Hello participants. This is your time to shine!

This is my first season judging Speech and Debate.

For the past 20 years, I've taught Language Arts, English, and AP Lit/Comp and AP Lang/Comp.

Remember to speak clearly. If you are speaking too fast, I will let you know.

Avoid contradiction.

Everyone except parliamentary should have cited evidence.

I will only judge you on exactly what they say, not what I think you meant to say.

Enjoy your moment and know I honor the hard work you put into your speeches and debates.

You got this!

Dr. Baldwin

(her/she)

I was a policy debater for 3 years in high school and coached high school policy for 5 years through out college (in Montana). I'm excited to return to the debate world as a parent judge...things have changed a bit, but I really love it all.

l lean towards (and prefer) the stock issues. While I can go on a journey, if you use generic responses (K, Counter plans etc.) it could be more difficult for me to buy. I want to see organization, direct clash and I'll believe whatever you can substantiate with evidence or solid rationale. Debate can be intense, but please have some fun and be kind.

I need to understand what you're saying. I REALLY struggle to appreciate spreading. In my mind, it's quality over quantity. If I don't understand you (or I have to work too hard) it just won't be considered. So, if you attempt it, please, do it well. I'll flow and be aware of dropped arguments, so please pull them through.

I’m a first year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

Howdy! (this is a work in progress, please give me some time lol)

Ally/Allison Denton

Email: throw me on the email chain - ally.denton02@gmail.com thx!

Pronouns: she/her

Please note that I am a newer judge. I care that everyone has fun and is kind before anything else.

Before getting into everything, please be accessible and kind. Read trigger warnings and check with the other team and judge BEFORE the round starts. In high school, I dabbled with LD, and did okay in Congress for a year - but for my last two years I did Policy - and then I fell in love with K debate. If it helps, I was the 1A/2N. 99% of my rounds senior year ended with me going for afropess, cap, or some fun K that my partner and I found. I study philosophy in college. So have fun and make the round interesting! I do my best to flow and keep track of everything.

Policy notes

Please read your plan text BEFORE the 1AC or when your opponents ask. I do not care if it is a new aff. It is a way to be kind and accessible for your opponents. If you have to be squirrely, I question if your case is good. Anyways, do it or I will drop you.

As much as I understand spreading from a strategic standpoint, I still need to have some of an idea of what you're saying. I flow what I'm told to.

You're more than welcome to email me with any questions. Or just ask me before round.

I'm a former collegiate debater who appreciates good logic, solid case statements and contentions, and humility and curiosity about the topic and the other teams' arguments.

Definition debates bore me and I want to hear your arguments and logic and be persuaded, not just award a win on who was most manipulative in interpreting the resolution.

I like humor, a lot, and appreciate your personal anecdote and I like to see partners who actively support and listen to their partner. 

Hello,

I am new to judging this year so I ask that you speak at a pace that I can understand as well as your opponent.

Things I like: Off time roadmaps, clearly stating what you are linking something to, summarizing main points at the end

Things I don't prefer: attacking your opponent instead of their case, bringing up nukes because it's heavy when it has nothing to do with the case.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

Hi!

I'm a parent judge in my second year judging. Still lay. I'll generally follow tech>truth, but make it at least logical. If you're going to claim that something leads to nuclear war, you better have a really clear link chain. I'm also not great at evaluating super nuanced weighing mechs, so try to leave that out. Basic jargon is fine, don't go overboard.

PF: I don't flow cross, if something important is said bring it up in the next speech.

That's about all, just keep the round clean and let's have a good time.

1/2024

I am a parent who was honored to judge at many tournaments last year, both Debate & IE rounds. I have a legal background and currently work in the pet and veterinary space doing research and analytics. Thus, pretend that I know nothing about speech & debate. Explain what you are doing and why.

I prefer clean, eloquent and well-supported arguments in debate events. Please don't speak too quickly (spread) even in policy debate. If I can't hear you/understand you, I can't evaluate your position. Debate still requires skills of persuasion, and much of that comes from tenants of communication like eye contact, facial expressions, vocal inflections, etc.

With IE events, please hold yourself with confidence. Body language is the first point of impression. Speak clearly, take pauses when you need them rather than stumbling (you can catch yourself and breathing through moments for clarity is key).

I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.

Also, be polite.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.

I am a tenth year English and theatre teacher. I was a journalist for two years before that. I did speech (DI, DUO, OO, PR) and mock trial for four years in high school.

I've coached speech in Oklahoma before moving to Oregon in 2019. This is my 5th year coaching speech and debate in Oregon.

I prefer speaking clearly at a good pace, but not overly fast so that I can understand what you are saying.

What I am looking for:

1. Well-Structured Argument/Speech: how your case is “built”. This includes contentions, definitions, etc, but also your logic and how you tie it all together. This also includes that ability to clearly refute the other side's arguments. CITED EVIDENCE is always a plus when applicable. I understand this doesn't apply in Parliamentary or Impromptu.

2. Introduction/Set Up: the start of your case that clearly states the resolution and structure of your case

3. Flow/Pacing: how your case fits and flows together

4. Composure and delivery: respect and decorum toward your opponent. Ability to respond well to questions and refutations.

Most of all HAVE FUN! :)

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

Hey all,

I've done Speech and Debate for three years; originally Parli, but now mostly Public Forum. I've competed at the National level and should be fine with pretty much anything you throw at me.

General stuff:

1. I am tech > truth. What that means is that I will let you argue any argument in round (unless it is racist, sexist, etc) as long as you can argue it well! That also means I will flow whatever argument comes my way, regardless of how illogical or stupid it may seem (i.e. selling toasters will cause nuclear war) if the opponents drop the argument.

2. Speed isn't an issue for me, but if you start spreading at 300 words per minute it will not look good for your speaks and if I can't understand it then I won't flow it.

3. Signpost, signpost, signpost!!!! In other words, tell me what contention you are refuting/defending/extending at all times so I can flow them down. If you do not, it just muddies the debate and makes it so much harder for me to effectively judge.

4. WEIGHING. Sometime in the final speeches (if not all of it) be sure to weigh your impacts to your opponents. Talk about things like probability, timeframe, magnitude, and why your side is just likelier, sooner, and bigger impact wise. You're basically writing my ballot for me and telling me why I should care about your side more than your opponents!

OVERALL: Don't talk at 300 WPM, signpost at all times, and weigh impacts. Doing this does not guarantee you a win, but it does guarantee you very high speaks. I'm lenient with my 30s :)

PF specific:

Be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the warrant (logic) for why it is true. I've seen too many rounds where people either spew a million facts without understanding what it means or go on long-winded explanations without citing any figures. PF is both evidence AND logic based, so I expect you to use both.

Asking to see cards is fine and even encouraged, just find a way to be quick about it. I will intervene if we end up spending too much time doing so!

I don't flow cross ex, but if they make a major concession be sure to bring it up in a future speech and I will flow it.

Parli specific:

I love good counterplans, key word "good". If you can't come up with something that is creative or mutually exclusive with the resolution, you don't have to run one!

Logic wins the day. You can use background knowledge as much as you like, but if you can't tell me why some random statistic matters then I will basically discard it.

Ask questions! This is the main way you can interact with your opponents so use it to your advantage.

Speech specific:

I mainly do impromptu and extemp, so I feel qualified to give feedback to limited prep events and by extension general platform events like Oratory. If I have to judge you for interp, I will try my best with my limited experience watching other people in my club do it but don't expect the greatest feedback.

If you got this far, I applaud you for reading my entire paradigm! As a reward, I will give you +1 speaker points if you mention an analogy regarding fish at any time in your speech.

Anyway, closing thoughts:

I don't care what clothes you wear as long as you wear something.

I won't dock you down for not having a camera, but I would prefer if you got one on as it makes the debate feel more real to me.

I will never base who wins a debate based on anyone's ability to maintain eye contact or speak with vocal inflection. However, if you are extremely monotone without an inkling of passion or energy I will dock you down slightly in speaks.

If you do something illegal in the event like reading a counterplan in PF, I will mark you down for it regardless of whether your opponents bring it up or not. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules

Being rude = lower speaks. Being racist/sexist/homophobic = 0 speaks. No exception.

If you got any disabilities or impairments that might affect your ability to properly compete, please let me know before the round. I can accommodate!

Well, that's all I really got for you all. Good luck speaking and debating!!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at swastiksharma2026@u.northwestern.edu!

I am a relatively inexperienced parent judge. I want to hear what you have to say, so I prefer clear, understandable speech - no spreading/fast-talking, no obscure references to debate terms that are likely foreign to parents who didn't debate in high school. If I can't understand you, then I can't count what you say in your favor.

I expect a courteous, respectful debate - and hope you have fun too.

Experience

Hey folks! My name is Geovanny, and I'm a former high school Speechie. My background includes 4 years in LD, 2 years in Parliamentary, and brief stints in both Public Forum and Impromptu. I am familiar with multiple debating formats thanks to my experiences both in the Oregon and California circuits.

Progressive Debate

I was raised as a traditional LD debater, and my limited encounters with the progressive format were as a spectator, so I'm not incredibly familiar with theory shells or kritiks. However, I will not discount a compelling case for why the wording of a resolution/terms of a debate is biased towards one side or is ideologically problematic, as long as it's put into layman's terms. That said, failure to connect these meta-arguments back to the resolution will be considered a topicality issue, so I advise caution when deploying them. One technique I will discount is the use of spreading due to the structural disadvantages it poses to some debaters.

Framework

As an LD debater, I was taught that framework is key. However, while I recognize the importance of articulating a coherent ideology which underpins your contentions, I do not think framework is everything. Don't assume that losing the value/criterion debate will lose you the round. You can still convince me to vote for you if your impacts are strong and you believe that your links and impacts meet your own opponent's Value-Criterion better than theirs do. That said, a winning framework is likely to outweigh strong impacts in a tight round.

Winning Techniques

I am a big fan of turns. Repurposing your opponent's logic against them is not only clever, but can even be good performance art with the right confidence and buildup. "Gotcha" questions in Cross-Ex as a prelude to a rebuttal is also a plus, as long as you don't abuse it by making an argument during the questioning period itself. Also, don't be afraid to be creative with your arguments! From my experience, even the most reactionary/status-quo resolutions have a revolutionary interpretation with the right amount of creativity. Furthermore, don't feel pressured to defend a stance because of the conventional wisdom associated with it. In other words, don't be afraid to challenge truisms like "violence is bad" or "liberal democracy is the best system of governance."

Other than that, just wanted to remind you that you got this! 4 years of debate did little to ease my nerves at the beginning of each round, so I totally empathize with any stress you feel. My resting face may look disengaged and a little judgmental, but I promise I'm hanging onto your every word and being wowed by your willingness to place yourself in this competitive environment. If at any point you feel the need to take a take a breath and recollect yourself, I completely understand. With all that said, don't forget to have fun, and in the words of one of my favorite professors, "Do Not Postpone Joy!"

(He/him)

Email for flash: porter.scott.wheeler@gmail.com

(If you have questions or beef w/ my RFD feel free to email me, (no promises on response tho))

Note: Tab has removed the google spellcheck API so apologies if there are misspelling on your ballot, I promise I'm not dumb as rocks, I just type fast.

College judge, debated for Cleveland High School. Experienced in all forms of debate and speech. Especially LD, Parli, and ADS.

My main imperative as a judge is to be entertained. If you pick the most boring rez and run stock args I will be sad

For Debate:

Run anything you want, I don't care, but please be clear with good signposting. If you are going to refute the neg's second contention third subpoint; tell me. While I was not a K or progressive debater I have no problem with progressive debate. However, if you do run a K make sure I can understand it or I will not vote for you. I am fine with speed just flash me your case first.

For IE's:

Just do your thing, I'm good with anything. No topic is too sensitive/no need to censor yourself. If you make me cry and I will be mad at you but I will probably give you first in the room.

tldr; don't be a dick

30 speaks if you run a case generated in chatGPT

Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags. 
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K. 
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.