Lincoln High School 83'

BA Philosophy Reed College 89'

I am an experienced lay parent judge. I have judged for four years on the Oregon circuit and have judged nationals BQD. I want to see complete arguments, I will not vote on your blips. I value coherence and consistency of argument. I flow and vote off the flow, but I do not see debate as a game. Truth > Tech. I would say that I am tabula rasa, but to have a debate we must start from some very basic assumptions and ideas, therefore I will find arguments that rely on challenging foundational ideas to be unconvincing.

Here is a quote from the paradigm of the great Gonzo from Cleveland High School that I agree with:

"In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. ... But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan [more than] once in 1981."

I have a background in philosophy. I will understand most of the phil you read, but that means I expect you to accurately represent the arguments properly.

I am not experienced in arguments such as T and K, it will not be strategic to run these arguments.

I am fully comfortable with plans and counterplans. Under some circumstances a plan can be very important to bring clarity and cohesion and sometimes a CP might be a key neg strat.

I like POIs. I see good usage of them as key to a good debate on both sides and they can be very strategic.

I see tag teaming as a basic rules violation, so I do not want to see it.

I cannot handle speed. Please talk at a reasonable pace.

Volume does not equal emphasis. I did not come to be yelled at.

Politeness is necessary. Any hateful language will be grounds for a 20 speaks loss (or whatever the minimum speaks of the current tournament are).

I have been a coach for four years and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 21 years and teach communication skills. I am looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. I will put down my pen if I can't follow you. Please emphasize your points so I know that they are important and remember to pause on occasion so that I can take in your ideas.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position and I will be listening for how you support your position. Roadmaps are appreciated.

You can keep your own time, or I am happy to time and give you cues.

Be kind, be professional, and have fun!!

I did mainly public forum in high school, but I've tried every debate at least once.

I don't like spreading, I don't mind a bit of speed just keep in mind if I don't understand or catch what you're saying then I can't factor it into my judging.

Please be polite to one another.

I like to see good clash and I like good impacts.

*Strong public speaking

*Very clear arguments

*Proceed slowly

*Professional demeanor and respectful to others

1. Speak at a normal conversational speed

2. Roadmap and signpost

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

tl;dr is in bold

Email: eric.endsley4@gmail.com

I have 4 years of HS policy debate experience debating semi-regularly on the national circuit, and sporadic college parli experience. I have been judging HS policy debate on and off since 2012 and have been judging national circuit LD frequently since 2019. I have generally found that my experience with CX translates to judging the national circuit style of LD without much in the way of skipping-a-beat.

As a debater I ran primarily kritiks during my most competitive seasons. As such I'm familiar with most K lit bases, theory args, etc, and I'm comfortable with speed. I do ask that you please vary speed and/or tone between your tags, theory shells and analytics versus the text of your cards, especially if you're reading a lot of blippy theory args. Being comfortable with speed doesn't mean I appreciate flowing all 8 of your 5-word standards in 10 seconds with no 'nexts' in between.

I generally consider myself fairly tab, with that being said I have some opinions:

Plan Texts/DAs/CPs: Don't be discouraged by the fact that I was a K hack as a debater. I don't find that I enjoy K heavy debates any more than policy oriented ones as a judge, I just enjoy good debates. I specifically enjoy well executed small/janky plans and CPs. I don't have much else specific to say about these args.

Kritiks: As above, I'm very down with whatever K you want to run, even the weird ones. I don't necessarily believe Ks require an alt, if you can make clear why the aff is entirely self defeating or detestable on face, I think you can win, but you're probably better off with an alt. I do try to counterbalance against a bit of commonplace anti-K bias in terms of the degree of explanation I require from Ks. If debaters are expected to understand the intricacies of what's happening in the South China Sea, I think it's reasonable to expect them to know the definition of Biopower. However, I do expect a robust explanation of how your K interacts with the Aff specifically and the unique wrinkles of your kritik. I think this specificity tends to become more important in the more postmodern lit bases, as well as with args like Cap which can be run in near infinite flavors.

'Nontopical' K affs/Project Affs/Performance Affs/Rejecting the resolution/Whatever: I am probably more down with these types of affirmatives than the average judge. You should articulate either in the 1AC or near the top of the framing/framework flow A. your interpretation of what debate is, what it's for and your Aff's relationship to the resolution (are you claiming to be topical somehow? shouldn't have to be?) and B. why doing whatever your Aff is doing is good in light of that interp.

Speaker Points: I believe these are arbitrary and I wish we had better ways to break ties. I tend to give high-ish speaks with the winner of the debate getting an extra half-point. Being that I think they are arbitrary, I may tank your speaks, no matter your speech quality, if you anger me by being needlessly rude or obnoxious.

Theory Generalities: I believe that competing interpretations is the only truly appropriate way to evaluate debates about debate. I am more likely to evaluate reasonability type arguments as a standard or defense against voters on theory than as a proper response to competing interps because top level reasonability arguments are themselves a competing interpretation -- lending the argument a weird performative incoherency on-top of, in my experience, never being clearly defined.

I generally take it for granted that fairness is an internal link to education unless told otherwise.

I will generally vote on any theory argument that I'm instructed to vote on if the offense is clearly won. That being said if you pick up on one of the arguments I am about to say I do not like, or something you and I both know is an awful argument, I may drop your speaks.

Theory Specifics:

RVIs: I see these being read a lot in LD. I do not recommend reading these in front of me. I don't generally believe that it is unfair to debate about any aspects of debate, and I don't think I've ever seen an RVI run convincingly. If you insist on going for an RVI, I'd be far more compelled by arguments about theory bloat harming the educational value of debate than the args I typically see along the lines of 'they read too many theory args/I disagree with their theory args and that's not fair.' But probably just don't.

I am much more willing to consider Ks of framework/theory (which I've always viewed as distinct from RVIs, though I've seen them used interchangeably in LD) as voters. If you go for this, you should have a clear story about what is so rhetorically/structurally harmful about their theory arguments that your opponent ought to lose outright.

Floating PIKs: Don't do them. If your kritik doesn't solve some aspect of the aff you're probably doing it wrong, but if your alt actually enacts nonprecluded parts of the affirmative plan, you need to be forthcoming about that in the 1NC. I'm probably more lenient than most on floating PIKs when judging policy, but the structure of LD definitely raises my expectations in terms of specificity from the 1N. I won't reject the argument out of hand but I'll allow new "floating piks bad" in the 2AR which will obviously sink your PIK.

Aff/Neg Choice: I hate these args. In line with the rest of my opinions here, I believe things in debate should be up for debate. Reading interps that state terms of the round should be chosen by either party, or that an opponent should not be allowed to respond to a particular argument, fundamentally does not sit well with me. I think winning these args requires winning with essential certainty that whatever "choice" it is you're making (e.g. aff chooses util good) be the best choice, in which case you should just win that interp in the first place.

Perf Con: I probably take perf con arguments more seriously than the average judge. If there is a significant rhetorical/performative/in-round component to enacting your alt or advocacy, I think performative contradiction can be articulated as a turn that is not resolved by conditionality. I think it makes more sense articulated as a solvency turn than a theory interp though.

Those are all the specific things I can think to comment on at the moment. If you have questions, certainly ask.

THEORY- I evaluate theory debates by trying to determine which interpretation is best through the standards, unless I'm told differently. I also am more likely to believe that the negative has access to at least one conditional advocacy, maybe more. I enjoy listening to topicality

K's- I am open to hearing all kinds of critical arguments though I do ask that you please assume I have not read much, if any, of the literature base. I am open to critical arguments being read on both the affirmative as well as the negative.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins

email: tylercgarcia63@gmail.com

First and foremost I value kindness in the round. This shows up in both presentation and content--with presentational dynamics such as voice tone and quality, and argumentation dynamics like unkind (or straw-[hu]man) interpretations of opponents' cases, or presumptive questions (e.g. the classic "When did you stop doing X" when the doing of X itself hasn't been established).

A second principle I follow is that quality is more important than quality--particularly with regard to spreading. I believe that each debate topic is essentially complex, which means that arguments should engage with the specifics. Argument shells, like dehumanization, or hegemony, may apply, but a generic argument, without significant time spent contextualizing it to the topic at hand will be largely unconvincing to me.

Lastly, from a structural perspective, I view the final two speeches as an opportunity to step above the direct clash of the round and argue at the meta level -- What happened? How do different lines of argumentation interact? What should I care about, and how should I weigh tradeoffs? This is an opportunity to recognize what your opponents have said that is of value while advancing a position about why your case is nonetheless preferable. Consider analysis of the magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc. of different impacts.

(Work in progress)

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. A few notes:

- I expect you to time yourself and each other

- Refrain from being rude to each other

- Keep you cameras on at all times

- Keep in mind that communication with me is key to effective argumentation

I am a lay judge, albeit one with experience judging debate at this point. I am familiar with basic debate terminology and structure, but I have never debated myself, so progressive debating is mostly beyond me.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have already told you I am a lay judge, so make sure you are not speaking too fast for me to understand the words that come out of your mouth. This is debate, not auctioneering.

Be civil to one another. I expect you to show respect to your opponent(s) and avoid any disparaging behavior or remarks.

I appreciate off-time (or on-time) road maps when you can provide them, as well as signposting along the way.

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.

Updated: Mar 2024

he/him or they/them - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Former head coach in Oregon. Background in economics and data analytics. Just call me Jeff, please. Local and nat circuit judging experience.
Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.

LD Paradigm -TL;DR: Speed is fine. I am here to observe and evaluate your round, not inject my own beliefs, but I can't really disregard scientific reality. Solid warrants solve this issue. I like good theory and default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. LARP is good. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability. Assume that I am familiar with the topic but not your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine. Don't spread the analytics, but you can still talk faster.

Argumentation:
1) I will vote on topicality. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning topicality is necessary but insufficient for Aff to win the round. Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge, a line-by-line is not necessary. You don't need to spend 2 minutes answering. Disclosure is not an answer to a topicality.
2) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first.
3) Warrantless/impactless arguments are not weighed. Warrants can be evidence or analytics.
4) Extend and impact drops if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
5) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. I favor consistent weighing mechanisms.

K's: K's must be thoroughly explained even if stock. Clearly establish a solid link. I may be the wrong judge for an Aff K.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) I default towards drop the argument, feel free to make a different case.
3) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
4) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations.

Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.

Misc:
1) I'd rather judge good substantive debate than bad T rounds. If I feel like your bad T is stopping good debate, I will probably undervalue it.
2) Disclose, unless it is not a norm for this tournament.
3) I am probably a middle of the road speaks judge. 28 is average.
4) Pref list:
Plan/Value/Phil/LARP/Trad 1
K 2
Theory 2
Aff K 3
Tricks/Spike 5

Policy Judging Paradigm -TL;DR: Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. Policy is more of a game than any other debate format. Tech first.

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow or differentiate your analytics a bit so I can detect the distinction without referencing the doc.

Argumentation:
1) I vote on topicality. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff only needs to answer why/how they meet or why/how the challenge is illegitimate. I consider this one of the only "rules."
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Tech over truth.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got.
3) I default towards drop the argument. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.

PF Paradigm -Consider me an informed judge with debate experience, that may not be familiar with technical PF aspects. If the teams agree to something before the round (open cx, spreading, whatever) I will honor those agreements. I still consider PF a more accessible form of debate, so please don't make it less so.
1) Speed is fine, if everyone is ok with it.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaks if only one partner ever answers questions.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first.

K's:I've never seen a PF K. It must be thoroughly explained and have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.

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

Disqualifiers:

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If it is blatant, you lose the round. Opponents to people that use these things, you may ask me for your options between speeches off prep time. Options are 1) Ignore them, 2) engage them, call them out, make them voters, or 3) end the round and ask for a summary ballot. If I concur, you win, if I don't you lose. I am not here to steal your opportunity to stand up to these things, but I can understand needing someone to protect the safe space. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.

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

4 years of policy debate in high school.

Utilitarian policymaker by default but will evaluate based on winning framework.

Framework should inform the substantive debate on the resolution and not be an end to itself.

I have a high threshold for "a priori" and abuse arguments, but I will listen if the round merits it.

Theory is okay if applicable, but please engage with the resolution.

Speed is not a problem, but speak clearly. If I can't understand it, I won't flow it.

I lean Truth over Tech, I will prefer arguments grounded in reality.

yo what up

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

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

TLDR for events:

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

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

Debates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Worlds: ...bruh

Speech events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be smart and speak well.

Real World Policy Maker

Teacher and Coach

speech and debate coach 47 years

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

All Debates:

Feel free to time yourself but my time counts!

I don't mind "Off Time Road Maps."

Looking for good organization with clear concise ideas supporting what you are trying to convey.

In LD and Public Forum; I don't like speed, this is not a sprint is a marathon of information make me understand.

Courtesy to Opponent (includes abusive behavior or interrupting the other team let them finish statement n questioning). In Parli when talking to your partner during presentation do it quietly not to interrupt the speaker.

In Parii my expectations have risen due to the use of internet. I am expecting good quality work and quoting of sources will be a must to support your contentions.

"Pretend I am dumb as a rock and educate me!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I 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.

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!

GENERALLY

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

POLICY/LD

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

PARLI

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

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

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

Hello,

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

I 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.

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.

My history: LD in high school, BA Philosophy

First and foremost I want to keep the competition space welcoming and safe. Please be respectful to everyone at all times. Blatant discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) will get you voted down with 0 speaks.

I value good sign-posting as it keeps me on track as well as you. I'll be a better judge if I know where you're headed and in what order. My flow should be logical and ordered as long as you give me enough of a road map.

I don't know Ks so don't bother running them. I'm rusty on theory, so walk me through it if you want to go that route.

I struggle with spreading. Please adapt to me as I am a lay judge.

It's your job to correctly represent information, not the job of your opponent to catch you cheating.

Don't forget to give me voters in your rebuttal speeches. Your voters should consider the strength of your opponent's arguments and show me why and how your rebuttals are stronger.

Remember this is supposed to be fun. Relax and enjoy the round!

Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags. 
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K. 
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.

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.

Hello folks,

I am a former head coach--and current assistant coach--of West Linn High School's Speech and Debate team.

In my mind, debate is fundamentally a way for you (both teams) and I to engage substantively with a complex topic. I like intellectual rigor and good-faith clash with your opponents. I am really turned off by the debate being turned into a game, rather than a debate, so take that as you will.

In terms of speed, you can go at a brisk conversational speed, but if your speed interferes with my ability to understand you (or if you are not particularly articulate), then I will stop flowing.

Background: I teach AP Lang and Comp. I've been an English teacher for 15 years. I have a PhD in Educational Studies - Curriculum Theory. I am comfortable with critical theory and welcome its appropriate/creative use in debate.

My paradigm can be summarized in two words: audience focus.

First and foremost: make me understand. For me one contention explained clearly is far better than 100 rushed through.

For debates, you're responsible for convincing me, not necessarily on the merit of your arguments, but on the clarity and consistency of your logic.

For individual events, you're responsible for "syncing" me with you emotionally. I expect you to make me feel what you want me to feel, not just to show me how you feel.