I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 28 - 30.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

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.

pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

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 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.

please add me on the email chain: hanaleik@lclark.edu

Hiya! My name is Hunter, I use he/him and they/them pronouns. I did speech and debate for 4 years in one of the most traditional circuits in the nation and did relatively well. For my first two years of debating I mostly read stock and then I quickly picked up some progressive skills in my last year of high school and made it all the way to the TOC. Senior year I pretty much only read SETCOL lol. I will listen to most arguments as long as they are not hurtful to anyone in round. Also don't know why I feel the need to say this but DO NOT READ ANYTHING HOMOPHOBIC, ABLEIST, TRANSPHOBIC, OR SEXIST. This also might be a little controversial but yt debaters should NEVER read anti-blackness against BIPOC. At least don't do it in front of me. That is racist and I will drop you and your speaks.

Speed-

As long as you aren't actively trying to frame someone out of the round by reading so quickly that they can't understand you, you are all good. You should automatically share the doc with me if you are planning on spreading.

Keep in mind we are doing a lot of virtual tournaments this year. Make sure that you take the necessary precautions.

*Everyone should be doing impact weighing, BUT it become NECESSARY if you spread.

Theory-

I like a good theory shell but I will not vote on frivolous theory. I think that disclosure is an example of frivolous theory. I never disclosed in high school because we never had to in my circuit. Theory v Theory debate is very hard for me to understand and gets messy very quickly. If you are going for this strat PLS explain the shell like you are explaining it to a lay judge.

Kritiks-

I LOVE Kritiks. I'm cool with non-topical K affs, as that's what I read most of the time. One downfall of reading these are not giving the judges a reason to vote for you. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GIVE ME A REASON TO VOTE FOR THE NON-TOPICAL AFF. When reading heavy lit please make sure you explain it to me as I will not catch every word you say.

General-

I vote on the flow- Please make sure you are explaining and extending. I don't know much about the current resolution other than the fact that it's about autonomous weapons.

Do impact weighing. It makes a round so much easier to judge if you clearly lay out the impacts for me and tell me why I should vote for you.

At the end of the day, this is your tournament. Have some fun with it. Read what you want to read and go for your best strat.

HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK :)

Affiliations--

Lewis and Clark College '23.

Assistant coach at Lake Oswego.

Background--

Hey! I'm Eden :) I'm an alum of the LC IE team and no longer debate, but I was a nat circuit LD'er in high school from 2015-2017. I competed as an independent, mostly attending bid tournaments in California. I mostly read phil affs and K's, but don't let that influence what types of args you read. I'm happy to evaluate anything so do whatever you're best at!

--Only arguments I won't listen to are ones that actively make the round unsafe (ie. overtly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.)--

Speed--

**Speed is the only element of your debate style that I think you should adapt for me.**

I've been completely out of debate for almost five years and don't judge often, so while I'm comfortable evaluating all types of arguments, I'm probably not going to be able to flow spreading at your top speed. If you're super fast (ie. 350-400+ wpm), please go significantly slower than normal, include me on your flash/speech doc email, and really slow down for any important analytics/tags/signposts. My goal is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, and I can only do that if I flow it properly. I will say slow or clear as many times as needed, but it may affect your speaker points.

Crystalizing and weighing impacts will go a really long way in getting my ballot. Please tell me exactly what argument(s) I'm voting for you on and why.

*Keep in mind I have zero knowledge of the current LD topic or any new jargon from the past few years, so you might need to spell things out for me a tiny bit more than normal.

Theory--

I was never a very good theory debater (but complete respect for those who are!) so if you read theory, please make sure to spend a little extra time explaining the arguments for me. I'm going to default to reasonability because I'm not fully confident in my ability to evaluate theory line by line, but I think strong theory arguments are very important for debate so please feel free to run it.

If you end up collapsing to theory, taking time to thoroughly explain the abuse to me (and how the interp solves) in the nr or 2ar is probably more important than blippy line by line, because I'm not well-versed enough in the nuances of theory debate to extrapolate the argument for you based on a single sentence.

**Side note: spreading a frivolous theory shell (ie. with only hypothetical abuse) against a lay/traditional opponent is one of the only things that would make me give you low speaks, because I just find that overtly exclusionary.**

K's--

I love Ks and critical affs so please feel free to read them! I understand most critical lit pretty thoroughly but over-explaining any really complex internal link arguments wouldn't hurt, especially if you're reading something on the obscure side. Other than that, just make sure it's clear what your alt actually means and tell me if your impacts are pre- or post-fiat (or both).

Keep in mind, an ethical framework linking into the K doesn't inherently mean it's false. If the impacts of the K don't link to the standard, you need to engage the framework debate directly because I won't presume that the K comes before ethics solely because you tell me it has pre-fiat impacts.

Framework--

I was largely a framework debater in HS (mainly affs but also the occasional NC) so I'd love to hear a good phil case. IMO a strong syllogism that you know the ins and outs of is usually better than a bunch of weak independent warrants. Make sure you explain the impact calculus under your standard, especially if its anything complicated.

Advantages, Disads, CP's, etc.--

Not much to say here--I'm always happy to learn about the topic lit and these debates can be super fun to watch. I'm always super impressed by LD'ers who know the ins and outs of the topic! Really clear crystallization and impact weighing is definitely key here. Err on the side of over-explaining link arguments, especially in rebuttals. Make sure your impacts matter under the winning framework.

Speaker Points--

I probably give higher than average speaks, especially if the round has good clash and strong weighing.

Good Luck! :)

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.

I did debate all four years in HS, mostly Lincoln Douglas, but I'm experienced with all kinds. I tend to be swayed more easily by arguments with strong moral implications. (Especially in LD - Value and Criterion are of the utmost importance, as I see them as the spearpoint of your whole case) I am okay with speed, but I do prefer a moderate enunciation so I can hear exactly what you're saying 100% of the time. I will flow the round so if you have something you'd like me to note you can point it out in your speaking time. I also like voters, so if you can summarize your main points at the end as a voter I feel like I fully understood where you were coming from and connect them to the argument at large, I'll keep them in mind as I score.

Email: notwyattlayland@gmail.com

Background

University of Reno, Nevada 2023
He/Him/His

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. On GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

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.

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

Also, be polite.

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

Email: williamdrace@gmail.com

Be persuasive – First, that means making arguments that you feel most comfortable with. Second, be clear. Both in form and content. Use jargon only if it contributes to clarity. Third, make your arguments longer and more nuanced rather than running more off case positions.

My ability to flow spreading will probably be pretty bad, especially online. I’ll also be reading through your evidence while you’re speaking. Go at a brisk pace for the tags and you can spread through the rest of the card. Please, do something to audibly separate cards from each other. Breath, pause, say ‘next’, or change speed.

CP = DA >= K (Capitalism/Security) = T >= Phil > K (anything else) = Theory

Other considerations:

Use the cards that you read

Long internal link chains only work if you have good evidence and you properly extend them

Defense is enough to neutralize a disad or advantage

Please, please, please do evidence comparison and impact calculus

I did mostly parli and lower level policy in high school, now I'm doing LD in college

I don't care about the rules and if you win an argument ill vote for it but keep some things in mind:

Although i have almost two years of experience in policy, I never went to debate camp and learned most of what I know through experience. This means although I understand how Ks work, I probably don't know your specific kritik. Running Ks is fine, but probably don't run Baudrillard unless you can explain it clearly.

Talk as fast as the slowest person in the room. If you tend to talk fast, just email me the doc and I'll be fine.

Other than that:

Theory is fine, I default to competing interps unless you tell me to do something else

Everyone gets 30 speaks, if the tournament has speaker points

include me on email chain: jacksonrice@dotcomjungle.com

they/them

I did four years of debate in high school, mostly Parli but with a fair amount of LD and a bit of Policy. I also did two years of college LD. I can handle pretty high speed as long as I have access to the document. PLEASE slow down at least a bit for theory unless you’re sharing the text of your shell. Here's my email if you prefer email chains: kellenrice@lclark.edu

I'm open to any kind of argument. If you're doing something technical that your opponent doesn't understand, try your best to make the argument accessible. Also, don't assume I know your K lit - always assume you need to do a basic explanation of your argument. I’ll accept anything, but naturally you still have to win the argument.

Debate is a game, and like most games it’s nonsense. I really appreciate nonsense - please have fun with your arguments! That being said, if you do nonsense, please try to keep it from becoming messy.

Be respectful to each other

If I see bigoted arguments or unethical behavior, I will most likely drop you.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts, seeing as this isn't very detailed.

My name is Carlos Santos (He/Him/His), I debated in Spokane briefly at Lewis and Clark High School and would consider myself closer to lay than experienced as a judge (though I am learning!). I am the coach for North Central High School and this will be my second year back in the debate circuit. While I am more familiar with traditional debate styles, I am open to progressive debating and do my best to view unfamiliar debate styles impartially.

General: Time limits are to be followed, speaker points are not debatable, self-timing is acceptable.

Policy/LARP – Policy/LARP arguments are fine but avoid contrived scenarios.

K - K aff should be able to provide contextual answers to framework. K affs should have a clear advocacy, whether that be enacted or embodied through performance or advocating a philosophical re-orientation towards/away from the resolution. If you're moving away from the resolution, you need an embedded critique of the resolution - this will give you a large leg up in front of me on the t-framework debate – vague arguments on oppression/racism/capitalism without clear structural analysis and coherent theories of power make it difficult to evaluate within the round.

1 NC K - When using Kritik in the 1NC, you should be able to clearly shift the burden of addressing the underlying issues of the debate to the affirmative. I do not mind at all being asked to consider assumptions I have made regarding the framework of the debate.

Framework: Provide clear structure in framework debate – be sure to elaborate on how I (as the judge) should be interpreting the rules within the round as well as how the round should be judged and provide sound reasoning for this interpretation.

CP – Counterplan should provide a reasonable alternate course of action with a net benefit over the plan – avoid contrived scenarios with unclear net benefits. Your text should be clear in stating your advocacy. Elaborate on how the counterplan is competitive to the plan and provide a net benefit to the counterplan.

DA – disad should operate with a clear link to the plan, please provide evidence and have a clear impact. Because DA impact should be considerable, provide multiple links. Long link chains are acceptable as long as they all relate back to your claim. Impact should be broad and clearly outweigh the affirmative, turn case, or at least nullify the 1AC advantage(s). Impact turns are challenging to do well and inoffensively. Use them only if you are certain it will be effective.

Performance – Performance can be an effective way to communicate narratives that operate outside of the dominant cultural narrative, but make sure the impact is carried beyond the 1AC. Use it as a connection between each part of the round.

T – I have no issue with topicality debates and aff should be prepared to defend against with a clear, delineated counter-interpretation. I am fine with theory debates – just make sure your interpretation is clear and provide a reason for me to give you the ballot or drop the argument

Dover Sikes (she/her)

I did four years of high school debate- both lay and nat circuit LD.

Include me on your email chain please: doversikes@gmail.com.

I’m not going to go super in depth, but here are the main things you should know (feel free to ask me questions before the round if you need):

Miscellaneous-

- tech > truth

- don't intentionally clip cards

- speaks are based on clarity, efficiency, strategic choices

- please keep track of your own time

Speed-

I’m okay with spreading, but please make sure you speak clearly, if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t flow it. Better slow than sorry, especially in this online format.

Kritiks-

Kritiks are fine, just don’t assume I have any comprehensive understanding of the philosophy- especially if it’s more obscure, and make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure your kritik has solid impacts, when it comes down to a wash between policy versus in round impacts, I’m more likely to favor policy.

Theory-

My theory threshold is not that high, and I really don’t want to judge theory heavy debates. If you choose to run theory, make it simple.

In general- keep it organized, explain things clearly, clash, and don’t be rude to your opponent.

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.

I've done LD for like 6 years (and currently compete at the college level) so I'm pretty familiar with the terminology/structure of the debate. That being said, I obviously have my preferences, along with things I think I shouldn't have to say but will anyways for the sake of making sure we're all on the same page.

First and foremost, some general things:

Please be sure you are touching on and engaging with substantial arguments brought up by your opponent in order to ensure an engaging round for all parties involved. Consider the implications of their ideas, the context of these proposals, and actually put some thought into your responses. If you only read generics that barely link (w/o T saying they're impossible to link to, obviously) you put yourself at more of a risk for a vote down if your opponent is critically engaging with the presented ideas.

Also, please do your research. If you're discussing something directly stated in the resolution you should probably have at least a first page of google level of knowledge on the topic. This is more of a plea to the debate community in general, but it'll also help the debate a lot if you can actually engage in an uncarded conversation on the topic.

Finally, please be kind to each other in round. While I'm aware that some people approach "flustering" their opponent as a strategy, please do not try this with me as your judge. If you cannot win a debate in which your opponent isn't being actively heckled, you may want to reconsider your cases and argument structure. So we are totally clear, being kind includes not yelling at your opponent during CX. You can press them for info, but be respectful about it. Also, obviously slow down if your opponent calls slow, respect their identity and ideas, etc.

On the more technical side:

You can really run whatever you want with me, but make sure you are engaging with the debate in it's entirety. Basically, even if you're reading a K (or something similar) make sure you still respond to case, or at the bare minimum crossapply the K args and explain how they relate.

If you hadn't gathered already, I really like Ks. You're welcome to run them if you feel comfy with the structure and know enough about the topic to do it well. While I can follow the technical language, you MUST explain the concept behind your critique in simple english during the round. This is honestly the hardest part of Ks, and if you can't explain it simply I will assume you don't know your topic very well. Also, it makes it less accessible for your opponent, which is the opposite of what you should be trying to do with a K (they should be educational, IMO).

Also, I will always vote on T if there is proven abuse. While I know that this can sometimes be frustrating, if there is proven abuse I stick with the idea that I cannot consider the other args made in round until that is in some way resolved. Please adequately respond to T, it crushes my soul to vote on halfhearted 30 second shells that end up getting a collapse. I also respect T so much because I treat it as a check on in round abuse, which I think is important in LD. That said, please do not read T just to read T. I'll overlook one or two shells as a time strat as long as theres actual link and abuse proven, but once you start reading more than 2 you should have a good reason. Reading throwaway T takes away from Ts power as a checkback on actual abuse that may make the debate round inaccessible to some, please be mindful of this.

Aside from that I don't think I have any particularly strong/unique opinions on anything. Obviously CPs should prove competition, DAs should have uniqueness, etc. Feel free to ask me any other questions you have before round, I'm happy to answer.

Hi, I'm Josie (she/her)! I did LD for four years in high school, as well as HI, and I dabbled in other speech types as well.

TL:DR - please speak clearly, connect your points, don't be rude.

Speed- As long as I can understand you, you're good to go. I will let you know if I need you to slow down (speed/clear). Crystallization and slowing down for sign posting, tags, or important analytics helps me write down what you need me to know. Probably not your fastest speed ever.

Theory / K's- I didn't run a lot of these, but I can understand them. If you run these, please makes your points clear, and explain your arguments well. Really sell what you're presenting.

Framework - Love a good framework debate, please connect all your arguments back to the resolution.

Some more general notes- I will basically hear any argument or case, as long as you present it in a logical way. Impact calc will go a long way with me. I will be writing down and/or flowing through what you tell me to, so be clear when presenting and refuting arguments. However, if I see any glaring issues or flaws in your arguments, I will also take those into consideration.

I don't like nuclear extinction as an impact, so if you're gonna run it you better make it good. Ask me about it if you care that much.

You and I know to be competing right now is *insanely* stressful, so I'm proud of you for doing it! :) Everyone will have tech issues once in a while, so I will be understanding if anything happens. Please do the same for me.

My number one request is please don't be a jerk in round. Don't interrupt your opponent and be polite.

I will be disclosing and giving RFD if the tournament allows. Feel free to ask me any questions before we get started.

I did LD for 4 years and mustered about 200 rounds.

Feel free to email me if your questions reach beyond our time after the round!

Also please for the love of god add me to the e-mail chain

callahanstroud@gmail.com

Traditional

Speaks are based on how compelling and fluid your speaking was. The way you speak is totally irrelevant to my decision.

I assess the round by picking a winning framework and then applying that framework to the contention level debate. Framework itself does not impact my decision. I evaluate impacts through the "lens" of a criterion. Evidence does not Trump analytics. I find that often analytics can take out most evidence.

PF

a 20 second observation establishing an unwarranted philosophical weighing mechanism will not be evaluated. I'll weigh using the same loose notion of consequentialism most people use in day to day policy conversations. Give me good, analytical debate and I'll evaluate you accordingly.

Not traditional

I had a stint on the circuit my junior year and attended GDS a few years back. I'm as fluent in circuit language and argumentation as I am with traditional, but at some point I've debated against most kinds of positions. Policy is the one I'm most familiar with and feel the most comfortable weighing.

Here's my judging philosophy and my specific way of evaluating rounds:

Philosophy

I try to be tab. I will probably fail. To minimize the chance that you misunderstand or interpret the way I judge, refer to the bit below

1. Establish a weighing mechanism

Let's say that an affirmative criterion, a refutation to a negative Methodology K, and an affirmative T shell are the 3 arguments that the affirmative goes for in the 2AR. If I decide that the Methodology K is true, I no longer care about the criterion because it exists on a "lower" level of the debate. That being said, if I don't buy the K or the T shell, all I have left is the criterion and I will evaluate that. I will essentially start at the top and work my way down eventually stopping where I feel a side has distinguished themselves and proven an argument to be true.

2. Evaluate the round under said weighing mechanism

I will weigh and compare the impacts of the round under the established weighing mechanism. If I've decided that the framing of the T shell is the most important (lets say it emphasized fairness in the debate round) I no longer concern myself with the impacts of the criterion or the methodology K because they are irrelevant under the weighing mechanism. That being said, if you made a compelling argument that the impacts of the K are relevant under the T shell, I would absolutely weigh them

3. Tech > Truth with gut check unless compelled otherwise

If your argument is racist, it will fail the gut-check

If it's just stupid and your opponent doesn't have the sense to pick it apart, I will absolutely evaluate it

I will not evaluate unwarranted arguments. If you don't explain it, I don't particularly care if your opponent drops it. Be wary of this if you like to run tricks cases. A one sentence justification is fine if you give me a warrant, just make sure its there!

4. Speed is fine

Put a speech doc in front of my and I'll manage. Don't concern yourself with it unless I don't have anything to follow you with.

If you'll notice, my means of assessing both traditional and circuit boils down to the same principle. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me how the impacts "weigh" under it. You will have no trouble if you do that

I am a first-time parent judge, and I have no personal experience as a debater. Please do not spread. If you talk fast, please make sure it is understandable; if I can't understand you because you are too fast I'll put down my pen and stop flowing. Be sure to speak clearly and enunciate. I would prefer you don't use too many technical terms in round, as I will not be familiar with them.

To maximize your chances of winning, please try to transition arguments distinctly and clearly, and try to clash as much as possible with your opponent. Please be civil, and remember to weigh your debate in later speeches. Off-time roadmaps are welcome.

I have a business background, and am familiar with current events.

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

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

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!

Pronouns: she/her

Debate background: dabbled in all formats in high school, captain of my team my junior/senior years (graduated in ‘09)

Participated in IPDA/NPDA in college

Judging background: have judged at various collegiate tournaments, mostly British Parliamentary, for the past 3 years.

Judged high school tournaments, but mostly IEs, during my freshman/sophomore years of college.

Spreading - Has a time and place. I love when it is utilized well and hate when it is utilized poorly. If you’re speaking quickly but nothing you’re saying is of impact or importance, I will be unimpressed. If you speak slowly, but your arguments are sound and strongly linked, I am fine with that. Use the time you are given to make the most impactful arguments you can without too much fluff or too many distracters.

K - I'm not a huge fan of running K, so if you're going to do it, make sure you do it well.

I expect all debaters to be respectful at all times. This means respecting their intelligence, pronouns, identity, and keeping criticism limited to the content of arguments made. Do not condescend me as the judge or the other speaker as your opponent.

Treat me as an average person of average intelligence. I may have a deep knowledge or shallow understanding of the topic, but it is up to you to connect the dots in your arguments. I will not be connecting them for you.

I have no preference on debating styles as long as all competitors are debating in good faith, taking the round seriously (this doesn’t mean you can’t use wacky arguments, just make sure they’re used appropriately and effectively), and being respectful of others in the round. I gave up a weekend to judge you and hopefully help you to be a better speaker. I don’t like to feel like my time has been wasted, and I’m sure you don’t either.

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.

Paige Yi (she/her/hers)

pyi@csd8.info

I have been involved in the speech and debate world for several 7 years and have previously coached.

Overall, I expect a respectful, well-structured debate. Essentially, keep it organized, explain things clearly, clash, and don’t be rude to your opponent.

I prefer off-time roadmaps.

Please keep your delivery clear. I’m not a fan of spreading, but as long as you are speaking clearly and are organized in your debate, I can accommodate. If I cannot understand what you are saying, however, I will not flow it.

I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

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.