I am a parent judge with limited 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."

Debated 4 years of high school, primarily parliamentary but I have some knowledge of PF and LD as well. For all debate: Be clear, be concise, and be respectful. Signpost clearly and be very thoughtful in your impact calculus. Repeat points for emphasis if necessary, but don't talk in circles (and I won't count it against you if you don't fill time). Most importantly, if you are extremely disrespectful to your opponents in round (or outside of round) I WILL drop you. Be assertive, not necessarily aggressive, and no ad hominem attacks please.

For parli specifically: I can take pretty much whatever you throw at me (speed, theory, jargon, etc.) Use jargon if necessary but don't rely on it. Not a huge fan of Ks, I won't necessarily vote against them on principle but they must be CLEARLY needed and applicable to the case. Don't run a K for the sake of running a K, in most cases it's just an attempt to confuse your opponents and close them out of the debate OR to run a canned case instead of actually using your prep time for new arguments.

tl;dr be nice, have fun, and have good arguments. This paradigm is pretty basic so if you have any questions about my experience, specific types of arguments, or anything else please feel free to ask.

• Recent UPenn College Grad

• 4 Year Public Forum Debater- State and National Level- I know and understand all of the jargon

• Looking for a weighing mechanism, framework and impact analysis

• Summary Speeches are Key

• I will be flowing so please signpost and do not drop arguments

• Ex. If your opponent does not touch on your argument I don’t need you to tell me because I will have it written down

• I will not be flowing CrossX for content, but it will impact your speaker points

• Dont waste time with evidence exchanges, if you want to share cases and cards do so as efficiently as possible

• I don’t generally allow off time roadmap- so if you need to roadmap then do so quickly at the beginning of your speech

• Be Polite!

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

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’m a first year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

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.

I am a parent judge, and was never a debater myself. I have judged both Parli and OPOFO.

Your approach with me should be different than with an experienced judge. I appreciate outlines/roadmaps. I also appreciate you speaking clearly and concisely. I will not draw conclusions, or make connections, rather I expect you to make them for me.

I will drop speaker points if there's any sexist, racist, homophobic, or ableist actions or rhetoric.

Be polite. Have fun.

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

I'm new to debate (only judged once before), but I have kids who participate in debate and we all love it. From my first experience, I can say I'm not a big fan of spreading. I really appreciate clarity and doing you're own timing. Since I'm new, you won't win or lose on a technicality. I like engaging and well-organized arguments. Other than that, I'm open and I'm constantly in awe of debate students' thoughtfulness and bravery.

As far as background, in addition to being a parent I work for a public radio affiliate as a morning news host and talk show producer.

Debaters, convince me! I am not a debater myself and you will not win or lose on a technicality. Your ability to go to the heart of the matter and PERSUADE is paramount. So, I look for logical, compelling, well-organized arguments. I love relatable examples, engaging delivery, appropriate humor, good sportsmanship. Please pace yourself and speak clearly. Less is more.

• I am Parent Judge and have been judging debate tournaments for 3 years and I enjoy judging Public Forum and Parliament Debates
• I take Notes, and will look for quality and strength of the argument and ability to defend that during crossfire.
• Please slow down to ensure you are making and conveying your point

All the Best!

Experience: Competed: 2012-2016 and Coached 2017-Present

I will judge based on argumentation, logic, and the reality of the situation.

I prefer no off-time road-maps, you have a speech limit keep it within that and the grace period, please.

PLEASE NO SPREADING, if I can't understand you it will be difficult for you to win the ballot.

Don't be rude.

Stay organized if you are bouncing all over the place it will disorganize my flow and it will be hard to ensure you get the W.

Stay on topic and stay within the parameters of the resolutions, don't pull anything too crazy that completely changes the wording or the intentions of the resolution.

Use short taglines for your contentions if you can. I don't want to spend half your speech trying to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be, make it clear right from the beginning.

Don't talk down to me, your partner, or your opponent(s). I will not tolerate this and will result in a lower score.

Make sure you have your cards ready because if I don't believe that you're presenting truthful/faithful evidence I will double-check them and if you don't have them it may not work out in your favor.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

I am a college professor of engineering and value logical consistent argumentation above all else.

I am also extremely familiar with Westminster Parliamentary Debate and will commonly refer, even in US High school parliamentary debates, to Aff as Prime Minister and Neg as Loyal Opposition, do not take this as an indicator of anything regarding your score or my thoughts towards you. It is simply a personal terminology preference on my part.

My core paradigm is based primarily on gamesmanship.

1. Logical Fallacies will be ignored
2. Informal Fallacies are automatic dock of score
3. You are expected to challenge and ask questions, failure to ask questions when appropriate will be viewed as a sign of surrendering the point
4. Controlled Aggression, but not belittlement or disparagement, is acceptable
5. SLOW DOWN...a fast argument is not necessarily a good one.

Best debate teams are those that can present a logically ironclad argument for their case and deftly defend any and all challenges to that argument presented by the other side while still being able to identify and challenge weaknesses in the argument posed by the opposition.

Worst teams are those that prey on emotional charged informal fallacies and/or refuse to engage either out of spite based on the position they are given or a lack of ability to articulate.

Brandon Fletcher

Hired Judge, Spring 2019

Summary:

I want to watch a competitive debate where both teams are arguing the issues they’re best at, and I would prefer that the debaters spend more time thinking how to be strategic and have fun, than thinking about what particular style of debate or strategy that I want to see.

In terms of my competitive background, I was a competitor at Palomar and CSULB from 2010 to 2015, and was a coach at CSU Long Beach from 2015 to 2017. I was primarily involved in the NPDA/NPTE national circuit during that time, so that's what most of my experience is with.

Requirements:

That said, there are a few non-negotiable things you need to consider when having me in the back of the room:

· Use They/Them pronouns when not referring to me by name

· I will take a long time evaluating highly competitive rounds. As a byproduct of a learning disability, I continually reread and think through my flow before rendering a decision. If this is a problem, then you should strike me.

· Do not read pathos driven arguments related to suicide. Statistics are abstracted enough for me to be distanced from it emotionally, but thorough suicide narratives are not something I want to watch. If this is a core part of your tournament strategy, again, you should strike me.

· I reserve the right to ask for a copy of the plans, interpretations, and alternative texts.

Default Judging Assumptions

· Until told otherwise, I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or a proposed competitive policy or alternative option. Explicitly tell me how else to evaluate a debate if your strategy fits outside of this paradigm.

· I only evaluate arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in rebuttals.

· Will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but am not hostile to points of order if the argument will decide the outcome of a debate round.

· Each argument needs to hit a minimum threshold of explanation and coherence. I will disregard undeveloped and/or consequence free arguments when compared to arguments that are fully developed and impacted. Example,

· I am not an expressive judge. Do mistake my lack of expression for boredom or apathy; it’s just my default facial expression.

· Go as fast as you want - I will explicitly state if rate of delivery becomes an issue.

Negotiable preferences

This is what I like to see in debate rounds, but deviating from these preferences will not lose you the debate. The list below is just meant to provide context on my preferences for those that want it.

· Please do impact calculus and have warrants.

· I have a low threshold to vote on topicality or framework arguments for non-topical affs. What that means is obviously up for debate, but I don’t think you deserve to win if you cannot read or defend a competitive counter-interpretation of what the debate should be.

· Case debate is the best. No matter what strategy was deployed in the debate, I will never be upset at a thorough, well-warranted, and impacted case debate.

· Conditionality is good, but highly dependent on the context of the round and how theory debates play out in round.

· Theory debates are also the best, and I find them fun to evaluate at high levels of competition.

· Totally fine with generic strategies that are deployed and argued well.

· I don’t like ethically compromised impact turns. There are circumstances where I will evaluate the full weight of those arguments, but if you’re arguing that genocide or racism are good, I will likely eviscerate your speaker points.

· Most familiar with the following subjects in critical studies: Disability studies, queer theory, and anything by Foucault or Nietzsche.

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

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

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

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

I did LD, CEDA, and policy in high school and college, which was a long, long time ago, and started coaching and judging in the 19/20 academic year.

I'm open to whatever arguments you want to make. I'm a games theorist; debate is a rule-bound activity, and victory is decided, not by who has the best outfit or even the best cards, but by reference to the rules. I'm open to arguments about the rules, and I want a ruleset that will lead to interesting, educational, and satisfying debate.

I begin each round assuming that the debate is about the resolution, Aff will try to persuade me the resolution is true and will win if it succeeds, Neg wins if Aff fails or if Neg persuades me otherwise. If you want me to vote on some other basis, you need to persuade me in the round. Kritiks, perms, and some other esoteric arguments were not, as far as I recall, in common use when I was debating. That doesn't mean that you can't run them, but it means that you will be sorry if you assume I understand the framework, specific jargon, or the first couple of steps of your arcane theory argument. Those arguments can be very interesting, and I will listen to them and vote on them if I am persuaded, but that is unusual. I am surprised not to hear more arguments on topicality, the limits of fiat, how many examples prove a general proposition, and other basic arguments about the scope of the debate and the victory conditions.

My interest in theory notwithstanding, most rounds are won or lost on conventional grounds, and interesting debates are usually about true facts that exist in the real world. I'm not a tabula rasa judge; I read the news and keep up on current events, and I am a criminal defense attorney, so I have a pretty good understanding of the Constitution, how laws are made, and police and courtroom procedure. Arguments based on implausible or untrue facts are unlikely to work even if you have a citation to back them up. OSAA rules require more information about your sources than I typically hear. Telling me that in 2017 someone called Smith said something supportive of your argument is not especially persuasive, especially if your opponent points out that Smith's claims are implausible or we don't know who Smith is or why we should believe her. Arguments in Parli are most persuasive when they are based on facts that we all know and on logical inferences we can draw from those facts, and least persuasive, often round-losingly unpersuasive, when based on facts I know not to be true.

I don't think speed is appropriate in LD, PF, or Parli, and if you talk faster than I think is appropriate, I will put my pen down and stop paying attention. In policy, I don't object to speed, but if you talk faster than I can flow, it's your problem. Because debate is a spoken activity, I will not look to written materials to clarify things I couldn't understand during the speech, and I'll put my pen down if I'm unable to flow. In all formats, arguments delivered with the cadences, expression and gesture, and eye contact of good rhetoric will get more weight on the flow. And, like every other debate judge ever, I want clear organization. It's your job to make sure that I understand where on the flow your argument goes, and good signposts and labels will serve you well.

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.

I am not a new judge, but still feel like one! If you speak too quickly I won't be able to follow your case and scoring will reflect that. I value well-organized cases. You would be surprised at how often this has been an issue, but I expect respect to prevail in the room - for me as well as for your opponent. But mostly, have fun!

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!

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Paradigms:

I am a debate parent who is in their seventh year of judging. I appreciate respect in a round and will dock speaker points if you are being openly rude to your opponents or to me. I try to flow everything in the round, including cx. Speed is okay, as long as you enunciate. I value organization and strategy in debate, as well as the ability to think on your feet and adjust your case on the fly. Finally, your contentions must be evidence-based: don't make arguments that you can't back up.

Public Forum debate is not designed to be a talk as fast as you can debate. It is designed to be spoken at a clear and reasonable rate and pace. As a newer judge I want to be able to keep up with the debate.

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.)

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

Spread (overly rapid delivery) - Due to tintinitis (ringing in the ears) I cannot fully understand 'spread' and thus if I cannot understand what the competitor is saying, I cannot give credit for what is being said, or the ability to 'flow' my notes so that I can judge accurately.

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

For debate: quality over quantity for arguments (I'm allergic to spreading). If it's too fast for me to follow, I can't tell if it's a solid argument, so it means nothing to me. I'm more interested in engaging your opponent's arguments rather than tossing out a lot in hopes that an argument gets dropped.

I'll also say that maintaining clash in a debate is important to me. I am very unsympathetic to positions (counterplans, for example) that seek to evade the central issue in a resolution. Exploring positions that may not be popular or agree with your own opinions strikes me as one of the most valuable parts of debate, and you will do much better with me arguing those positions forcefully rather than trying to reframe a debate in terms that are more "comfortable."

For speech events, you still have to say something that is coherent and intelligible, but I have found that speeches that naturally vary in pace and tone keep me engaged much better than those that do not.

FWIW, I'm a science and math prof in my regular life. While I never competed in debate, I run lots of them with my students!

I like Death Grips, and drink Monster Energy Zero Ultra.

General CX/LD/PFD Preferences:

Professionalism and civility are required and weigh heavily in speakerpoints

Standing CX/Crossfire; seated Grand Crossfire; look at judge in CX/Crossfire

Don't use open CX/Crossfire as a crutch (I will dock speaks if it's clear one partner is doing all the heavy lifting)

I may critique after round, but only if both teams request. If I do critique, I will generally not disclose and I will keep it brief as I write a lot on the ballot for the benefit of your coach.

My view on speed (spreading) is that I will flow it, but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation for speed. If articulation is an issue, please slow down as I have some nerve deafness in my left ear, so you must be clear. However, PFD is an event where spreading is highly discouraged.

I'm a rule follower, so if there is a tournament prohibition on open CX, email chains, prompting, etc., don't do it!

CX Argument Preferences:

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments

I will consider and vote on:

- Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns)

- Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff)

- Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient.

- Conditionality arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered)

- Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as over-limiting topic, denying fair ground, etc.)

- Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic)

- Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff)

- Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for status quo harms/claim advantages and thus doesn't provide a net benefit)

LD Argument Preferences:

If you run policy/critical arguments, I tend to vote as a policy-maker (see CX paradigm above). Traditional Value/Criterion arguments are also fine by me in LD.

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments.

Empirical examples are as important, if not more important, than reading "unique", esoteric cards.

PFD Argument Preferences:

While I am a coach, this event was designed to be accessible for "lay" judges, so please adapt accordingly.

Empirical examples are very useful and don't necessarily require a source, if general knowledge.

While framework is not essential, it is often helpful in close rounds.

Congressional Debate Argument Preferences:

Speeches:

Structure and content are both essential. In each speech, there should be a clear intro with statement of position on resolution and preview of main points. Main points should be supported by the type of evidence you would expect a member of Congress to rely upon for a speech before the House/Senate. Responses to fellow members and a discussion of how the legislation would impact one's "constituents" are part of the "debate" aspect of this event. Walking transitions between points and when answering questions is expected.

Parliamentary Procedure and PO duties:

Efficiency, use of proper voting procedures and correct motions to move along debate are an obligation of ALL members of the chamber and should not have to be repeatedly prompted by the PO. The PO's primary duties are to keep speech time and recognize speakers/questioners based on a strict, impartial adherence to precedence/recency. Do not run for PO if you do not feel prepared to execute these duties. Serving as PO is never a guarantee of breaking; a PO's performance is weighed against the PO expectations outlined above.

About me:

Member of LGBTQ community

Pronouns: Prefer he/him

Licensed Texas Attorney

BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University

Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University

Former Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, TX

I am a former PF debater. I enjoy debates where both teams have strong links, and if they bring up a weighing mechanism or value, that they are always connecting back to that in every speech rather than in just their final focus or summary speech. I appreciate debaters who can speak slowly and still deliver a strong rebuttal.

Put me on the email chain - dalton.r.richardson@gmail.com.

I debated policy in high school and NPDA + NFA LD for Texas Tech University and now coach for Denison University. I've coached policy, LD, NFA LD, NPDA and IPDA from 2014 to now. Do whatever* you want; despite my preconceived notions about debate, I evaluate the round based off the arguments and warrants on my flow - this paradigm is to give you insight into how I conceptualize the way arguments interact. You need two things to win my ballot:

1. Specificity - Being specific wins you debates. Tell me how the aff/counterplan/alt does what you say it does. Tell me how your disads and kritiks link. Tell me how your theory interps create the best model of debate. Seriously, the more specific you are in your analysis the better. I'm more likely than other judges to vote in a way where my RFD includes "I didn't understand/you didn't explain it clearly" so sorry not sorry if I sound like a broken record.

2. Comparative analysis - Your rebuttals construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another. Talk about your impacts and the other teams impacts - tell me why I should prioritize some over others. Tell me what the world of the aff and the world of the neg looks like.

*What I Won't Vote On

- Racism good, sexism good, ableism good, homophobia good, transphobia good, mass death good, warming good

- Afropessimism/afrofuturism read by a non-Black debater/entirely non-Black team

- Heidegger & Schmitt - stop reading Nazis in debate rounds

- Disclosure if the school you're reading it against isn't on the wiki [disclosure as a principle is good; disclosure used as a tool for an easy ballot against competitors who are new to/unaware of national circuit norms is bad

GENERAL THOUGHTS

AFFS

- I would prefer if you had a plan/advocacy of some kind, but if you don't you need to have a framework that tells me exactly how to evaluate whatever you do in the 1AC via role of the ballot claims.

- I'm a bit of a sucker for one advantage but multiple scenario affs, like heg and warming.

DISADS

- I love them, please read them. Well researched and warranted DAs with specific links to the aff make me a particular kind of happy, and I like to reward that effort.

- I'll vote on terminal defense. "No risk of a link" does exist in my book.

COUNTERPLANS

- I love PICs, especially advantage PICs.

- I don't have any opinions on the legitimacy of delay/veto/consult/states CPs.

- I tend to lean neg on condo with 2 or fewer conditional advocacies in the debate, and aff when there are 3 or more.

- I interpret "judge kick" as "if I determine the CP doesn't solve the aff, then I extend the defense on my own and then evaluate the neg as going for the status quo + whatever other offense they have" so if your interp of judge kick is different, make it explicit in the debate and tell me exactly how I should know whether to kick your own position for you.

- I'm not a fan of contradictory strategies.

KRITIKS

- I spent most of my junior and senior years in college going for the one off K. Despite this, I am not the most up to date on literature. Most of what I went for was Marx, anthro, disability, settler colonialism and queer stuff - this means I could be a great judge for you if you want feedback on these positions, but it also means I could be a terrible judge for you because I will hold you to higher standards on these positions. I don't like to reward lazy debate.

- Ks I find myself not understanding: Bataille, Deleuze & Guattari, semiocapitalism, Nietzsche and psychoanalysis/Lacan. This isn't to say I won't vote on them, but you'll have to really simplify things for me to understand exactly what I'm voting on.

- Specificity on the link level debate matters. Sure you can win on generic "you use the state" "you use capitalism" etc. links if they're not handled well, but you'll be much further ahead if you point out links to the particularities of the aff in the 1NC.

- While somewhat contradicting my previous point, I'm more likely than other judges to vote on "links of omission". In debates where I vote on links of omission, the neg has included arguments in their framework that articulate these types of links are both legitimate and matter, while preempting the inevitable "links of omission bad because they're infinitely regressive and overlimit the aff" args.

- Assume I don't know anything about how your alt functions or does what you say it does. When it doubt, overexplain rather than underexplain. I find this happens best in overviews that give a structure to the following line-by-line.

- I find that affs are often afraid to take a more hardline approach to answering Ks, and I think there is value in doing so. Saying "the alt collapses US heg and US heg is good" or "the alt collapses cap and cap is good" is a valid strategy and often better than simple link defense.

THEORY

- Theory needs an interpretation, specific violation, standards, and voters for me to be able to evaluate it properly. I think the way current theory shells are written are letting negs get away with murder in the rebuttals.

- I prefer voting on proven abuse rather than potential abuse, but I've voted on a risk of a violation and potential abuse standards before.

- I have a high threshold on "frivolous theory", which I consider to be any position beyond topicality/advocacy status/specification/disclosure that is not interested in establishing a useful community norm. Basically, if you think a judge would hear your theory position and say "...really?" then I wouldn't read it in front of me.

PERMUTATIONS

Look I've devoted an entire section of my paradigm to perms so hopefully that conveys exactly how much I care about these types of debates and I will die on this hill.

- I don't care if you call me old school, but perm texts should be specific if you really want to engage the nuances of the "test of competition" debate. Seriously, articulating exactly how the perm tests the mutual exclusivity of the competing positions is very important to me and also shows that you know the ins and outs of the literature bases in the debate.

- Perms that say "do both" when the neg advocacies include "reject the aff" literally make no sense and I refuse to be gaslit into thinking they do. Again, be specific with your permutations and you will win these debates.

- Perms are incredibly important in methods debates - I find myself voting neg in these debates when affs read generic perms because the neg then smokes them in the "we understand the literature more than you" part of rebuttals and aff in these debates when the aff has a warranted justification for the lack of mutual exclusivity between the competing methods.

- I find it incredibly difficult to vote for a perm if the neg has won a link to a DA/K, so if you go for a perm in this situation you need to articulate how the perm resolves the link.

FORMAT SPECIFICS

Policy

1. Slow down on taglines, cites and analytics that aren't in the speech doc.

2. One word taglines are bad. Frankensteined cards that have you reading 20 words for a 1k+ word card are bad.

3. Shadow extensions and no-explanation cross applications are not enough to win debates - pull the warrants out of your cards and tell me how they respond to your opponent's arguments.

4. I don't know what to do with unexplained "judge kick" arguments. If you include this in your 2NR, I need to know exactly what I should do - the exact conditions under which I kick the CP for you.

LD

1. Traditional debate is fine, progressive debate is fine. I would say I'm better at evaluating policy debate rather than value/criterion debate because V/C debaters often fail to articulate how to quantify/frame their criterion to see if it upholds their value.

2. Slow down on taglines and cites and analytics that aren't in the speech doc.

3. Blippy theory arguments are boring and I hate voting on them. Going for a structured and warranted theory position is fine, but a nailbomb aff or a 15 second 1NC/1AR shell with just an interp and voters that becomes a tricky "lol got ya" moment the rebuttals isn't the vibe for me.

PF

1. Traditional debate is fine, progressive debate is fine. Theory is fine, Ks are fine.

2. I have a policy debate background, so I'm going to evaluate things under an offense/defense framework unless you tell me otherwise.

3. The arguments you're reading should be carded evidence with a tagline, citation, and underlined/highlighted text. No paraphrasing.

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

Background: I have judged Middle School Parli for many years.  This is my third year in High School Debate. I am very openminded, but here are some things to keep in mind:

I prefer arguments that are organized and have evidence to support contentions. 

Redundancy is OK. Better to be redundant than to be unclear.

I have little patience for teams that complain about things that they can’t control, such as the other team’s manners or technical issues in the debate. I can tell if a team is using abusive tactics and I don’t need that pointed out to me. I don’t like complaining.

I hate it when people say “I urge a strong ballot”. What does that even mean? A ballot is a ballot, there is no such thing as a “strong” ballot. Do you want me to write an X on your ballot with blood? A win is a win and a lose is a lose. Please stop saying this phase.

Don’t swallow your words. Please speak loud and clear.

I’m open to any type of argument, but you’ll need to explain it to me for you to win. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. (This includes nontraditional arguments)

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 am a novice judge. You should directly refute all your opponent's arguments in a logical manner. No spreading, please; it's hard to win if I can't understand you. In your conclusion, please explain to me why you won. You made a good choice to go out for debate, the skills you hone here will serve you far beyond high school.

I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. Please be explicitly clear. Off-time roadmaps always appreciated.

Hello Debaters!

I am volunteer/parent judge and have little background knowledge on the topic, so please do not rush through your arguments. Though I will, of course, be listening to your arguments, my assessment of the winning team will also be based on your delivery, poise, presentation of research, etc. I would like to see definitions of unfamiliar terms and explanations of the topics presented.

I am verbose. I often write a lot, because I feel like that helps competitors the most. If you have questions about my RFD, then contact me after that tournament. Not exactly sure how you would do that, because I don't think Tabroom has a message function, but I'm online and stuff. Cool.

As for judging debate, I care a lot more about the content of speeches. Interesting, well-developed, nuanced arguments that are supported on the flow is far more important than using specific debate jargon.

For Parli people, I did Parli in High School, and semifinaled in state. So, I know the format well enough.

1) Be polite.

2) Provide clear links.

3) Signpost for me, I want to know where you're at on the flow at all times.

4) Have fun!

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

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.

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?

My debate experience:

4 years NFA-LD (one-person policy) at Lewis & Clark College, 2019-2023

3 years LD and CX at Timberline High School, 2016-2019

I prefer speechdrop.com for ev sharing but if there's an email chain, put me on it: dude.its.rose@gmail.com

TL;DR version:My goal as a judge is to first be receptive to whatever kind of round you want to have and second to make the round as accessible and educational to both teams. Speed is fine. I am pretty much down for whatever you want to read and specify some of my preferences below. I'm a K debater at heart but highly encourage you to debate the way you're most comfortable. Please ask questions before the round if you have any and after if you want my input for improvement.

I think debate is so fun and so silly and I want y'all to have a fun, educational round if I can make that happen. Also feel free to email me after if you have questions, want files or anything.

General Stuff

Speaks: I give high speaks (28-30) unless you've done something that warrants intervention from your coach. This includes being needlessly mean to an opponent (snark and sass are fine, but PLEASE temper it to the round) or being blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. The latter will earn you 20s an an L. Absolutely no excuses.

How to Win: I want to be lazy and not intervene. The best way to win my ballot is to make my job as easy as possible. Make your weighing clear, try to clean up the framing debate, prioritize the organization of my flow as much as possible -- If I'm putting an argument somewhere you don't want if because you forgot to signpost, that might hurt you in the outcome of the round. These are all skills I continued to develop up to the end of my competition career and You Should Too

Tech v Truth?: I think "tech vs truth" is an oversimplified dichotomy and I definitely have arguments I am more skeptical of (disclosed below) BUT a dropped argument is a dropped argument, ya know? I default to tech but am 100% receptive to a clearly articulated framework arg about why that's bad with strong explanation about what that means for my weighing of various parts of the flow.

Other Stuff: If you can make me laugh that helps your speaks. I accept cash bribes.

Speed is fine, but you gotta slow down a little on your analytics and especially on T; make sure everything gets on my flow. Also, if your opponent clears/slows you DO IT -- I'll vote for speed theory.

Specific Stuff (CX, other policy formats)

Topicality/Theory: I see T as an accountability tool. You don't need proven abuse but I am more persuaded by proven over potential abuse. I don't love blippy T and generally have a low threshold for reasonability in these instances. I default to T being a priori but 100% will listen to and vote on "___ outweighs T" args, Ks of T, RVIs, anything you want to put here. If you want to have a T debate PLEASE prioritize clarity and organization and impact out your voters.

CPs: I've become a sucker for a smart CP that's actually competitive and actually solves the aff. Advantage CPs are also a neat, underutilized tool.

DAs: Cool. I am more receptive to a probable link chain with a soft left/structural violence impact over something improbably with a high magnitude impact, but run whatever you want.

Case: GOD I love a strong debate on case. I will vote on straight case but please have offense there if you're asking me to do it. I've never voted on terminal defense bc the aff can always eke out a "1% risk of solvency" arg so Give Me Offense Please God.

Ks (neg): 100% down. These were my favorites to read and write as a debater so I've got a soft spot. I'm holding you to the same standard I hold a DA/CP combo though, so that means your weakest point is basically always the alt. I don't need an alt solves the aff arg if you're winning your impacts are more important, but it doesn't hurt. I am also more persuaded by alts that have a clear action. I have a lot of familiarity with a lot of lit but plz don't assume I or your opponent are as capable of sifting through your arguments as you are. I do not understand D&G and you can't make me.

Ks (aff): Hell yeah. I prefer a good topic link story but don't NEED a justification for rejecting the topic to let you do your thing. I also prefer a clear action taken by the aff -- ideally something you can explain in a sentence.

Perm: I default to the perm being an advocacy bc everyone treats it like that, but irl I think it's prolly just a test of competition. You do not need to win a perm to beat a CP or Alt if you have offense on the CP/Alt.

Condo: I think negs should get access to one condo position, anymore and you should be prepared to defend against theory but I'm not automatically voting for condo bad. Also don't lie about being uncondo when you're not!!!!!!! I'll dock ur speaks and will be easily persuaded by a 2AR that goes all in on why you should lose for that.

Arguments I Do Not Like: Disclosure theory, overpopulation, cap good, extinction good, anything in this general camp of arguments. None of these are auto-Ls, just know I fundamentally do not believe you when you say these things. These still need to be answered. For BS like impact turning racism, sexism, etc. see what I said under speaks.

Ask me anything else or send me an email if you want clarification :D

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

- Sign post everything and make your points very clear

- Avoid jargon as much as possible; if you bring it up, explain it

- Off-time road maps are fine

- Kritiks need to be very well explained if you run them

- No spreading!!

- Be respectful

I am a lay judge. I struggle to digest spreading, so use it at the risk of me losing track of some portion of your argument. Insofar as IEs go, I'm fairly open. Please use a trigger warning as a courtesy to others in the room if applicable. No need to thank me, but please be courteous to each other.

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.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

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.