No spreading, be respectful, please give sign posts :)

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

I am a parent judge. I competed in speech and debate all through high school and college. I did some LD debate and some CEDA, but I focused a lot of my time on platform speech events (original oratory, informative, communication analysis, extemp, impromptu, poetry, and duo). I am a lawyer by profession and currently serve as a justice on a state supreme court. So, I evaluate arguments on their merit, but I also value communication skills. I’m not a huge fan of topicality arguments and certainly do not see a topicality as being jurisdictional in the sense that it deprives a judge of authority to judge a round. Someone would have to be taking some serious liberties with the resolution for me to vote on topicality grounds. I am also open to evaluating plans and counter-plans, and taking conflicting positions (when done clearly and when well-warranted) does not offend my sensibilities.

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

I am a newer judge. I judge on the clarity of arguments and speaking skills.

I really think that paradigms are not particularly useful for several reasons. The first being that a vast majority of the time, students will ask me then blatantly ignore what I said. Though I am a veteran coach, you should still debate for me as if I am a lay judge. Don't assume anything. Crystallize, signpost and use impacts. Why should I care about your claims and evidence? Make me care.

Evidence-if you spend a significant amount of time asking for and looking through opponents, I will most likely vote you down. I want to see a debate, not the searching for and reading of evidence. I can Google that myself.

If I can understand what you are saying and you convince me to care about it-you win my ballot.

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

Arguments should be clear, compelling, and logical. I am open to many styles and do not feel dogmatic about any specific paradigm. I expect debaters to manifest respect and decorum, while debating to win. Debate is training for "real-world" activities and debaters must quickly adapt to a given argument or style. I will do the same as a judge.

Although it's a long-standing debate tradition, I don't believe in publishing a paradigm. What a student has prepared should not be adjusted according to a judge's feelings or preferences. Be clear and respectful.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 3 years in every event, which means that I am familiar with the rules and terms.

I prefer students know the material and that they don't just read off of their screens the entire time. I like to hear meaningful questions and prefers students to fill the time that they have been given. Please don't speak too fast to where it is difficult to follow your argument. Be kind and be respectful.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I prefer that you time yourself. Be civil and collegial. I will not tolerate disrespectful language or behavior in a round. Your judge does not shake hands.

Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I evaluate whether you convinced me that your position is more true than your competitor. Professionalism, respect, and good sportsmanship is a must.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!

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!