone seems to be winning theory for the most part, and competing interpretations and reasonability aren’t debated at all, then I’ll default to whichever prevents me from having to undermine and circumvent that debater’s winning of theory. If that’s too difficult for me to do, then I’ll default to competing interps and weigh offense and defense between either explicit or implicit interps on the theory debate.

Conduct

If I am on a panel, I will not talk to other judges unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and critical to the round/tournament/somebody’s wellbeing. If not, I feel that judges talking to each other during a debate round, especially a high-stakes outround, is distracting and disrespectful to some debaters, and I want people to be able to focus.

If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

Arguments in General

In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds.

Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as “racism good,” and the like.

Other than that, I don’t have a preference for some arguments over others. I don’t want to be dogmatic, and attempting to appeal to my intuitions/background as a debater isn’t persuasive to me.

I think that what counts as ‘offense’ or an ‘argument’ varies greatly, and that arguments come in many forms through a variety of different avenues and mediums.

For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

Speaking

As someone who always has a very dry mouth/has a hard time swallowing/is frequently sick, I’m not a stickler for clarity. I don’t listen to card texts very carefully in constructives because, if my job is to listen to and clearly understand the card text, then tags are redundant. I’ll call for cards if asked, but I’ll go by tags/analytics/extensions if not regardless, because these are the actual arguments made by debaters.

If there is something that will impact your ability to present your arguments, let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. I would hate to put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you feel it is necessary, I can flow your speech off of a flash/email of your speech doc. Otherwise, I only ask that you try your absolute best to be slow and clear on tags and analytics.

Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

If you need to pause your time to take a drink of water or something like that, that’s totally cool. It’ll help your clarity and comfort so I think that it’s conducive to everything. Just please don’t use this as a way to steal prep; I trust that you won’t. I don’t consider this to be allowing prep during a speech, because every time I take a drink of something I’m thinking “don’t spill don’t spill don’t spill” in my head anyway.

Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

I won’t penalize speaks for speaking issues.I decide them based on a variety of factors. They’re inevitably arbitrary, but this eliminates at least one fairly arbitrary factor from the mix, and any penalization (whether deserved or not, unfortunately) for speaking comes in the form of me missing arguments anyway. I see no reason to add to that by penalizing speaks as well.

I think that I am, and I do strive to be, more generous on speaks than other judges. That is my method of approaching how arbitrary they are. I haven't judged a lot, so I'm not sure what my average will be.

Card Calling

I will call cards for the purpose of evaluating the round only if and when I’m asked to. I think it’d be intervention to do so otherwise. Just saying, “Broth, their evidence is terrible on this question,” isn’t sufficient to warrant me calling for it or ignoring it. I know that you’re pressed for time, so just a simple “their evidence is tagged as this but doesn’t make a causal claim/have a warrant about it,” is sufficient.

I may call for something if I’m curious, but that won’t affect the round. Even if the evidence that I call for in these instances isn’t very good, (by my conception of what that means) I won’t let that effect the way in which I evaluate it because of that. I’ll still treat the tag, or the explicated implications of that card, as being true. An argument about it would have needed to have been made for me to treat the evidence otherwise.

Extensions

I would say that I have a low threshold for extensions compared to other judges. If something is conceded, I don’t need you to very thoroughly rehash the warrant, and would rather hear “big picture”/more line by line/implication work instead. This is because that (a) tells me why that thing being true and extended matters, and (b) helps me evaluate the round a lot better.

Prep

Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

If you have computer problems, let me know and show me, and you can pause your prep.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters agree that it is.

Policy Update, 7 March 2018:

Hi! The rather long paradigm above is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to policy as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask! I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. My pronouns are he/him. Please be respectful of others, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

12. Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

13. I will only call for cards to evaluate the round if asked and given a reason to do so. I may ask out of curiosity or to give better feedback, but, in such cases, what I find will not affect the round.

Many years ago, I did various forms of parliamentary debate in college, but with no high school debate experience. As such, I vote primarily on who spoke and argued best, without specific attention to current debate terms. I have little debate experience since college, so treat me as if I were a lay judge. This means NO JARGON. While I may know what you’re talking about, I feel that not being able to speak to a lay audience detracts from the educational nature of debate and its applicability in the real world. If you can’t convince a random person off the street, what good is your argumentation?

As an engineer, I appreciate easy to follow organization, but please do not call out and number every single sub point, as this detracts from your understandability to regular audiences.

Again, speak and argue well to get my vote.

I did LD and parli for four years in high school.

Write my ballot for me. Give me clear voters, use frameworks to evaluate arguments, and/or do impact calculus. Tell me what the most important arguments in the round are and why.

If you have any more questions about my judging philosophy, please ask.

I did Policy debate in highschool, College parli, and college LD. So I have some experience and can judge any type of debate.

I am open to any style of debate, whether more kritik focused or policy.

I will vote on theroy that as long as youre winning the flo0w and have standards and voters

Make sure you extend your arguments and have competitve and impacts with magnitude, probability, timeframe.

Use framework if possible, to frame yourself ahead in the round.

Overall I like debates that are respectful, have good clash, and are creative in their case and/or argumentation.

I debated for 5 years between high school and college, including 3 years in parli for the Lewis & Clark team. I am fine listening to whatever you’d like to read. To win my ballot you should focus your last few speeches on impact weighing; don’t go for everything in the round, but tell my why your best arguments outweigh your opponent’s. I’m fine with speed, although I will ask you to slow down if you’re going too fast for me to flow. Additionally, I don’t think speed should be used as a tool for exclusion, if you are clearly spreading your opponent out of the round, that will hurt your speaks.

Lastly, be kind and respectful to your opponent. Debate is an environment that can naturally create a lot of nastiness and toxicity within rounds, so put your best foot forward and recognize that being rude and disrespectful to your opponent does not make you a better debater, nor will it make you look like one to me.

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. 👴🏻 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.

hi qorls call me hope
she/they | email: hopesmothers@lclark.edu

yup that's right, u got a speech kid judging ur debate round.

I'm a 4th year at LC, primarily speech but I did some humble debate in addition. I've been competing for 8 years, now I serve as the National Student Representative for the Collegiate National Forensic Association. In HS, I had some interp TOC and NSDA outrounds and fortunately a couple placings and state titles as well. In college, some tournament titles and platform/interp breaks at NFA. I've been around, got the trauma to prove it (´༎ຶٹ༎ຶ)

I have some experience in LD and PF from high school. So I'll break down some generals and then specific—

Me to the debater spreading: "I CaN speAK FaST But I'M acTUaLly JuSt GATeKEepINg"

lol speed's fine for the most part. I'm a speech kid though so if u pathos it up I'll be more engaged, don't spread through your tags. Also, don't be afraid to call clear or speed on your opponent/don't be surprised if I call it on you; debate should (and in my round, WILL) be accessible*. The norms that currently guide debate elevate form over content, and that's dumb but I get it, do what you gotta do to keep afloat in the norm waves.

I'm tab, do whatever you like, make me laugh, bribe me, let's have a good ol time.

30's for everyone, unless ur intolerant and/or a shithead, do some reflection if warranted.

Send an email or ask for clarification if needed and advocate for your needs in round, I'll listen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD

Theory: So while I'm all for your hijinx on the T page, spoon feed this speech kid. I want everybody to read what makes them buzz but keep in mind what I am capable of comprehending based on my experiences. I have found I am more persuaded by proven abuse than hypothetical abuse on a T flow but that isn't an absolute.

K: perm doesn't work as offense.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty. I won't just vote what x person/auth. elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of x person/auth.

CX: If something in CX isn't made in a speech, I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF

I'm flowin, you win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Cards
I like cards and you should read them.
If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll notice and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access cards quickly.

Front Half (AC/NC & AR/NR)
Constructives can be anything, I don't take my own opinions of policy into a debate round.
I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)
The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.
Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.
Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

FF
Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Theory
I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, especially in this event.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Accessibility/Speed: you need to be capable of making speech docs & sending them out for the opponent and the judge if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around to make this a more viable option for you if you come unprepared. If you choose to spread, you should be able to take on the accessibility accommodations that go with it*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strive to judge all debate with a blank slate, or with tabula rasa; I also pride myself at being as open minded as possible in every event that I judge, by recognizing and negating my own biases and beliefs so I can achieve impartial judgement in every situation. Although my decisions are primarily policy driven, I tend to also weigh speaking skills and communication as an essential aspect of student presentation.

I strive to judge all debate with a blank slate, or with tabula rasa; I also pride myself at being as open minded as possible in every event that I judge, by recognizing and negating my own biases and beliefs so I can achieve impartial judgement in every situation. Although my decisions are primarily policy driven, I tend to also weigh speaking skills and communication as an essential aspect of student presentation.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

I debated public forum for 4 years at Gonzaga Prep. I currently coach Public Forum and have judged Public Forum and LD.

Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.

Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will yell at you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.

I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.

Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.

Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.

Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.

Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!

Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.

Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

Hey y’all, Nadya here, I’m glad that I’m getting the opportunity to judge you in this round! For the sake of a pre-round TL:DR-

I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way. I am fairly familiar with Policy, Kritik, and theory debate, do what you want. I will give you the best possible feed back I am capable of at the end of the round. I am most familiar with NPDA and NFA-LD.

Some more specific things for when you have time to read more -

General Things -

- I find that people have gotten less interesting clear in their impact calculus as of late, I would like more explicit and clear articulations as to why I should care about what impact. Absent being given this context in a round I will default to probable over high magnitude impacts.

- My experience with debate, I am currently the Director of Debate at Lewis and Clark College and have been for the last 5 years.  Before that I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD for 5 years in college.  I read a little bit of everything as a debater but had some particular favourites (Queer Pes, D&G, DeCol, Impact Turns)

- I have no problem voting on terminal defense if the round comes down to it, but I am always much more excited to get to actual vote offense in a round.

- I’m fine with you going fast if you want, its not really a huge problem so long as you aren’t weaponizing speed to exclude other people in the round go wild. I have a pretty low threshold needed to be met to vote on speed theory

- I don’t vote on disclosure, don’t take this as a challenge, I DO NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE, I do not care if its conceded, I do not care if you think you’ve got the version of the argument to get me to finally change, I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

- Please please please, read analytics, be smart, just saying an argument isn’t an argument because it doesn’t have a piece of evidence immediately attached to it doesn’t mean that an argument wasn’t made, as long as its explained an analytic is a perfectly valid argument and needs to treated as such.

- I like creative extensions of the aff, I like well structured overviews, and in general am always excited to see what weird new things you all come up with, so please show me what you’ve got, I love seeing the limits of what debate is capable of being.

Theory Specifics

- I will vote on theory read in basically any speech within reason, I think that if abuse happens in the 1NR than the 2AR has a right to read arguments about it happening, it doesn’t mean I will automatically vote on it, but I will at least flow and eval it.

- Some jurisdictional issues regarding theory. Theory is by default Apriori, you can always make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. “This is an NFA-LD rule” is not a voter its a statement, the action of them breaking a rule has a result, that is your voter. Fairness and Education are bad voters, please contextualize them, what kind of fairness, education about what? Please make sure you have a clear interpretation, please please please make sure its clear, I will hold you to the interp you read out of the first speech it is read out of. I will default to competing interpretations as an eval mechanism unless told explicitly not too.

- lighting round, Yes I’ll vote on 1AR theory, Condo is fine until it isn’t, Dispo is okay until it isn’t, Pics are good until they aren’t, Floating pics are great until they aren’t, CP theory is always a good option, I’ll vote on spec but I won’t be happy about it, Potential abuse is fine but proven abuse last forever.

Kritik Specifics

- I am familiar with most common critical authorship that has been popular in the last decade or so. This includes; Cap of all flavours, Queerness stuff, Blackness lit, Decol and Set Col stuff, PoMo stuff like D&G, Ableism stuff, and a few fringe things. Feel free to read whatever kind of kritik you want to in front of me and I will evaluate it to the absolute best of my ability.

- I’m not super picky about how you read a kritik, but I do think that every kritik needs to functionally make three claims in order to function. First, a Kritik must make some kind of evaluative claim, what should my ballot focus on and what impacts should be prioritized. Second, a Kritik must have a link to the specific actions either advanced explicitly or methodologically endorsed by the aff plan. Third, there needs to be a clear and explicit alternative that has a clear solvency claim.

- If you want to read a K Aff go wild, I did it a lot when I was a debater, I am usually sympathetic to them and enjoy a good K Aff, that being said, I do still expect you to fill your time and be strategic. If you’re rejecting the topic wholesale fine, but tell me why, give me a reason why the topic should be abandoned. Make sure that you are advancing a clear methodology in your 1AC as well, I don’t so much care what that method is just make sure you stick to it, I find that I am exceptionally compelled by a a good contextualization or warranted analysis of the 1AC vs theory etc. out of the 1NC. A sneaky 1Ar/2AC restart will almost always net you high speaks in my book, its a hard thing to do well but if you can manage a tricky restart to the debate in the second aff speech I won’t shut up about it.

- Rapid Fire, Links of omission are bad and warrant link turns of omission please be specific on your link sheet, you can read a K and theory at the same time I find that I not super compelled by “you read theory which is a form of X violent practice so it links to your K” like if you want to go for the double turn go for it but like its not a strong arg, K and theory operate on different levels which I evaluate comes first is up to you and your opponent, floating pics are fun please read them strategically but make sure you can answer the theory sheet first.

Policy Specifics

- I am fine evaluating a good Case vs CP and DA combo. In fact a good DA/PIC combo is one of perhaps the most fun strategies that exists in the negative tool box. I am fine with any sort of case argument. I will vote on terminal defense, the sqo is neg ground and if the aff can’t solve than the aff doesn’t change the sqo, so I vote negative. I am not happy to vote on terminal defense, but as they say, the status quo is always an option I guess.

- I find that too often people read uniqueness args at each other but never think about the way those arguments actually interact with each other. I think that the best way to win a policy debate is to win the uniqueness level. Who cares if the aff solves an impact if the sqo already solved it right? I think that too often we focus on impact debate and link debate and forgo some of the fundamentally important arguments that are needed to win these claims. If you’re reading this now, take it as a reminder, when was the last time you updated your 1AC uniqueness? Cutting updates should happen before every tournament, don’t let yourself lose because you didn’t stay on top of your research.

- Straight Case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read, if you read straight case in front of me you will almost certainly net 30 speaks no questions asked. I’ve almost never not voted on this strategy, just case defense and impact turns or link turns is such a compelling strategy and as you’ll find out, a lot of people are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Some last minute fun things -

- Try to have fun, I love voting on goofy stuff and am fine to have a good time. The only argument that has a 100% win rate in front of me is Wipe Out so like who cares what I think anyway right?

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.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

I am a parent (lay) judge. I have two years experience judging debates but I should not be considered a technical expert. Please speak at a normal pace and please make sure you speak clearly. My inability to understand you means I may not be able to vote for you. I expect debaters will treat each other with respect and civility; I will do the same for you. I respect confidence but not arrogance.

Please speak clearly - even if you are policy - especially if you're policy

For TOC:

I am a parent judge with some training and experience. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require.

For Local NSDA debate:

I am a parent judge with three years experience, please speak clearly with reasonable speed. I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in the round. I like a clear debate with lots of clash and clear summaries that explain how you think I should weigh things and how I should vote. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

I believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and know your case. As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions, I usually give more weight to logical reasoning, which is more persuasive.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. Do not ignore your opponent's case, you need to rebut your opponent's case in addition to making your own case.

I am a flow judge. I vote on the arguments. I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards.

Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions, and overall how you carry yourself in the round.

Debate:

First of all, debate is fun. Have fun.

However, in order to have the most fun with it, remember what the expectations of each format ask of competitors.

Unless the round is Policy, there is little to no room for Policy characteristics: no spreading, no jargon, and little to no meta-debate. If a person isn't being topical, there are ways to discuss that without abandoning the communications aspect of the format. If you want to do Policy, do Policy. Typically, infusing other formats with Policy characteristics leads to sloppy argumentation and poor speaker scores.

After years of experience with British Parliamentary Debate, I have largely abandoned flow judging as the be all/end all of my decisions. If someone says the sky is green, and it doesn't get refuted, I don't think the Green Sky Team necessarily wins if their opponent drops it. Being Tabula rasa as a judge is impossible. I have some critical thinking skills and I like to keep them honed. That said, don't forget to refute, because that is a fundamental component of the activity. Fulfill your role, speak well, and make some warrants to justify your claims.

IEs:

Don't plagiarize. I've seen it happen with several events where students are expected to write their own content, and I will report it to the tab room when it happens.

I'm a lay judge with several years experience judging all forms of debate and speech events. I've taught college-level rhetoric, composition, and literature. In Debate rounds I'm looking for a solid argument with good supporting examples with clear and full elaboration; in other words, development is preferable to repetition. Make sure you define your terms meaningful and adhere to the actual resolution and don't wander off topic (i.e., if the issue is whether the US should pay its debt to the UN, the debate should specifically focus on that issue and not the UN in general). I love a good CX and (all things being equal) favor teams that discover vulnerabilities in the opponents' arguments and take advantage of them. If you don't have a full grasp of an abstract concept, i.e., "hegemony," "structural violence," "Occam's razor," "rational actor," "soft power," etc. don't bring it into play. Be able and willing to explain yourself and your ideas fully. I am unimpressed by spreading, jargon, or rudeness and regard off-time road maps as redundant. Similarly, telling me the "rules" of debate and claiming something is "unfair" will win you no points. I prefer to be convinced rather than told how to vote.