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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

I do not like when people spread. Don't get me wrong you can do it, but make it followable. Other than that one quirk, I am fine with everything. I can follow a T shell, Ks, etc. Debate how you want to debate.

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

And don't be rude(:

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

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

Introduction

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

Speaks/Spreading

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

K's and Progressive Arguments

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

Flow

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

Ethics

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

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

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

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!