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.

TLDR Version: I did CEDA/NDT policy debate in college. Do whatever you want.

Hello:

My name is Ben Dodds. I have been involved with speech and debate for 18 years. I did policy debate for four years in high school and two years of CEDA/NDT in college. When I transferred from Gonzaga to Oregon, the policy team was cut and I started doing Parli on the NPTE/NPDA circuit.

I coached the University of Oregon team for six seasons after I finished debating. I judged CEDA/NDT and NPTE/NPDA debates at that time.

As far as a judging paradigm is concerned, I think that this is your activity now, not mine. If you can convince me an argument is valid in any format I will listen. I have enjoyed deep and complex debates about process counterplans and politics DAs and performance Kritiks of all stripes. There have been excellent debates on everything in between. You can't go pro in debate, it ends, I want you to use the time you have here to make arguments you like.

The unifying trait of arguments that I enjoy is that YOU enjoy them. If you are passionate about an argument, know why it should matter to me and can tell me that, I am game for it.

I don't have a "default" mode for evaluating or weighing arguments. If arguments are not compared, I will just compare them myself in whatever mood I am in at that moment. This cannot go well for you. Debate is subjective, no matter how much we might tell ourselves it isn't, it is and always will be. If you create the weighing mechanism and debate about what is important, I'll use that. Without comparison, my decision will probably feel arbitrary to you and me. Debate is about processing, comparing, and contrasting ideas. If you don't compare and contrast, you are not debating.

I have one specific request. I have never been in a debate where one person (or team) made all good arguments and the other person (or team) made NO good arguments. I appreciate debates and debaters that take an honest approach to their opponent's argument quality as well as their own. I want to hear an honest assessment of which arguments you think are good and bad, should be weighed or not, and matter most at the end of the round. If you show me a rebuttalist that thinks every argument they made is perfect and everything the other team said is worthless, I'll show you a bad rebuttal. I want to hear you tell me "this is their BEST argument, we STILL win because..."

I would appreciate as many specific questions as you have before a debate. I will answer them all.

I did speech for all four years of high school and was captain of the team for the last two. I attended college on a debate scholarship to participate in British Parliamentary debate.

I tend towards being a tabula rasa judge- make it clear WHY your plan is the best. I especially weight discussion of the benefits and harms of proposals, so try to make it clear why your plan is better/more impactful than others in the round.

I would prefer it if there was no spreading as it can be difficult for others in round to follow and result in key points getting lost.

Please engage with all the points brought up by the other debaters. Give debaters credit for and try to address 'the best form of their argument' to give us the best quality of discussion.

Be respectful of everyone in round- this likely goes without saying but attack the argument, not the debater.

I joined the NSDA as a high school student in 1978 and have been involved in the activity at many levels and in many different roles ever since. My initial exposure to speech and debate was a year long class in the structure and theory of cross-examination debate. While I appreciate all forms of debate, C-X is my favorite format. I rarely judge because I am usually part of the tab staff or doing other administrative duties, including at nationals.

C-X Paradigm: I will listen to whatever arguments you run; however, if they are not sufficiently backed up with analysis and just consist of reading large numbers of cards with no solid links to your argument you will have a tough time picking up my ballot. Understanding the power of Stock Issues goes a long way with me, but I will vote on what is on the flow. I dislike generic disadvantages, generic K's and incomplete counter-plans. I can follow very fast debaters, but I dislike using speed to cover-up for logical inconsistencies and analytical flaws. I do not want to have to ask for cards, so be honest. Ethics are important, be respectful. Do not do things that will drive people away from the event. Tag-teaming is fine as long as I am able to see the c-x skills of both partners.

L-D Paradigm: I expect L-D debaters to have a more communicative style than policy debaters. The debater who holds their case together along with maintaining the supremacy (or at least equality) of their value and criterion is the debater likely to get my ballot. My position on theory is related to regional expectations. If I am judging a TOC meet I will expect K's and counter-plans. I do not expect these structures at Oregon tournaments.

Public Forum Paradigm: Communication is important in Public Forum. I expect a smaller number of arguments than in other debate formats; additionally, the arguments need to be clear and logically supported. Analysis, examples and cross-application to other academic disciplines (such as literature) are strategies I appreciate. I expect good manners. Grand Cross-Fire should not degenerate into a yelling match. I need to understand who is talking.

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm: I consider this a "no rules" debate. What you tell me is what I will use as my decision calculus. That said, I still expect good manners and good ethics. Do not lie to me. If you use policy concepts I am fine with that, but do not beat up on inexperienced debaters--this will not get my ballot.

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.