I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

Parli is intended to showcase a debater's ability to think on their feet with an emphasis of logic. It is not intended to be an evidence war like the other formats of debate. When on-line access is allowed in Parli, avoid the temptation to "out-evidence" your opponent. In fact, you will not win because of a piece of evidence, or pieces of evidence. They're nice to illustrate a point, but the win goes to the team that significantly defends the logic, likelihood, and pragmatism of their claims while sufficiently clashing with the same of your opponent's claims.

My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you. Kritiks are valuable to debate because they can have an impact on our discourse. To wield them as a procedural cheapens that. I also really really dislike Topicality unless absolutely necessary. Especially when someone runs T against like a novice case topic area. Running Topicality because you think you have to is so boring and just takes away from the debate.

I prefer debate to be an accessible activity. Overly relying on jargon to make your point bums me out. Do not spread your opponents. If they say "clear" you better slow down. Disregarding that can absolutely cost you the round.

Most of all, persuade me. I want warranted claims and facts presented, but I need you to do the analysis. You need to put the pieces together for me, I will not do the work for you.

I will try not to divulge my personal beliefs, and most of all, I will try not weigh them in a round. That being said, I am human and I have feelings and empathy.

I also value cordial discourse. If you get rude to your opponents (dismissive, talking over them incessantly, glaring or obviously rolling your eyes) I will mark you down on speaker points at the very minimum, and it will affect my decision. Remember, you were new once, and a supportive community keeps this activity alive.

Have fun, don't stress out, and GOOD LUCK!!

For email chains: bharrison@pps.net

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

Experience:

* 4 years high school policy (national circuit & lay debate) at Pembroke Hill; 1 year college policy at UC Berkeley

* 2 years assistant coaching at Harker; 1-time lab leader at both the CNDI & SCUFI; ~5 years judging

Preferences:

Reflecting back on almost 15 years since I began with the activity, I feel like the strongest benefits of competitive debate are the development of research, persuasion, and advocacy skills.

I've both judged and participated in a wide variety of K & Policy debates, across the spectrum. No matter what kind of argument you want to make, you should run what you are best prepared to excel in.

Dropped arguments aside, and especially in the rebuttals, I've found that depth is more important than breadth. Often the difference between a close round and a decisive victory for one side is having a well-developed impact calculus and clear explanation of why your position is stronger, relying on detailed, comparative analysis.

When deciding on a strategy or which arguments to focus on, I place a high value on truth - gauged by the strength of your evidence and analysis. The truer your position is, the better positioned you will be to magnify or compensate for technical strengths or weaknesses.

The best debaters (29+ speaker points) are able to excel all of the above, while maintaining that delicate balance between "playing the game" at the highest level and exhibiting some awareness of the "bigger picture" of how these issues and your analysis are significant and ideally still make sense outside of the conventions of debate as well.

T/Framework:

The key in any framework or topicality debate, on either side, is to go beyond the buzzwords and really engage in comparative analysis on the central questions at stake.

What are the implications of allowing, or not allowing, a certain kind of argument? Or: prioritizing, or not prioritizing, a certain kind of impact?

Focus as much as you can on these core questions and the relevant impact calculus. Usually, I find that it is the internal links which are the weakest and most in need of development (i.e., why a particular approach to, for example, 'policymaking' or 'discourse' is important and does or doesn't access your impacts)(or: why an argument has or hasn't triggered a certain thresh-hold of limits/predictability that justifies including or excluding it in the debate).

Dis/advantages:

Internal links and impact calculus are generally the most important, and most neglected, aspects of these debates. I really think that the best arguments can be made here if you are able to take a step back and ask yourself whether your position as a whole truly makes sense and is plausible, even outside the conventions of debate. Is the position you are taking - as a whole - one that is really supported in the literature, or by a reasonable analysis? One rock-solid scenario with an air-tight link-chain and a real, serious, warranted impact will beat ten scraped-together scenarios with tenuous link-chains and implausible impacts any day in my book.

Policy v. K:

On either side of the debate, it's really important that you know what you are talking about. Failing to engage with the specifics of your opponents' arguments is the quickest way to lose this kind of debate. Defending the truth of your position and the value of your approach to the relevant issues is the baseline from which you can best defend or refute the validity of any kind of critical theory.

I have read a lot of critical literature and empirical political history, and place a high value on both practical concerns and philosophical depth. The best debaters should be able to take advantage of this on either end of the spectrum.

Speed and Evidence:

Clarity is VERY important, especially if you want good speaker points. Often there can be benefit found in slowing down a little - more time is generally lost to inefficient, irrelevant or repetitive rhetoric than a lack of raw speed.

If your evidence doesn't have strong warrants in it, it is vital that you are supplying additional analysis in your own speeches. The best evidence always goes beyond making basic assertions that are rhetorically specific enough to capitalize on in a round, and instead presents warranted arguments which you can summarize, lean on, or extrapolate and apply to defend the truth of your position.

Background:

I am currently a college student competing in IPDA for the University of Portland. I competed four years at the high school level with Lakeridge High School (1.5 years doing Public Forum, 0.5 year doing Policy, 2 years doing Parliamentary Debate). I went to NPDL Tournament of Champions both years competing in parli, and competed at the State Championship each year in high school. I did speech events throughout my four years in high school, but debate was my focus.

Enough about me...

General Approach:

Civility: I will absolutely not tolerate disrespect, discrimination, rude behavior, or anything that harms/cuts down your competitors, judge, or audience. We are here for educational purposes and to have fun. I will vote you down as this behavior inherently inhibits learning and enjoyment of this activity. I welcome vigor and passion in your arguments, but that does NOT allow you to target the people in the room.

Role as Judge: I try to come in as a judge under the framework of tabula rasa--blank slate. I do my best to limit any interference on my part (the only exception is a violation of civility as mentioned above) as I know how frustrating it can be as a competitor. Therefore, if you want me to vote on something or make an argument with complex links, you need to tell me and explain the links of the argument. I am not going to come in with any assumed knowledge, so if you are arguing on "common sense" you still need to do the leg work of what that argument entails. I will not do the work for you in making and furthering your arguments. On your ballot I will give suggestions of how to make your arguments better, but I will not factor that into my reason for decision. I AM A FLOW JUDGE. I will vote off of what is on the flow, and I will flow anything you say as long as you tell me where on the flow you are (look to next section).

Organization: This is key to effectively communicating your arguments. PLEASE use off-time or on-time roadmaps (I don't care which, just tell me which one you are doing), signpost, use tag-lines, list your number of responses/links/impacts etc. This makes it easier for me to track and flow your arguments, so when I am making a decision I am looking at all of the arguments you made in comparison to your opponents.

Importance of Impacts: Impacts are the reasons your arguments matter!! Vocalize them PLEASE. Why does your argument matter? Crystalize these during your last speeches.

Speed: I don't care if you talk fast. I am comfortable with all speeds, however, if your competitor asks you to slow down please respect that and do so to the best of your abilities.

Timing: I prefer that you time yourself. I will give you time signals if needed, but I do prefer to focus on flowing. I don't mind if you go a few seconds over so that you may finish your sentence, however please do not go over 30 seconds, I will stop you if you reach that point.

Parliamentary Debate:

* Please be mindful of what type of resolution you have (policy, value, fact) and make sure you are doing some resolutional analysis so that you are making applicable arguments (i.e. don't run a plan on a value resolution).

* Respect each others time for questions. Ask the questions you need, but do not take up more than a minute or so of their speech for questions. Additionally, if you cannot get to a question that is okay, but do not say "I will get to it at the end of my speech" and then say "sorry I can't take questions now that I am in protected time" (this was an old pet peeve of mine). Also, PLEASE do not stand up for a question and try and just make a comment/argue your own points, you will have your time to argue in your own speech.

* Run whatever you want (as long as it is applicable to the resolution). I am, as a tabula rasa judge, open to any type of argument and support debaters who take risks. If you want to run a K, topicality, permutation, inherency/harms press, counter plan, etc. just please provide structure! Other than that, I am happy to hear any type of argument, I actually encourage it as you learn a lot from it.

Public Forum Debate:

* Please do not make your debate about "do you have a source for that?" Evidence IS important as you need substantial support for argument validity, however, if you can logically explain an argument that can be generally understood/agreed upon by the public, a source is not necessarily required. (I have been asked before if I had a source for what the First Amendment entailed...this is unnecessary and takes away from the actual debate at hand).

* Please make sure your summary speeches are crystallizing the main points of clash. Start narrowing the entirety of the flow to the main points of clash and why you have won them. The voter speech is best used when you actually do voters instead of doing line by line refutation (same goes with summary speech).

* Showing evidence is important in understanding what the source says. If the source says differently than what is paraphrased, call attention to it and I will look at the source myself if need be. I recommend having your partner look at the evidence shown during crossfire while you continuing asking questions so you can get the most out of your time. Please have evidence available for opponents or myself if called for, and be able to highlight/point to the part of the source where you are pulling from.

* I am quite open to any arguments that you want to run. As the rules state you cannot run formal plans/counter plans in Public Forum Debate as this is supposed to be an accessible form of debate, but I will of course listen to and be open to more unique arguments or approaches.

* Please adhere to my civility paradigm at the top, especially as crossfire tends to run into trouble in that area.

Policy Debate:

* My main thing for this form of debate is civility! Policy gets heated, but always remain respectful to those in the room.

* You are of course able to run any argument, just stay organized.

* Please don't assume I know about the topic, again, I approach debates with tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

* This is the one format of debate I do not have personal experience in, but I am very familiar with the format and norms of this style. The general debate comments apply, otherwise you are open to run the round how you would like.

Strong links, impacts, and solvency are the main judging criteria for me. I also like seeing good clash during debate and I'm primarily a flow judge, so please refer what you're responding to when making advantages/disadvantages/contentions. Most importantly, please be respectful of your opponents and I hope the round is educational and fun!

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 am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.

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.

Public Forum debate is not designed to be a talk as fast as you can debate. It is designed to be spoken at a clear and reasonable rate and pace. As a newer judge I want to be able to keep up with the debate.

My background is varied. I've worked in IT and I currently work as a software developer. In college, I studied psychology and political science.

Most of the points below apply for both speech and debate.

- For me, theory supported by evidence is always preferred to theory alone. If a theory does not appear to be based on a set of premises that justify the conclusion, I'll likely dismiss it, even if evidence which you provide supports part of the overall claim--the theory must first be logically sound.

- I'm a lateral thinker, so non-linear argumentation and storytelling is fine by me.

- For debate in particular, one thing I'll be looking for is some form of thesis statement that encompasses your argument. It would be best to lead with this statement, or I may misidentify the thesis. This is different from a roadmap. Whereas the roadmap acts as an outline for your speech, a thesis statement briefly summarizes the core or your argument.

- When reviewing research, I usually ask myself the following questions, so it will only help if these points are included when you cite your research:

1. "Did the research use proper sample size, and is the sampling method appropriate for the type of research?"

2. "Was the research replicated, producing the same results, or was it otherwise peer-reviewed?"

3. "Does the research prove cause, or is it simply demonstrating correlation?" This is the most important aspect of research, in my opinion.

- If I can see that the research neglected to account for confounding variables then the research is less meaningful to me.

- As far as delivery goes, I like to see good use of inflection to emphasize important points, but I am much more concerned with the content of your arguments.

- I find that ethos and logos arguments are typically more persuasive than pathos.

As a judge I expect debates to be civilized, organized and equitable. Competitors should walk in a room prepared and presentable. Organized and easy to understand, as well as follow arguments are a must. Speech and Debate is meant to be fun, it is not the place for pettiness or discriminatory language.

In regards to speech specific events, pieces should flow, be easy to understand and be entertaining. Understanding your source material is important. While I obviously am judging based on speaking capabilities, when it comes to breaking ties the entertainment value is the final breaking factor.

I'm not a regular judge. Please walk me through the event.

I'm an engineer and I value precision.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

1. Don't spread: speak clearly so I (and your opponents) can clearly understand you.

2. Don't run Ks: focus on the substantive issues of the resolution being debated.

3. Most importantly, be civil: ad hominem is the easiest way to lose a round.

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.