I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Hi! I'm a sophomore in college who did 4 years of speech + debate in high school with Ida B. Wells in Portland, OR. LD was my main event; I also did Impromptu and Extemp and dabbled in Radio, Oratory, and Parli.

I mostly did traditional debate when I was in high school, so that's the kind I'm most used to. However, I have a baseline familiarity with some progressive stuff (plans, CPs, theory), so if that's your jam, go for it! Just be clear and inclusive to people that don't have as much experience with circuit debate. If you want to run a kritik, I'm willing to vote on it but please let me know before the round. If you have any more specific questions about this stuff, ask!

Tech over truth / tabula rosa / no judge intervention. All these things mean the same thing to me, which is that I will try to evaluate the round based only on what y'all say, rather than my preexisting knowledge or opinions about it. I won't do any of the work for you: if your opponent says something that's clearly inaccurate, or drops a point, or does something abusive, it's on you to call that out. This also means I am open to whatever you want to read. "Wacky" or nonstandard arguments are totally fine (though of course I hold them to the same evidence standard as anything else).

Please don't spread. Speed is fine as long as it's not crazy. I reserve the right to say "slow" during your speech if you're going too fast for me to flow.

Stuff I like to see in round: direct clash, clear speaking & language, civility/respect, impact weighing, clear signposting, clear voters.

More on "clear voters:" in your voter speech, the best way to win the round is by telling me exactly why you should win it. Write my RFD for me! Line-by-line analysis in a voter speech can be important, but you'll always be better off keeping that to a minimum and focusing more on an overview of what arguments you're winning and why they are significant.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, just be reasonably concise. And please signpost in your speeches, even if you do an offtime roadmap, so I can tell where you are on the flow. "Now, onto the first neg contention" or something like that is great.

Organization is super important to me. Especially if you are making more than 1 response to an argument, please please please number or letter those for me so everything is neat on my flow.

If you have any questions after the round about my decision, email me: preston.bushnell@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from you :D

Also, if you want to know more about any part of this paradigm, just ask! There's lots more detail I can go into :)

Good luck! You got this!!!

Judging philosophy [Cross-Examination]:

1. I will vote on the flow. [Unless you give me a very very good argument not to, and you win that argument]
2. I like K's, but will only vote on them if you win the flow and impact the critique.
3. No new in the 2, with the very limited exception of responding to arguments like: "the neg can provide NO EVIDENCE of [x proposition] because it does not exist."
4. I award speaker points based on BOTH oratorical strength and the strength of your reasoning.
5. On the spectrum between technicals/flow-oriented judges and K-loving judges, I am somewhere in the middle.

Note: I personally believe that Debate is for y'all. Make whatever argument you want to make and I will go with you. That said, debate is made up. This is all really a tool for you to develop critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Things like keeping an eye on the flow help you do that so that is why I tend to vote on it.

Judging philosophy [Lincoln-Douglas]:

1. I am more sympathetic to consequentialist arguments, but will decide the round more or less based on what you tell me is important.
2. I will keep track of your arguments on a flow, dropped arguments will not decide the round. But if you try to win on an argument that has a compelling counterargument you do not address, you likely will not win.
3. I award speaker points based mostly on oratorical strength, but you will lose a point or two for poor reasoning.

Note: I personally believe that debate is for y'all. Make the arguments you want and I will go with you. I will leave my own values at the door and allow you to make arguments for your own values. I will not go along with hateful arguments or rhetoric.

My background:

I debated policy for Tigard High School in high school (years ago now). I am now a student at Lewis and Clark Law School, and have lived in Portland, Oregon for 7 years now. I work at a non-profit that provides free legal resources to Oregonians.

Clear and concise arguments with no logical fallacies. (Ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, false cause. etc.)

DO NOT attack your opponent or any of their characteristics.

Deal with ideas!

This paradigm is in draft status.

I enjoy judging.

I prefer quality over quantity, so please avoid spread. It is also helpful when debaters tie the points you are making back to the aff or neg position being debated.

Choose your key words carefully. If "efficiency" is your key word, stick to it. It is okay to push your vocabulary, but be mindful of words you are using if they are central to your argument.

"Back then" are two words that add little value to historical references unless you can give a century. If you are talking about women's roles back then, do you mean before the 1900s or after? If you don't know the decade--which is fine, was it before or after women could vote, etc.? The same thing applies to racism. "Back then, when racism was a problem" is not a clear description. Do you mean slavery? Jim Crow era? George Floyd's death?

Scale is also helpful. What is the scale of the problem being debated? If the number of houseless people grows from 10,000 to 20,000 in a city, can you give a little perspective by saying whether you are talking about Los Angeles or Sherwood, Oregon?

Finally, I advise against talking down to a judge. I have not yet heard an argument that I simply didn't understand unless I couldn't hear it.

I admire your tenacity and persistence and will offer verbal comments when allowed if you would like them.

Best wishes to you in your debate rounds.

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.

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

I have spent the past 25 years in the corporate training world presenting to groups across the world.

I value good independent research and thoughtful analysis of both sides of a topic.

I value voice inflection and appropriate pacing of presentations.

Debate:

I don’t value K’s as being within the spirit of debate.

Better research, better presentations of contentions and better counter information of opponent’s contentions wins the debate.

“Don’t bury the lead”…if you speak too fast and present too much information you will increase the likelihood that one of your key arguments will be lost.

Be kind and respectful.

You're amazing and should feel proud of being here today.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

I'm new to judging LD.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

You cannot go wrong by guiding me with a mapping. Help me to see the scaffolding or your framework of contentions or rebuttal. Echo your value. However, avoid being a one-hit wonder.

Look to respond effectively to the other's contentions.

I am a lay judge, albeit one with experience judging debate at this point. I am familiar with basic debate terminology and structure, but I have never debated myself, so progressive debating is mostly beyond me.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have already told you I am a lay judge, so make sure you are not speaking too fast for me to understand the words that come out of your mouth. This is debate, not auctioneering.

Be civil to one another. I expect you to show respect to your opponent(s) and avoid any disparaging behavior or remarks.

I appreciate off-time (or on-time) road maps when you can provide them, as well as signposting along the way.

updated: 4/11/2023

Hello!

Who are you and what are you doing in my debate round?

I'm a grad student who studies Mathematics. I did High School and College LD. As a tldr, I vote based on what's written on my flow. I vote for the debater that has access the most impactful offense in the round. There are not any positions that I will refuse to vote for, but of course like all people there are some positions I have a harder time voting for than others (if you have a question about a specific position, ask me before round). It's your job to make sure why the arguments you are going for get you the ballot.

How do I evaluate debates?

Offense gets you access to the ballot, good defense denies your opponent access to offense. If you want my ballot, then by the end of the debate you must tell me 1: what piece of offense do you have access to, and 2: why that piece of offense outweighs whatever your opponent has. I think good debaters use a strategic mix of offense and defense.

How do I feel about spreading?

I am a fan of spreading. When I debated, I did both fast and slow debate. You do you. Try not to be exclusionary to other debaters though.

If you are unfamiliar with spreading, and your opponent is going too fast for you, call out "speed!". If your opponent is unclear, call out "clear!". If your opponent does not even make an attempt to slow down or clear up after calling out "speed" or "clear", I will decrease their speaker points, and I'd be open to any theory argument against them made in your speech.

How do I feel about K's?

I read K's and I like them. There are some authors I know better than others (If you have a question about a specific author, ask me before round), but that does not mean I will not vote for an argument I haven't heard before. You need to tell me how to frame the round and how to frame impacts (why is the K prior to the aff?).

I need clear alt solvency. I feel like this gets way too glossed over in most K debates. In my experience I have noticed a lot of aff teams too afraid to point out the flaws of the alt-mechanism, and most neg teams seem to just presume that their alt will solve. Negs need to clearly explain what the alt does, what it solves, and how.

Also, Negs, I believe creative and nuanced arguments against the perm beat generics any day. Conversely, I am a huge fan of aff teams which get creative with the perm.

How do I feel about Theory?

I probably have the least amount of experience evaluating theory compared to other debate arguments. That being said I will evaluate it like any other debate argument. Ultimately, I default to theory prior to any other argument because I view theory as a meta discussion of the debate. That being said, in round I can be persuaded to evaluate, for example, K prior to theory.

Make sure you have a clear violation. Make sure your standards link to your voters.

When answering theory, it helps when you have a clear counter interpretation and standards, but if you clearly do not violate I view a we-meet as terminal defense.

Proven Abuse or Potential Abuse?

I am willing to vote on potential abuse, but can be convinced otherwise.

Competing interps or reasonability?

I am biased toward competing interps but if it is well argued I will not be opposed to viewing T through the lens of reasonability. I think my only issue with reasonability is that I have a hard time wrapping my head around what counts as 'reasonable'.

Random debate opinions:

I'd vote on disclosure - but I would also not vote on disclosure if someone gives me good reasons why disclosure is bad.

1AR theory is under utilized IMO - I enjoy 1AR theory in debates.

Reading DA's/solvency takeouts to a K alt is the easiest way to beat a K in front of me IMO. I think it's also the best way to squeeze more education and clash out of such debates.

Author indicts (such as: "your author is a bad person" args) need an impact. Tell me the implications of the author indicts for the larger argument. In other words - why is the moral failings of your opponent's author offense for you?

Well warranted analytics beat cards with bad warrants, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

If your opponent reads theory/T at you and just states that Education and Fairness are voters without giving a reason why, you should say that "my opponent never reads an impact to fairness and education".

Impact turns are underutilized.

I really like detailed DA's - but you don't have to read them this way.

In K v K rounds, it's probably strategic for negs to read "no perms in a methods debate". I've seen too many K v K rounds where the neg loses to an amorphous perm which resolves all of their offense.

I started my debate coaching in 2017, as a board member of Huaxia Chinese School over east coast, we have annual Chinese debate tournament, the style is similar to Lincoln Douglas debate.

I am helping the debater to improve their skills through these tournaments, some kids also score great in their own school debate match.

I would like the debater well prepare the match, use full of their time, master certain attack skills.

Aggressive but polite. This is debate match and not an argument event.

Behave nice, loud clear statement/speech, taking notes during the match will be my main score points.

I would love to see the debater talk and make friends during the tournament, exchange knowledge and share experience.

Have a good match and hope to see you in the tournament, and show us what you have.

Debate:

I'm familiar with all formats to some extent. I've done a small amount of Policy/CX, so I'm versed in the jargon but not crazy familiar with the intracacies of the format. In highschool, I primarily debated LD on a very traditional circut so I vote heavy on clash and value, but I'm comfortable with theory and Ks (just make sure to explain them well). Unless it's blantantly offensive (racist, sexist, etc.), run whatever y'all want (even if it's a "hot take" if you can convince me of it, go crazy).

My one request: do. not. spread. IMO, it's not good form and I will doc you speaks. I start at 27 and adjust based on clarity and concision. Always be respectful of your opponent (stand during CX, address them not only the judge, speak kindly, etc.).

Speech:

I've competed in every speech event except ADS and radio. Try to be clear when speaking and captivate me with your levels and intonation. For PA events (info, pers, etc.) please sound like you care, i.e. don't be flat and boring. For interp events, it's all about presentation and story-telling. Bring me into the world of whatever story you're telling and clearly convey your emotions.

ALWAYS give a content warning if it's even slightly applicable. It's basic respect to the other people in the round, including me.

Online:

In general, but especially for debaters, please turn your cameras on is possible. It nice to have a face to talk to/debate with. Make sure you're muted when not speaking.

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

Spread (overly rapid delivery) - Due to tintinitis (ringing in the ears) I cannot fully understand 'spread' and thus if I cannot understand what the competitor is saying, I cannot give credit for what is being said, or the ability to 'flow' my notes so that I can judge accurately.

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

Good Luck participants

I would expect participants to be humble and polite to opponents. Make sure speeches are clearly organized and don't speak too fast that it's difficult to understand. I consider myself to be a tabula-rasa judge. Relax and enjoy the tournament.

Heyo! I'm Adam Moeglein (He/Him), I debated at Crater HS until 2022 and now go to Oregon State. email for whatever: ajmoeglein@gmail.com

I competed in LD and parli for 4 years, and broke at nat circ tournaments a few times. Practice your dumb shells in front of me pls :>

TL;DR

Explain stuff. Evidence and speed are meaningless unless you have a story to back them up with. Best way to get through to me is advantage structure/whatever standard your given arg has, because I already know what args slot where in a narrative

I disclose, so don't run anywhere after round

Speed is fine, but I have information processing issues so pls just send the doc

Run anything

Bigotry bad >:(

General Stuff

signpost as much as possible. If you don’t I’m probably wasting 5 seconds tracking where to write what you’re saying instead of listening to what you’re saying

The only unchangeable assumption I make about the world is that logic exists. Everything else needs a warrant if challenged

I ran security, cap, and a Dr. Seuss performance in my career, as well as Rawls, Kant, and Baudrillard. And I think I might understand Heidegger and Nietzsche? Maybe?

I generally think probability >>>> magnitude but try me cowboy

I won't flow cross but I do believe its binding

Procedure

Tag teaming is A-okay. I'll only flow what the speaker is saying though.

Shadow extensions generally don't work

Stand or sit or do a little dance while you speak, I don't care

If the roadmap is more than 5 words some bad thing will happen karmically in the universe

Theory!

Be explicit and precise with your shells. I won’t assume parts you don’t give me

RVIs are acceptable if that's your mojo but I'd rather see another shell saying something like "Debaters can’t run X arg" to keep the round organized

semantics arguments like Nebel are meh unless you have a pragmatic reason to vote on it, or an analytic dump that throws my preference for pragmatism out the window

At bid tournaments disclosure is standard procedure in LD. Look into it if you're new to big tournaments! I will vote on it

I'm happy to listen to friv stuff, just give me a story to vote on

K

Don't make tags complex. winning via confusion is cringe

I'd be happy to hear a K-aff but I don't think they're strategic. Happy to be proven wrong though

Explain your lit well. Make it link. I'm voting on the consequences of an aff ballot, not some impact card your alt can’t possibly hope to resolve

Add me to the chain: paterson.jonah.m@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm a flow judge, pretty tabula rasa. I value really strong signposting and, should you choose to run theory, run something you actually believe in.

I’m a mostly non-interventionist flow judge. Judges are judges, not referees. I will weigh anything you want me to since I’m pretty tabula rasa, but you need to actually do the work of weighing or else I cannot be tabula rasa. I’ll vote on stock issues, but you need to tell me why I should, just like any other argument - like bruh I’m not going to default to dropping your opponent just because they didn’t explain their harms if you can’t explain why it’s a serious voting issue that should be weighed above what they give me. Judges, myself included, also can’t be perfect. It’s inevitable that I’m going to end up with a flow different from yours and as a result I might not vote the way you want me to. The best way to avoid this is to signpost well, speak clearly, collapse strategically, and TELL ME WHAT’S IMPORTANT. I can handle speed, theory, and complex arguments, but I’m not gonna do the heavy lifting of deciphering your arguments for you. It’s especially useful if you’re able to signpost with solid policy terminology.

I will, however, intervene and drop you if your arguments are particularly harmful in ways expressed above. 95% of the time I won’t have to intervene because there will probably be some theory that gets run when it’s especially egregious, but that 5% is important (particularly on more lay circuits). If you run something that's dicey but not particularly egregious, I'll just tank your speaks.

I will also be a little bit interventionist when it comes to theory. Like it or not, theory is debate about debate and has tangible impacts on the debate world. As someone with opinions on and a vested interest in the health of debate, I’m not going to vote purely off the flow when it comes to theory. That’s not to say that I will only vote for theory that I personally agree with, quite the opposite actually. I’m not the end-all be-all of how debate is or should be (and I’m a cishet white guy so that’s probably a good thing). I'll vote for your theory but only if I can tell it's something you actually believe in that is genuinely designed to make the debate space better. I know that’s arbitrary, but trust me when I say there’s a good chance I’ll buy into your theory if it comes from a genuine place. Don’t go off running theory willy-nilly. Run theory designed to make the debate space better and we’ll get along just fine.

I’m gonna do my absolute best to give everyone the best RFD I can. I hate when judges go “yeah that was a really good/close round” when it clearly wasn’t. I promise not to lie or sugarcoat anything. If you got smoked, I’m gonna tell you that. It won’t make me think less of you as a debater, we all have off days. For all I know you’re good enough to make a TOC run but you’re hungover and your cat just died so you lost to a novice team - no judgment here (ironically). That expectation should also go both ways. If you ever have any problems, suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns about my judging, don’t be afraid to be straight up with me. Feel free to postround me if you want tbh, I don’t really care. In fact if you’re particularly angered by a decision you thought was baloney, I’d love to know why so I can improve next time. That’s how I’m gonna get better as both a judge and a debater myself.

I like to think of myself as fairly approachable, but I also understand there’s an inherent power imbalance at play, so if you don’t want to talk to me please reach out to any equity staff, tournament organizers, coaches, etc. who you feel comfortable with. I strive to make the debate space as open and inclusive as possible, and if you ever feel like I’ve failed to live up to that promise, please tell me.

Anyway, this paradigm is probably completely incoherent. It’s like 2am and I forgot my meds soooooooooooo yeah glhf <3

Hello!

I am a newish judge, I competed in IE in high school and Congress in college in Illinois. So sometimes I have slightly different expectations than folks who have always been in debate in Oregon. This is my second year judging in Oregon. I am also a coach.

I try to encourage competitors to try their best to try to shape their arguments without attempting to tailor their arguments to an individual judge's paradigm. Particularly when you have several judges, it can be a challenge when their paradigms are not complementary. Nonetheless, a few general things for me

1. I try to choose the person I think won the debate. Simply because you counter or respond to an argument and say "this shouldn't flow" doesn't mean I have to agree that it doesn't flow.
2. I value organization greatly.
3. I do weigh arguments, some are more central than others, and winning on one argument is sometimes enough for me to make a decision. Winning on two smaller points is not as good as winning on the biggest point. In debate terms, I am weighing impact.
4. Stick to the resolution and the event you are in. Funding shouldn't be a key argument in LD or BQ, but it should be a central point in Policy/CX or PF. Additionally.... debate rules are not universal for all of the events. For instance... Public Forum does not have the "no no new arguments in final focus or summary" rule that exists in other styles of debate. It might be frowned on, but it isn't a DQ or anything.
5. No personal attacks. I strongly frown on inferred or direct insults. Yes "my opponent is not a good debater" is a personal attack.
6. I am generally open to people running Ks and Ts and other parts of the alphabet but I do not vote for them very often. My philosophy has always been that K's should be last resorts when neg or aff bias is unavoidable, not an excuse not to debate a resolution you don't think is cool.
7. An extension is not a new argument. Debaters on not confined to only repeating themselves in their final speech.
8. Saying "we don't have time to respond to that" is taking time to respond to it, especially if you repeat it a few times.
9. My flows/notes are often general and often messy. I am sorry, that is also just how I take notes and how I flow for myself.
10. Adding this one because I got a question about it... I will flow cross but I won't always flow like 'can you restate your 3rd sub-point" type stuff. If a question has an impact on the round or if I thought it was a good question, I will usually make a note at least.

Civility always. Ethical frameworks > than economic ones (i.e. people over profit).

Harmful, racist, profane or inflammatory language is intolerable.

I respect sound reasoning and articulate rationale, passionate argumentation in pursuit of the highest good.

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.

Hello!

To keep things short, I am a parent judge but I have judged PF.

Because I am pretty new to judging, I dislike spreading. Speaking pretty fast is the norm for debate, but if it becomes incomprehensible, I will start docking speaker points. Other than that, everything is pretty much the same: be a good debater and make sure nothing is racist, sexist, etc. Attack the arguments, not the people running it.

For PF, I am a tech over truth judge, but PLEASE HAVE WARRANTS. I hate excessive jargon use as well, so while you can say that something is non-unique or has been delinked, talk about the actual argument and not just a "Judge, they conceded our first response to their link on the first affirmation constructive, which is why you vote for us."

Speaking of evidence, I am a huge stickler for this since PF is evidence based: don't misrepresent evidence.

Overall: have congratulations and have fun! That's what this is all about :)

Hey reader! I dunno if tabroom has updated my name yet, but I'm Alice. I debate for L&C and if you’re reading this then you probably have me for a round or two!

For email chains, my email is lc20-0333@lclark.edu

TL;DR

I love thorough warrants and explanations. I am fine with speed, and will vote on anything that is explained adequately. I don’t lean any way, I’m fine with wacky 6 off strategies or 1 off DA’s, anything that you enjoy debating. Just make sure that you’re having fun!

Paradigm

I have experience in both lay and progressive circuits. I like good, interactive, educational rounds (isn’t that the dream). Try your best and you’ll do great, and you will probably get good speaks unless you say something super backwards and hateful.

Speed

I am completely fine with speed, so long as I can read along as you talk. Make sure that you are delivering your speeches with clarity. Don't feel pressured to speak fast if it isn't something you are comfortable with. The most important thing is that you and your opponent are both okay with the pace that is being set! If your opponent calls clear or speed and you don’t acknowledge it, you will lose speaks. Roadmapping and signposting are big plusses to speaks.

Stock Issues/Topical Debate

I feel comfortable with stock issues, and I think that stock issues debate is an easy way to get my ballot. You don’t need to explicitly tell me which card is on which stock issue, just make sure that when you’re doing line by line to sign post so I’m on the same page as you.

Kritiks

I spend most of my time debating Kritiks (on both the aff and neg), so I do end up voting for them a lot. My main areas are Orientalism/Cap/Queerness. If you do end up reading a K, please don’t assume that I know or understand the literature base. I think we as a community get away with using tags as arguments and not explaining the bulk of the card, so I tend to like at least a little bit of hand holding to get me to the same conclusion as you. Vague alts are really hard for me to vote on, so make sure you tell me what the alt actually does. If you’re debating against the K, don’t be afraid to ask clarifying questions because I may be just as lost as you are.

Theory

I do really enjoy theory debate. It’s one of my favorite things in debate. If you do end up going for theory, or find yourself having to respond to it, please make sure that you’re being clear with the signposts on the line-by-line. Theory can become really muddy unless both debaters make sure to be extra clear. I will vote on almost any theory arg so long as you win competing interps.

Extras

Feel free to email me any questions that you have that I didn't address in the ballots! lc20-0333@lclark.edu

I am a novice judge. You should directly refute all your opponent's arguments in a logical manner. No spreading, please; it's hard to win if I can't understand you. In your conclusion, please explain to me why you won. You made a good choice to go out for debate, the skills you hone here will serve you far beyond high school.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD, as long as your clear. I prefer traditional slow PF, Parli, local circuit LD, but both people want to spread and be technical, I guess it’s fine.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks, but I think I'm less inclined to than most, especially in PF. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I think I’m more likely open to anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to competing interps, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse or reasonability convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason).

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and like it when your contentions clearly link to the topic (eg I’m not a fan of a 50 States CP paired with a DA without a topic specific link). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

I did not participate in speech or debate in high school.

I value organized and logical argumentation. Apply your argument, logic or theory to the facts of the topic.

I value the clear expression of ideas. The intent should be to communicate to your audience, not spray out as many arguments & points as you can. I do not do spread.

I value the targeted rebuttal of your opponents idea's.

I value respectful behavior. If I believe the intent of a question is merely to interrupt or knock your opponent of their stride and not a legitimate question, I will penalize such a question.

I do not want to hear debate about debate. Debate the resolution.

Hi! I'm Mary. Thanks for reading my paradigm :)

Who are you?

I am an attorney practicing business and employment law in Oregon. (If you are interested in law I'd love to chat!) From 2020-2023 while I went to law school, I was co NFA-LD coach for Lewis & Clark College. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best!

What is the tl;dr?

I will listen to any argument that you make and will weigh it how you tell me to. K's are my favorite and topicality is not (though I am down for the silly stuff!) Please make clear extensions. Don't be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate discriminatory behavior or post-rounding.

Note for High School:

You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!

How do you allocate speaker points?

I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases... SO I usually give high speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted, don't read into it, I have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if you have any questions.

How do you feel about Speed?

I have not kept up with debate ever since starting my career and need you to go somewhere between your mid and top speed. If it's really important PLEASE slow down. If there is a doc, I can keep up better with faster spreading so please share it with me! I'll slow and/or clear you if I need to.

What about the K?

I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.

How do you feel about perms?

Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.

What if I want to read theory/topicality?

If you read theory or topicality, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, and “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”

I prefer proven abuse. I don't think potential abuse has an impact.

I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.

We meets are terminal defense on T.

I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?

Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.

Condo?

Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway.

Anything else?

Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, and have fun ;)

Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at marytalamantez@lclark.edu or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round!

My debate experience:

4 years NFA-LD (one-person policy) at Lewis & Clark College, 2019-2023

3 years LD and CX at Timberline High School, 2016-2019

I prefer speechdrop.com for ev sharing but if there's an email chain, put me on it: dude.its.rose@gmail.com

TL;DR version:My goal as a judge is to first be receptive to whatever kind of round you want to have and second to make the round as accessible and educational to both teams. Speed is fine. I am pretty much down for whatever you want to read and specify some of my preferences below. I'm a K debater at heart but highly encourage you to debate the way you're most comfortable. Please ask questions before the round if you have any and after if you want my input for improvement.

I think debate is so fun and so silly and I want y'all to have a fun, educational round if I can make that happen. Also feel free to email me after if you have questions, want files or anything.

General Stuff

Speaks: I give high speaks (28-30) unless you've done something that warrants intervention from your coach. This includes being needlessly mean to an opponent (snark and sass are fine, but PLEASE temper it to the round) or being blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. The latter will earn you 20s an an L. Absolutely no excuses.

How to Win: I want to be lazy and not intervene. The best way to win my ballot is to make my job as easy as possible. Make your weighing clear, try to clean up the framing debate, prioritize the organization of my flow as much as possible -- If I'm putting an argument somewhere you don't want if because you forgot to signpost, that might hurt you in the outcome of the round. These are all skills I continued to develop up to the end of my competition career and You Should Too

Tech v Truth?: I think "tech vs truth" is an oversimplified dichotomy and I definitely have arguments I am more skeptical of (disclosed below) BUT a dropped argument is a dropped argument, ya know? I default to tech but am 100% receptive to a clearly articulated framework arg about why that's bad with strong explanation about what that means for my weighing of various parts of the flow.

Other Stuff: If you can make me laugh that helps your speaks. I accept cash bribes.

Speed is fine, but you gotta slow down a little on your analytics and especially on T; make sure everything gets on my flow. Also, if your opponent clears/slows you DO IT -- I'll vote for speed theory.

Specific Stuff (CX, other policy formats)

Topicality/Theory: I see T as an accountability tool. You don't need proven abuse but I am more persuaded by proven over potential abuse. I don't love blippy T and generally have a low threshold for reasonability in these instances. I default to T being a priori but 100% will listen to and vote on "___ outweighs T" args, Ks of T, RVIs, anything you want to put here. If you want to have a T debate PLEASE prioritize clarity and organization and impact out your voters.

CPs: I've become a sucker for a smart CP that's actually competitive and actually solves the aff. Advantage CPs are also a neat, underutilized tool.

DAs: Cool. I am more receptive to a probable link chain with a soft left/structural violence impact over something improbably with a high magnitude impact, but run whatever you want.

Case: GOD I love a strong debate on case. I will vote on straight case but please have offense there if you're asking me to do it. I've never voted on terminal defense bc the aff can always eke out a "1% risk of solvency" arg so Give Me Offense Please God.

Ks (neg): 100% down. These were my favorites to read and write as a debater so I've got a soft spot. I'm holding you to the same standard I hold a DA/CP combo though, so that means your weakest point is basically always the alt. I don't need an alt solves the aff arg if you're winning your impacts are more important, but it doesn't hurt. I am also more persuaded by alts that have a clear action. I have a lot of familiarity with a lot of lit but plz don't assume I or your opponent are as capable of sifting through your arguments as you are. I do not understand D&G and you can't make me.

Ks (aff): Hell yeah. I prefer a good topic link story but don't NEED a justification for rejecting the topic to let you do your thing. I also prefer a clear action taken by the aff -- ideally something you can explain in a sentence.

Perm: I default to the perm being an advocacy bc everyone treats it like that, but irl I think it's prolly just a test of competition. You do not need to win a perm to beat a CP or Alt if you have offense on the CP/Alt.

Condo: I think negs should get access to one condo position, anymore and you should be prepared to defend against theory but I'm not automatically voting for condo bad. Also don't lie about being uncondo when you're not!!!!!!! I'll dock ur speaks and will be easily persuaded by a 2AR that goes all in on why you should lose for that.

Arguments I Do Not Like: Disclosure theory, overpopulation, cap good, extinction good, anything in this general camp of arguments. None of these are auto-Ls, just know I fundamentally do not believe you when you say these things. These still need to be answered. For BS like impact turning racism, sexism, etc. see what I said under speaks.

Ask me anything else or send me an email if you want clarification :D

(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

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.