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

My experience:

-I competed in international extemp for four years in high school. I also did about two years of policy debate at that time, and two years of LD debate, with a bit of public forum mixed in. My main focus in that time was extemp. I then spent four years debating in NPDA/NPTE Parliamentary debate at Lewis & Clark college. Debate feels like many years ago - I haven't watched many rounds in the intervening years. Since school I've been working as a union organizer.

I'm comfortable with many types of arguments, and will strive to not impose my expectations on the debate. If you have expectations of the debate, I encourage you to articulate those in-round. In my years on collegiate debate I did my fair share of speaking at a rapid pace; I'm out of practice flowing extremely fast argumentation but I can usually hold on pretty well. If you are unclear or too fast for me or your opponent listen to those cues.

I like a good clear debate. I do not expect to see any arguments in particular - but I do like to hear arguments with which you are having fun; if you’re enjoying what you’re arguing, we’ll all have a lot more fun.

There are a few things that you most certainly should do:

-provide me terminal impacts to all arguments

-do a lot of work in your rebuttals to tell me the story of why you win. Make the rebuttal speech very clear

-make arguments

-be respectful of everyone in the room

-dress as you would like

Some things should not be done:

-speak in an unclear manner

-ignore prompts by me, or your opponents, indicating that you are unclear or too fast

I am happy to watch a debate of any variety. I encourage you to ask me questions in advance of the round. I will attempt to impose as few expectations on your strategy as possible. I do very much enjoy debate with good clash. And warranted arguments.

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.

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. 

I did Speech and Debate throughout Highschool with a heavy focus on Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with most events and I can keep up with debate-specific concepts.

Debate wise:

I judge mainly from the flow, so I am looking for direct clash and weighted impacts.

Be clear, sign-post; tell me where we are on the flow and where we are going.

I am a lover of off-time roadmaps but if you read more than your taglines, I will start your time.

Some speed is fine, but as I said, be clear. If I cannot understand you, it will not be on my flow and therefore will not be considered in my decision. Don't spread in PoFo.

I'll probably ask for cards in round, so be ready to share those with me.

Don't be mean. Any sign of disrespect to anyone in round will be marked against you.

I did speech for all four years of high school and was captain of the team for the last two. I attended college on a debate scholarship to participate in British Parliamentary debate.

I tend towards being a tabula rasa judge- make it clear WHY your plan is the best. I especially weight discussion of the benefits and harms of proposals, so try to make it clear why your plan is better/more impactful than others in the round.

I would prefer it if there was no spreading as it can be difficult for others in round to follow and result in key points getting lost.

Please engage with all the points brought up by the other debaters. Give debaters credit for and try to address 'the best form of their argument' to give us the best quality of discussion.

Be respectful of everyone in round- this likely goes without saying but attack the argument, not the debater.

I'm a flay judge. Little to no experience with debate theory, but I can catch on to almost everything, so run those cool arguments (but obviously stay respectful, don't internalize bigotry through running debate args that minimize someone else's humanity).

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or Kritiks. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments.

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.

I am a former high school debate and IE performer from 2008-2012. My debate format of choice was PF! I also performed in Dramatic Interp primarily and in other acting events.

Currently I'm an assistant coach on the Speech and Debate team, I am familiar with all forms of debate, but I have the least experience in policy.

I value facts and data to support arguments!

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.

When I was a competitor I competed in Oregon Parliamentary. I like arguments about the framework. If you provide a weighing mechanism (or value criterion) that is different from your opponents I want to see why I should choose yours over theirs, the same goes for definitions. I like to see any arguments brought up in the round related back to the weighing mechanism. I'm mostly looking for a topical debate. If you can show that your K is truly a priori to the debate, I'll buy a K. Procedurally, I like politeness. In Parli I like questions, I think they improve the quality of the debate; just a trend, rounds that had lots of questions tended to have better clash. I was a philosophy student for a while, so I love a good philosophical underpinning to an argument. If you have any questions for me feel free to ask at the start of a round. 

TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.

Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.

Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.

CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.

I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.

Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.

Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.

I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.

Most arguments are fine.

If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.

The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.

Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.

Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.

I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!

I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.

I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.

If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.