Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

Hi I'm Megan. I have four years of competing experience, and seven years of judging.

I'm fine with more progressive arguments as long as they are sufficiently linked.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, I look for arguments that are specific. Warrant and link your claims, do the work for me, I won't do it for you.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

I debated all three years of high school and I am familiar with all types of debate. I am very open as a judge and I will vote on pretty much any argument. It is imperative that you clearly emphasize what you want me to vote on and make that the main focus of the debate. Don’t spend most of the debate talking about one thing just to tell me in the last speech that I should vote on something else.

Speed: I’m good with speed just make sure you aren’t going so fast that you are sacrificing actual argument. Additionally if you are going so fast me or your opponent can’t keep up that isn’t going to help you.

Flowing: If you want me to be flowing something and I’m looking up I’m not flowing it. Go back over it so I can get on the flow.

K’s: I will vote on these if they are well explained and make sense in your debate type. (I’m not going to vote on a K in PF)

Paradigm for Congress

I have judged Congress about 4 times, but not this year.

I'm looking for quality argumentation--a clear warrant and and impact included in any argument you give.

I'm looking for FRESH ideas, not a repetition of arguments that have already been made in the round.

I'm looking for refutation when another debater offers a counter-argument to your argument.

I AM LOOKING FOR STATESMANSHIP. Statesmen and women are skilled and respected legislators. They are not bullies. They do not have hidden agendas. Their goal is to work for the common good of the people they represent and the nation. This is the kind of behavior I want to see in this mock legislature.

For PFD: I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate. For LD: I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. Speed is okay, I can flow, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate

I debated all three years of high school and I am familiar with all types of debate. I am very open as a judge and I will vote on pretty much any argument. It is imperative that you clearly emphasize what you want me to vote on and make that the main focus of the debate. Don’t spend most of the debate talking about one thing just to tell me in the last speech that I should vote on something else.

V/C debate: If I'm being honest, this is usually pointless and in basically every debate I have ever watched, participated in, or judged, it ends up at promoting good things through consequentialism. If you have impacts, your value is basically consequentialism and therefore we don't need to spend a lot of time debating it. It's really hard to make a meaningful argument about why one value is more important so anytime spent here should be either that your opponent doesn't meet your value or their own or that you meet both. This is also something that I prefer to be woven into the debate and your impacts. You can literally just add "which improves quality of life" and move on usually.

Voters: I love voters. No joke. Spend at least a minute telling me why I should be voting for you. Don't cover voters "if you have time." Make time. They are usually the most important part of the debate.

Speed: I can understand speed to a point but if you are going too fast and either I or your opponent don't catch something then that's a problem.

Dropped arguments: Your opponent dropping an argument doesn't mean that you won that argument unless you go back over it and explain why it matters that they dropped it and why you are right.

Flowing: If you want me to be flowing something and I’m looking up, I’m not flowing it. Go back over it so I can get on the flow.

I understand that debate is a competitive event and that things can get heated sometimes. That being said, if you are actively rude to your opponent I will give you terrible speaks and probably drop you. I will also not vote FOR you on an argument that is sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. It will probably lead to terrible speaks and me dropping you.

Hello, as you know my name is Seth, I use he/him/his as well as they/them/theirs pronouns, depending on whichever you're more comfortable with. I competed in speech and debate for 3 years at Eagle High School, starting in my sophomore year, and I competed for 3 more years at the College of Idaho for my undergrad. Here's how I feel in regards to judging a lot of the different types of debate, and other notes:

Policy

I did policy for my novice year of high school and went to the Gonzaga Debate Institute for 2 summers. I'm comfortable with just about anything you wanna throw at me in policy, but please make sure you understand what you're reading and are able to explain it to your opponents. Make sure your spreading isn't blending words together either, if you're stumbling over your words, slow down, it is totally OK. You're more than welcome to ask me questions before the round as well. Also, if I judge the round the wrong way and you feel the need to tell me, please do! We are always learning more and more when it comes to debate, and as a judge I'm always down with having some more knowledge.

LD

I did Lincoln Douglas for a majority of my high school debate career. You are more than welcome to run whatever you like. I also like to weigh the round on value and criterion. You need to tell me why I should prefer yours over your opponent's and why it's the primary lens for the round. Go as fast as you like, but be considerate of your opponent. I also require you give me voters in your rebuttals, because that draws the image for me in regards of whether I vote for the AFF or the NEG.

PF

I competed in PF here and there in high school, and helped prep some of school's PF teams. I want to ultimately be convinced. I'm as fresh as they come to the PF scene so the more explanation you do for me, the better. If you accidently do some slightly progressive things in PF, I won't get as mad at you as some of the more traditional PF judges will, but that doesn't mean you should run a CP in the round because you know you shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points based on a few things: 1) Did you communicate your points well? 2) Were you actively engaged throughout the entire debate? 3) Did you compose yourself in a respectful manner to your opponent and your judge?. If you can follow these 3 things, you be guaranteed good speaks, however, it won't solidify the 30 for you. That is earned by truly delivering an outstanding speech in round.

Overall Note:

If any competitors read arguments, say, or do anything that support racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and any other form of systematic oppression or hate, I will not tolerate it and I will end the round and report the person committing those said actions to tabs.

If you have any questions about a round I judge y'all in, and if I'm judging you in policy send me the doc at: sgarw0138@gmail.com

Background:

Howdy to whoever is reading this! I did PF debate in high school from 2016-2019 and have been judging on-and-off since then. I have experience judging all types of debate, but my specialty is definitely in PF.

PF:

Above all, be respectful and be clear. Make things super easy for me to understand and make sure you annunciate well. I'm pretty flexible, but not a fan of more policy-esque cases. I'm fine with speed, but make sure your main points are clear. If I don't flow it, it didn't happen, so keep that in mind too. Big fan of roadmaps and over/underviews.

LD:

Similar points to what I've written above for PF. I'm open to pretty much anything you throw at me, but make sure that you make it clear to me. I'll judge heavily on framework and values, fine with decent speed but make sure you're easy to understand.

If you have any specific questions, just let me know before the round starts.

Argumentation, Speaks

I weigh on theory

Impact Calculus

• Timeframe (when will the impact happen)
• Scope of Impact (How many people will be effected)
• Difficulty of recovery (How hard will it be get back to normal)
• Outright probability (how likely is this too happen)
• Intensity of impact (are the impacted individuals slightly hurt or seriously injured)

I respect pronouns. Just let me know.

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

I'm a flow judge. You should signpost well, but speed is fine. Tell me beyond just evidence why you've won the debate. Give clear voters.

And don't be rude(:

I am a parent, lay judge

I consider myself a conversational judge - clear delivery is important

Structure, decorum and content are important.

Intro and clear position on the resolution

The quality of evidence is important

Treat each other with respect

I like people to debate in whatever way they feel they can do best. I am okay with anything so long as you are fair. I can understand if you spread, but if you spread you should do it well.

If you make a big claim i.e. nuclear warfare you should really be able to back it up.

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

Introduction

Hey everybody :) My name is Victoria and I am currently at Boise State University studying Psychology, Economics, and a bit of Criminal Justice. I am working towards getting into law school. I debated for Timberline High School starting in my sophomore year and ending during my senior year, so I haven't been off the circuit for too long. I primarily was an LD debater, but I have also had competitive experience in Policy, Big Questions, and Congress. I have competed in both the Idaho and Washington circuits, so I have been exposed to and argued against progressive arguments.

Speaks/Spreading

My first impression of you as a debater is your speaking ability. While this will not hold any real weight on who I vote for, I firmly believe that the way you speak is a great skill to take away from Speech and Debate, and thus I will reward you as such. I do not give away 30's easily, especially since speaker points can be the deciding factor of which debater gets to go to break rounds. That being said, spreading is completely fine with me. However, it is a gamble, because if your speed hinders your clarity you will lose points.

K's and Progressive Arguments

Go for it. I love watching a K in action, especially when it is done well. I am good with K's, Counter Plans, Counter Advocacies, and strange framework. Though I will warn you: A poorly done progressive argument will almost always lose in my book. So tread lightly. In your off time roadmap, please let me know what kind of argument your running so I can flow it accordingly.

Flow

I will take notes and flow your speeches as the debate goes on. I prefer both an off-time roadmap and clear signposting so I can do my best to write down all of your arguments in the correct places. If I don't know where an argument/rebuttal goes on the flow, chances are I won't write it down. I will not vote on new arguments brought up after the constructive speeches. Like if you bring up a brand new random contention out of no where in the 2AR, I will not evaluate it for voting purposes. CX is your time, so I will not write down any arguments made in CX unless they are brought up in the following speech.

Ethics

I refuse to accept any arguments promoting and defending racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, or any other derogatory subject. If you run an argument that supports any of these ideas, you are extremely likely to lose. The debate community is a welcoming family and I will not tolerate blatant discrimination. Please be nice to your opponent(s) and treat each other with respect. Debate is a fun, wonderful experience. Let's keep it that way :)

I am so happy you all get to experience this wonderful sport. I love this activity so much, and I am thrilled to serve as a judge for it. Good luck everybody!

If you have any questions please email me at victoria.mort23@gmail.com

My name is Kasey and I'm a senior at Whitman College competing in parliamentary debate.

Background: 4 years of high school LD, Idaho circuit.

Speaking Preferences

If you want to talk fast, go for it! – with a few warnings. Online platforms are sometimes not good for clarity, so keep that in mind. If I am unable to make out your argument, I will ask you to slow down, and if your opponent is unable to understand, I ask them to do the same. if your opponent continually asks you to slow or clear and you don't, consider the round lost right there. access comes first, always.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are, please.

Argument Preferences

You can throw pretty much any argument at me and I'll flow it. If I can tell you're running a progressive argument or speaking super quickly just to make your opponent uncomfortable (or you know they won't be able to handle it), we will have a problem. If you want to run something off the wall, you can, but if you are unsure if your opponent is familiar with those kinds of arguments, I just ask you to ask. It's something small we all can do to prioritize education in this space without alienating other debaters. Access first, always.

Warrant, don't forget impact calc,use your framework. I will listen to everything.

---

We might frame debate as just a game, but what's said in this space can have very real, very tangible impacts on the well-being of others. Don't forget that.

if you're not having fun I'm convinced you're doing debate wrong :)

I competed in speech in debate in high school, I've done every debate format, (PF, and LD are my "specialties"), as well as a variety of speech events. I am now a recent college graduate

I am mainly a flow judge. I will be flowing the entire round except during cross-examination. I don't care how fast you go as long as you clearly state the taglines, subpoints, and emphasize the main arguments. If you aren't signposting and telling me exactly where you're at on the flow, it may not end up on my flow, and my flow is what I'm judging the round on. Voters are a good way to tell me why you've won the round, so it may behoove you to give clear voters during your last speech. Ultimately, be clear in your arguments. Tell me exactly why your argument is better, has more impacts, is more feasible, or any sort of reasoning, tell me explicitly.

LD- I do consider values and criterions but they aren't the entire focus of the debate. If the v&vc are close or aren't relevant to the debate, you don't have to mention it in every speech. I'm not too familiar with theory or critiques but if they're explained clearly, you're fine.

PF- This was my main debate event, so I know how a good PF rounds should look. That being said, make sure to cover both flows in the second speech if you're the second speaker. Summary speeches can either be summarizing or line by line, I don't care, just tell me before the speech.

Ultimately, this is your round. Debate how you want and how you feel most comfortable. My last-minute tips for success when having me as a judge is:

-Signpost

-Be clear

-Voters in the final speech

-Make solid arguments (I can usually tell when something isn't sounding right.)

-Have fun and don't be rude.

I prefer clean framework that connects back to arguments/contentions/subpoints/impacts and for competitors to slow down on taglines. I don't have preference on argumentation style as long as arguments are clear and concise.

Worlds, I am a Worlds coach and this is my second year judging Worlds at Nationals. I judge to the rubric. 

Other Debate events, I flow the rounds. I also love impacts. If an argument is not attacked or sufficiently attacked in the round, it stands. If both sides have arguments standing, I weigh the impacts against each other and vote on that. I am not a Coms Judge, but I cannot flow what I cannot understand. I need articulation and a thorough understanding of your case.

Try to stay specific as the debate goes on in rebuttals and crystallization.

In PF, use cards sometimes in rebuttals. Do not rely solely on cross applying.

In LD, V/C is framework similar please apply it to your case rather than just debating which framework to go with. Clarity of what AFF and NEG are both advocating for is important for me to follow the debate (definitions), but I hate definitions debates, so don’t spend the whole speech on rebuttaling someone’s definition. Touching on it is sufficient. Be clear, but stay focused on the arguments.

Not who is the better speaker, better debater

Pay attention to cross- great opportunity to refute your opponent and build your case

Can speak quickly, but please speak inelligibly

Will not tolerate abusive treatment, personal attacks, or lines of argument outside of the debate

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments, communicated in an articulate manner, prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Ideally, arguments should be grouped.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should extend arguments. Provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

With clarity. Tag line, citation, evidence.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

I am not a fan, each debater should be able to hold their own during the parts of the debate they are scheduled to speak without prompting from partner.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

All arguments should tie back to V & C and link together.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

No pref, though evidence must support.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Yuck. No way.

How should debaters run on case argumeents?

Solvency and Advantages are my prefs, but all arguments will be weighed.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

If you are running off case, just make sure I can follow your arguments and that they are logical.

I have been judging speech and debate for six years now (over 60 tournaments). I never debated in high school. I got involved in the debate community when my oldest child joined the debate team. I have had four kids on the debate team, two currently. So I guess you could say I am an experienced mommy judge. I have tried my best to learn as much as I can so that I can be a competent and fair judge. With that in mind, I offer you my paradigm:

In general, I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow tag teaming, flex time, non-timed road maps and non-timed evidence exchange. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am a big picture judge and an impact calculus junkie. I understand debate lingo. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I appreciate logical and analytical arguments as much as evidence based arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). As you can see, I am up for anything, but don't assume I know everything. Remember that although I have six years of experience judging, I am still learning. If you have something you really want to run, do it, but keep me up with you and educate me on your pet argument as you debate. I also love voters because I am lazy and if if I agree with your voters, you have just filled out my ballot for me. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I allow counter plans and progressive arguments. I only value the V & C if you do. I am still trying to figure out why that is so important. But I have voted on it in the past if the debaters made a big deal about it. I am more likely to vote against you if you drop an argument, since LD is all about clash, but will allow you to group arguments in subpoints as long as you answer each contention.

In Public Forum debate I don't have any specific things you should know. Just have fun.

Policy is my favorite. So know that if I get to judge your round, I am just so glad to be here. I think I covered most of it in my general paradigm but I did want to discuss T. I have voted on T before but only if it was an obscure aff and not one of the five novice affs. I go for reasonability over competing interpretations. However, I have had some beautiful T arguments wasted on me, I am very sorry to say. If you love T arguments and are willing to risk it, then persuade me and educate me on T. I want to understand it better and be more open minded in this area. I would have to say this is the only area I am biased, but it's simply because I don't get it.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

Racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, or any sort of intolerance of any kind will not be tolerated in round and I will verbally cut you off.

Communications judge — convincing use of argument and clash is necessary in order to win. I also judge largely off of presentation of information and partnership dynamics (in Public Forum and Policy). In non-partnership events, I value synthesis of information and the debater’s ability to hold their own against their opponent. I also judge largely based off of strategy in Congress.

Call me Lyssa in round and you’ll get the dub.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

I am an experienced judge. I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Since 2010, I have been an assistant and head coach in the Treasure Valley as well as judge in both the Idaho circuit and national circuit. I have judged at the NSDA National tournament 3 times during this time and at out of state TOC bid tournaments including Alta, Berkeley, Gonzaga and Puget Sound.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear and can sign post well. I prefer a clean and easy to follow/flow debate round.

I tend to be a quality of argument and impact judge. In other words, a well constructed case with good analysis that provides clear links and impacts.

Of course, a courteous debate round is expected.

While I did not compete in high school, I have competed in college for 4 years. I am in my senior year and I will be graduating in May. I have won two national championships (hopefully soon to be a 3rd), been top competitor at many tournaments, and won in all divisions both in debate and individual events. I know the bravery, hard work, and intellect required to get good at this and I respect anyone who is willing to work to get good at forensics.

If you can say it, I can flow it. The problem I often see is that people think they can talk faster than they actually can. Spreading is a unique weapon in forensics that is most effective against lesser experienced competitors, but it really makes you look like an a-hole. If you spread, you might (probably not) win but it will cost you in speaks. Speak at a speed that you are comfortable with. Both you and I would rather be able to understand you than just get gibberish on the flow. Be clear, use signposting, layout your logic, and give me the impacts. I don’t like to intervene but if you don’t do your job I will have to and I won’t enjoy that, speaker points suffer from that. Be courteous and conscientious of your opponent. Too often do I witness high school debaters morph into bullies as soon as they are done thanking the judge and their opponent. I WILL drop you if you make your round lose its educational, discursive, or advocacy values.

I HATE framework debates. Find the battlefield that is fair for both sides and move on. We are debating over the resolution, not whether or not the definition of “is” was stated. When you are in rebuttal don’t just say “look at my first contention,” that doesn’t tell me anything. Tell me where you win, where your opponent loses, use logic and linking throughout, and more than likely you will win. Jargon and techy debate doesn’t win my vote either. Your idea of a perm might be different than mine. Use your vocabulary and skills to win not a hope and a prayer. If your opponent drops something tell me why it matters, just saying they dropped something doesn’t tell me anything.

Bonus: If you call out a fallacy (and name the fallacy) from your opponent and I agree, you will get bonus points from me. It makes me question your opponent’s case and logic and 9/10 times it will give you my ballot.

Hello, all! First and foremost, I'm a communication judge. I like to hear arguments that are straightforward and clear. I'm continually listening for signposts and outlines to help me follow where you are in your case, and the more frequently you use them, the better. However, here are a few additional topics to keep in mind:

Etiquette
My favorite rounds to judge happen when both teams approach each other with respect. I don't do well with scoffing or name-calling.

Sources
I like to hear your source citations, so if there is a way that you can emphasize them please, please do.

Speed
If a case is very well organized with a complete outline that is clearly stated, I tend not to have an issue with speed. However, fair warning, what I think is clear, may not be what you think is clear.

Self-Timing
I have no problems with you timing yourself, but I'd prefer that your timer doesn't beep loudly in round. If that is the only timer you have access to, try to catch it before it beeps repeatedly.

I have debate and speech experience on the collegiate circuit in IPDA and have participated as a finalist in Pi Kappa Delta Nationals in Impromptu, Persuasive, and Extemporaneous speech events.

In general I try to be a tabula rasa judge. Of course we all have our own biases, but I will take each position on it's own merit as stated in the resolution. I do not do kritiks. I have almost never encountered a round where both sides were equally matched in strategy, and the unfair resolution was the cause of one side winning over the other. Do not assume this will be your round. I deeply value argumentation that has layers of philosophy, practicality, and evidence. Please do not assume one of these is more important than the other. I also do not value spreading as a strategy. If I can't understand your argument or if your argument feels overtly dense for the sake of being dense this will not be a benefit.

Also be respectful. Personal slights towards your opponent or coercive behavior toward me will not be tolerated.

And finally, please have fun!

I have debate and speech experience on the collegiate circuit in IPDA and have participated as a finalist in Pi Kappa Delta Nationals in Impromptu, Persuasive, and Extemporaneous speech events.

In general I try to be a tabula rasa judge. Of course we all have our own biases, but I will take each position on it's own merit as stated in the resolution. I do not do kritiks. I have almost never encountered a round where both sides were equally matched in strategy, and the unfair resolution was the cause of one side winning over the other. Do not assume this will be your round. I deeply value argumentation that has layers of philosophy, practicality, and evidence. Please do not assume one of these is more important than the other. I also do not value spreading as a strategy. If I can't understand your argument or if your argument feels overtly dense for the sake of being dense this will not be a benefit.

Also be respectful. Personal slights towards your opponent or coercive behavior toward me will not be tolerated.

And finally, please have fun!