Hi,

I debated in public forum in highschool, and I debate in parlimentary debate now in college. I have debated for 7 years.

Not a fan of Kritiks, but if they apply to the topic and are executed well, I will like them.

Experience:

I did mostly policy in high school, and am doing policy in college, so I have the most experience with this form of debate. I did a little bit of LD in high school, so I am familiar with the basic concepts, but I am not intimately familiar with it.

Paradigm:

I am okay with speed, but nothing obscene. I'm okay with almost anything that could be run, just make sure you explain it clearly, with every link in the logic chain properly explained.

I love well-done impact calculus. Explaining why your arguments have more bearing on the round, or on the world, and how your opponents don't, is a very winning strategy in my book. Simply assuming the impacts of your arguments, or assuming I know those impacts, doesn't help me evaluate your arguments.

The final speeches should give me a few things to chew on. That is, don't just dump tons of words in my ears and hope I vote for you. Give me a few key, concise, good reasons why you've won.

Policy-Specific:

I like disadvantages, but be sure it actually links to the opponent's case. Additionally, explain the impact story clearly.

I'm a big fan of topicality. However, make the violation clear, and be sure you tell me clearly WHY it's bad that the case is non-topical.

I will vote for kritiks, but I'm not a huge fan of them. The link and perm are big issues for me with kritiks, so be sure to clearly tackle those.

For email chains, my email is: zanehayesemerson@gmail.com

Former Speech & Debate Coach and High School Competitor. I mainly did Congress, Public Debate, Exempt, and various other individual events.

I feel for LD & most other forms of debate it is pretty cut and dry on what is expected and how one should conduct themselves in a round. The longstanding issues surrounding CX debate seem to be where judges, coaches, and debaters differ. No matter what your opinion is, the only thing that matters in the round is the judge in front of you. If you don't satisfy their expectations or needs your personal views and the work you've put into your case doesn't mean much at the end of the round.

I'm against speed in debate. I think it has lowered the quality of public speaking. They call it speech & debate for a reason. If you have so much to say in six to eight minutes that you end up talking in alphabet soup or so fast the average person can't follow then how useful is this exercise outside of the debate round?

I work in public policy, and my employers and I help craft laws. I treat policy debate like you are before me in a work session or work group where we are trying to craft the best policy to present to a city council or legislative committee. I want to hear why your plan is better than the others and why the change you advocate in current policy is needed. I want you to have an actual policy discussion with your opponents, not a speed-reading contest to see who can read their case faster.

I’m tabula rasa - blank slate. I’ll vote how you persuade me to vote factoring the things you persuade me to factor. I debated in HS and College and am now a practicing lawyer. The activity is so influential and positive for growth - whether research or public speaking or advocacy or competition - so many aspects of debate are huge values to help us be good citizens. And all are debatable in the round!

Good debates will weigh evidence and make distinctions between quality of evidence, likelihood of links and solvency, and magnitude of impacts and advantages. Counterplans and Kritiks also can shake up the formula, tell me how and why (or why not) and I’ll stand open to reason.

Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions about any specifics!

Background: I have been coaching debate and mock trial since 2006. For over 10 years I was a teacher and coach in the Chicago Debates League and have sent teams to a variety of TOC tournaments. Most of my debate coaching experience has been in Lincoln-Douglas with a growing emphasis in policy over the last several years.

Policy: I am not a fan of high speed spread debates and prefer moderation in speed over an ultra spread style delivery.Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going at a rate so fast that I cannot flow their arguments, then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Given this, I generally prefer to not be on the email chain as it is your job to communicate clearly and effectively in the round.

In the end, I prefer Policy rounds that come down to clear well supported argumentation, solid clash, impact calculus, stock issues, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework are great though I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case, i.e. generic negative arguments are valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. Always open for a great kritik, though prefer that you make clear how it is directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents.

In the end, my preferences are just that, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for them.

Policy Notes: 1) No open cross unless clearly agreed to by both parties before the round begins.

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.

I debated 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years in NPDA parli debate for Washburn.

I can go in lots of different directions but I’m most comfortable being a policymaker. I lie more on the “politician/lawyer” side of debate roleplaying than “academic/activist”. I like hearing substantive debates about ideas and policy consequences more than hearing debate after debate about the same critical/theoretical topics. Not that you can’t run those, this is just my preference.

My only other real preference is that I think debate’s core value should be education. If you run theory arguments or critical arguments, make your standards/voters center education and explain to me how your position is better for education, especially topic-specific education. When I look back on my time in debate, the topic education and research skills are the thing I found indispensable in the long run. We should aim to make this space as enriching as we can.

If you run critical stuff the links are extremely important. Please explain to me why this topic or this aff case in particular is so important to run this exact K against. I’m pretty partial to the perm otherwise. I’m also pretty partial to links being independent disads against the aff, if argued well. I love hearing the topic/aff being very specifically deconstructed on critical grounds.

I’m ok with speed but I think debate should be an activity where we try to enhance and enrich our communication skills, and not end up a mealymouthed double-clutching race to the bottom. If you’re too fast or difficult to understand it has a good chance of significantly costing you.

I try my best to not look at your evidence unless 1) there is a dispute over something with the evidence, like claims of powertagging or false tagging or something, or 2) I miss something and it wasn't your fault, sometimes it happens and if I know you said it and just need to grab it I will. Otherwise I really try to stay out of looking at your docs because this is a communication activity and I want you to make the conscious choice to spend time on your winners and use your own analysis to communicate why your evidence and arguments should win the round!

Email for the chain: brian.simmonds@gmail.com

DEBATE BACKGROUND

I was active in debate from 1994 to 2005 (seven years as a debater, two years as a full-time college coach/judge, two years as an occasional judge of college debates). Most of that experience was in policy debate, but I also competed or coached/judged in most other events at least once, including high school LD, parliamentary (NPDA), worlds style (in Scotland), and most individual events.

Since that time, I have judged a few high school debates. I am an attorney.

What follows are my views on judging policy debates. I do not have strong views on theory or style issues in other debate formats other than that I will follow the rules of each event as written.

SPEED / CLARITY

I can still comprehend high-speed debates so long as they are *clear*. But I can't flow back-to-back analytics read at top speed, so please slow down for those -- this is most commonly an issue when a debater is reading theory blocks or 2AC blocks against off-case positions. And everything needs to be clear, cards included.

TOPIC BACKGROUND

I have judged very few debates on the 2023-2024 policy topic (economic inequality). I am generally aware of these policy issues, but I do not have an extensive professional in any of them.

JUDGING DEBATES

The following is adapted from judging philosophies I wrote in 2004-2005, but I suspect it is a fair approximation of how I will judge debates now.

General approach

I judge debates similarly to most other former debaters [of my era?]. I won’t vote against you just because your argument or style is not my favorite. The preferences and predispositions that fill the rest of this sheet may do more to mislead you than help you -- you are almost certainly better off doing what you do best than adapting to my sensibilities.

Theoretical Predispositions

If the framework of the debate is contested, I begin my evaluation of the debate by deciding what framework should be used to decide the debate; that is, what am I deciding? Which policy is better (i.e., what should the US federal government do)? Which team's rhetoric is better? Something else? Personally, I believe that policymaking is the most defensible framework available, but that is a legitimate issue to contest in the debate.

Topicality. I was a better than average judge for the negative on topicality.

Counterplans. I did not have any particularly strong opinions about counterplan theory, but to the extent I did, this is where I stood:

- Very unfair: non-textual alternatives, alternatives like “not affirmative”, international fiat, multiple conditional counterplans/alternatives;

- Unfair: states counterplans;

- Fair: one conditional/dispositional counterplan or critique alternative, federal domestic agent counterplan (e.g., courts);

- Very fair: Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Critiques. Framework arguments are very important. Are you defending the status quo? (Probably not.) If not, then what are you defending? Vote negative doesn’t strike me as adequate. Is the debate about what the US federal government should do? What scholars should do? What citizens should do? About rhetorical artifacts? About ideology? About epistemology? And why should the debate be about what you want the debate to be about?

Argument Evaluation

In the later years of my debate judging, I became less enthusiastic about the value of quoted evidence -- and that is probably more true now, two decades later. Of course, evidence matters, but advancing arguments not included in the text of the evidence can be very persuasive to me as well. Spin matters. Reasons especially matter.

I use she/her pronouns

Make and bring me these please: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1015819-chocolate-chip-cookies

Background on who I am. I did mainly Public Forum and Congress at Cherry Creek High School in Colorado and went to Nationals and State multiple times for PF. I currently do Parliamentary Debate(NPDA) at Whitman College, an impromptu policy debate (imagine CX but we get the topic pre-round and only have 25 minutes to prep for those who don't know) and have placed nationally multiple times.

I will vote down teams that run any arguments that are blatantly bigoted or drop a slur.

For PFers:

Do whatever you want within reason. Off time roadmaps good with me. I'm a flow judge. 15 second grace period. Debates a game I'll treat as such, run whatever you want. I love weird cases. Ive run all sorts weird things and am happy to hear whatever as long as you can back it up and youre topical. Id like to think I'm pretty fair, I will listen to arguments that are more shakey on a logic level if they are carded and well defended. Please collapse in the FF dont throw the round bc your FF refused to give me clear voters. I lean tech over truth

If you are running Ks look to CX. I think Ks shouldn't be run in PF and likely wouldn't vote on them but if you have a project send it anyway I wont auto vote down, just a really really high threshold. Maybe the norms have radically changed since I left and Ks are all over if that's the case I'm probably more likely to hear them if I keep hearing like Deep Eco nonstop and that just seems accepted as ok.

For LDers:

LD is the debate I have the least exposure. However I have been judging lots of LD rounds and still think I'm a fair and good judge. I also just love philosophy. If youre collapsing to Criterion or CV tell me why I should care I think one of the biggest mistakes around CV/Crit debates is just telling me you won it but dont telling me why I should vote on it. 15 second grace period. I love listening to weird cases as well and have read a lot of philosophy lit, but am also cool if you treat it more like a policy/PF round and go harder for the impacts. Pretty much just do what you want within reason.For LD debates that want to treat LD more like a policy round look to Policy below for most of my opinions on that.

For CXers/Policy:

Rankings of args in my preference of seeing them

1 Neg K

2 PTX

3 Aff K

4 Clever T

5 other policy cases

6 Normal T

7 PICs

-25 garbage late round T

The majority of my Policy experience has been in college that being said I've heard lots of cases, Ks, Theory, etc. Dont spread but high speed is fine just don't do spreading proper, I cant handle it I don't want it. I also think on an ethical level extreme spreading is unethical and ableist. Make it clear when you kick things. I can understand most jargon you can go tech heavy if you want. I lean tech over truth. I think the most fair way to evaluate rounds is on the flow. Im a sucker for solvency and uniqueness args.

TLDR on CX:

Good with almost everything. I love Ks the most. Feel free to run wild arguments. Ill vote on nearly anything.

On Policy based Cases (Plans, Ads, DAs, CPs)

Signpost well. Make sure to do good impact calc and collapse clearly. Idk ask me before round about specifics here. I am okay with PICs but think that PICs are abusive you open yourself up to T ground if you do run one. If you're running a PIC I want a clear DA attached with solid competition claims layered somewhere. I love PTX DAs, clout tradeoff, scheduling delays, anything big fan of PTX. DAs don't need CPs. I think where policy cases fail is the connection between the links and the out there impacts like nuke war that teams go for. If you're going for these types of args just spend more time on brink scenarios and how the case triggers. While I lean K over Policy I feel plenty comfortable voting on policy.

On Ks

There is one exception to my paradigm on Ks. I wont vote up a team that runs a K based on an author who directly participated in a genocide. Basically dont run Mao or Stalin(you can think of more examples that arent marxist I'm sure), there are plenty of really good non-genocidal communist lit for debate.

I am a bit of a K hack (okay more than a bit) I love Ks. No matter what it is extremely hard to vote on a K I do not understand. This doesn't mean don't run something new or weird, just that it needs to be well explained. please run your new whacky K that you dont think anyone will listen to, I will. I have run/heard/know about every "standard" K I hope people would be willing to run and a lot more that arent standard. I run weird Ks with lit bases no ones heard of so I can handle some K that I've never heard of. My lack of knowledge on your lit base pre-round will never be a reason why I vote you down. I also like a "straight cut" K if that's more you're vibe. That being said run whatever you want in terms of a K as long as you can make it make sense and explain it well. If I cant understand what your K does I probably wont vote on it but your K can do "nothing" or have some small like rhetorical rupture; I just need to understand it enough to use my ballot to vote you. I am good with Aff Ks too. I have a marginally higher threshold for Aff Ks but I run them all the time and think they are a constructive part of the debate space. Aff Ks can be abusive contextually well to the res.

On Theory

I like theory. Ive become a bit of a fan of T in rounds. I like T when its right, which doesn't mean you cant run T that isnt just straight topicality (I'm personally a big fan of spec in my rounds). If the aff is topical dont run a T that says the aff should be topical just run something else A-Spec, E-Spec, funding, Fx, idk go wild. Hopefully my point is made dont be afraid to run T no matter how complex the T is as long as the T is probably correct. I know mistakes are made and T is run that is not correct and there will never be a violation. I dont care if you run the T as a time suck either from a strat level just dont run bad T. T can be abusive I don't care if your T shell is just so good that the aff functionally cannot meet. Good T is good T.

I dont default to Apriori over K, but lean that T should come above the K naturally. If you run a K just make clear layer claims. CI is better than reasonability but again not a hardline for me.

For Parli

I would generally say that all my philosophy for Parli is the same as on CX.

The exceptions are:

MG theory. I loathe MG theory and really cant see a world where I vote on it unless its like "neg slurred me and that's bad". I wont vote on Condo unless its ridiculous like 4 Ks that are all conditional.

LOR and PMR should have clear impact calc

I think due to the impromptu nature of Parli you can be much squirellier and more unhinged than in CX. Get crafty.

TL:DR

Do what you want have fun, dont go too fast, signpost, convince me and defend your cases and youll do well :).

I also dont actually expect you to bring cookies but hey i mean ill take free desserts...

My background is in policy debate.

As a judge, I appreciate organization and a debater's ability to "connect the dots" between their arguments and responses. I tend to view things through an offense/defense paradigm. I want debaters to clearly impact out their arguments, or in other words, tell me why what they are saying matters, and it matters more/is more true than whatever your opponents are saying. At the end of a debate, I do not want to be trying to guess what a team meant or be in the position of relying on an assumption to decide a round.

Debate rounds have winners and losers as well as individual speaker points. Debate is also a persuasive activity and is meant to be a competitive educational extracurricular activity. These are all reasons to consider how you approach cross-examination and interacting with people during the round.

Please do not speak loudly during each other's speeches & clearly state when you are/are not taking prep time.

[updated for OSAA 2024]

​

portland urban debate league

‎​

please add me to the email chain - avneetsid28 [at] gmail.com

i only flow your speech but glance at the doc when questions arise (clipping, misconstrued ev, bad cites)

‎​

i care for this activity and all those in it very deeply, and i only hope for the same from you.

you win when you are kind, creative, and clever & i truly believe you can achieve this when you try your best.

‎​

it is my job to adapt to you, and your job to write out my ballot exactly as you think it should be written.

‎​

(yes, please read your k in front of me.)

frameworks that rely on excluding the k, disengaging with theoretical debate, and severing from your advocacy make me sad.

t is never an rvi, things like "limits bad" are better arguments, so please make them.

do affs have the burden to be "reasonably" topical? probably. very low threshold for what this means.

teams that convince me to reject the res have arguably clashed with the topic enough to make me believe it's bad.