I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

I am a parent judge with five years of experience judging traditional debate.

I appreciate clearly developed arguments and good judge instruction (explain why you've won the round). I take thorough notes throughout the debate but don't keep a rigorous flow. The most convincing arguments in the round are the ones that will win my ballot.

Please provide a clear framework (including definitions) and explain how your offense functions under that framework.

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

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

Please be polite to one another.

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

I look for speeches that are clearly articulated at a normal pace, and arguments/statements that are well-explained that also expands on its impact.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello...I am a first year parent judge.

I am in Sales and Marketing so I do look for energy, confidence and buy-in on the topic at hand.

Deep Breaths and Have Fun!

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

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

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

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

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.

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, unique perspectives, honesty, and kindness. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and be exposed to many different perspectives! In the late 70's/80's I debated in Arizona--high school and at ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success. I follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or the event rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate. Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

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.

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

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

NPDA:

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

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

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Be polite.

2) Provide clear links.

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

4) Have fun!

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

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