I look for a clean debate where the facts are debated (not definitions)

I use my flow to decide the winner so if you speak so fast that I cannot hear you then I cannot flow correctly

I have a background in debate (specifically LD) so I understand the jargon of debate

I value clarity and organization in your presentation or argument. I appreciate it when you keep things simple and straightforward and logical. I also value moderate pacing and volume (i.e. speak slowly and don't yell), a confident demeanor, clear enunciation, and courtesy to your opponent(s). The content of your speech obviously matters most, but style of delivery (e.g. pacing, tone, mien) does affect my judgment.

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.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

I debated all 4 years of high school mainly public forum and parli, as well as debating in college. I don't mind talking fast as long as you signpost well and enunciate enough to be understood. If you have a weighing mechanism make sure to put it to use.

I judged based on the debate flow and f whose impacts outweighed the others.

Make sure to stress the impacts of your case and weigh them in the round, if you don't I will weigh them at the end but it's not going to be as generous. Impacts should be weighed on the probability, timeline, and how many people it affects.

Give voters in your final speech, tell specific reasons why you won, not a general summary of the debate, you’re voters should include telling me how your cases impacts outweigh your opponents

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, unique perspectives, honesty, and kindness. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and be exposed to many different perspectives! In the late 70's/80's I debated in Arizona--high school and at ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success. I follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or the event rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate. Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

Lay/Parent Judge: A public librarian, word nerd, mother of two awesome teens who values positivity and kindness.

For Speech: Please time yourself and speak in a cadence that I can follow. Be engaging.

For Debate: Keep it clear and simple, no LD jargon. I cannot judge fast rounds; I need to be able to understand and comprehend what you are saying. I value well-crafted arguments, supplemented with warrants. And evidence (for PF). Above all, be respectful and kind to your opponent.

Greetings,

I am Amber Houston, and I have had the privilege of serving as a speech and debate judge since November 2022. In my journey, I have found immense joy in connecting with the vibrant speech and debate community. Building on my experience, I want to outline my judging paradigm to provide transparency and guidance for participants.

1. Clear Communication: One of the paramount aspects I value in speakers is clear communication. Articulating ideas effectively, maintaining a logical flow, and ensuring that your arguments are easily comprehensible is crucial. I appreciate speakers who can strike a balance between eloquence and substance, allowing the audience to engage with and understand the presented content.

2. Gracious Professionalism: In the competitive realm of speech and debate, maintaining a spirit of gracious professionalism is essential. I encourage participants to approach each round with respect for their opponents, acknowledging diverse perspectives, and fostering a positive atmosphere. A constructive exchange of ideas not only elevates the quality of the competition but also contributes to the overall growth and camaraderie within the community.

3. Continuous Learning: I view every judging opportunity as a chance for both participants and myself to learn and grow. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a commitment to improvement, incorporating feedback from previous rounds and adapting their approach accordingly. Embracing the learning process is key to not only enhancing individual performance but also contributing to the collective advancement of the speech and debate community.

4. Independence and Collaboration: I support participants who choose to manage their own time, recognizing the importance of developing independent skills. However, I also appreciate the ability to work effectively within a team. Whether collaborating with fellow debaters or engaging in respectful cross-examination, the capacity to contribute meaningfully to a collective discourse is commendable.

5. Presentation Style: While content is paramount, I also value a compelling presentation style. This includes effective use of voice modulation, appropriate gestures, and a genuine connection with the audience. A speaker's ability to captivate and hold the attention of the audience enhances the overall impact of their arguments.

6. Adapting to the Round: I recognize that each round may present unique challenges and dynamics. Participants who can adapt their strategies, delivery, and arguments to the specific context of the round will undoubtedly stand out. Flexibility and agility in response to unexpected situations are traits I commend in speakers.

In conclusion, I am excited to engage with the diverse talents and perspectives within the speech and debate community. My goal as a judge is to provide constructive feedback, foster a positive environment, and contribute to the collective learning experience. Best of luck to all participants, and I look forward to witnessing your compelling performances.

Sincerely,

Amber Houston

My priorities for judging any debate are

1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.

2) clear and organized arguments.

3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

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.