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!

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

My paradigm primarily lies in strong links. Economic arguments are good too. My primary education is in economics, so if debaters make those kinds of arguments, then I will be able to provide the most detailed feedback.

I tend to not favor arguments that provide weak links (such as nuclear war contentions) or ones that require theory that is too detached from what a debater can reasonably absorb and refute over the course of a single round. Though the introduction of new theories can be important and very educational, I think that debate rounds are unfortunately too short to reasonably be able to introduce what might have taken the speaker several hours to reading to understand originally. So introduce new ideas, but please be mindful of your limited ability to express them, and please try to prevent them from becoming more of a cudgel than an educational tool.

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.

Hi! I'm Lexi. I did Speech and Debate in highschool for three years. I went to nationals in LD my senior year and placed top 45 in the nation. I love great flow work and respectful banter. For speech, I mainly did DUO, HI, and ADS. Regardless of what I'm judging though, I expect everyone to be kind and caring. Speech and Debate is fun.

~*~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 enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

This will be my second-year judging speech and debate and I am looking forward to it! I appreciate students being organized, articulate, courteous, and showing good sportsmanship. Please do not talk too fast, if I cannot clearly understand you, it will impact your ranking.

Not who is the better speaker, better debater

Pay attention to cross- great opportunity to refute your opponent and build your case

Can speak quickly, but please speak inelligibly

Will not tolerate abusive treatment, personal attacks, or lines of argument outside of the debate

Logos

Communication

I value logical arguments that are clearly communicated.

I expect professionalism at all times from all involved - competitors, judges, and observers are expected to be respectful of themselves and one another, and of the judge.  Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I am happy to keep time for you, or you can keep your own, just tell me what you prefer.  I will keep time for my own awareness either way.  If someone goes over time, it is my job to call it, not the opponent.  Make sure your contentions are clear.  Thank you!