Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

Hi! My name is Logun Boyer. I am a college student with a semester's worth of speech classes. I have arranged my paradigm by events that I am most passionate about.
In General:
Be respectful and nice to one another. Make sure that your evidence is presented in a way that anyone can understand it. Have a good understanding of the topic you are presenting. Make sure from start to finish that you are organized and on top of it. Not a minute without me being interested in what you have to say. Have fun! FILL UP YOUR TIME!!! NO DULL MOMENTS! I hate it when people use the words um, well, uh.
Policy:
Make sure when you are presenting that you have everything that you need for the topic you are presenting. When you are presenting make sure that you have a clear very of what you are talking about and what is the goal for the policy you are presenting.
Public Forum:
When the debate gets a bit more into what you are trying to present. Try and get on topic of it gets off course. Make sure that you are still being respectful. Have a good argument that is more based on facts but still has so much flow and emotion in there.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
When debating about morality make sure that your argument is not based on facts and try to people to sympathize with you are why you are morally right. I love the emotion that is involved with these types of speeches. Don't attack the other person thou.
Congress:
Make sure that in Congress you do not attack the opposing party based on who they are as a person. Make sure that during your speeches you have my attention while also not attacking them as a person. Watch your language and the way that you speak. What you say and do from the moment you enter the room should be professional.
Interruption Events:
Duo interpretation:
Don’t glance at each other. Stay focused on what book you are trying to present.
Humorous/Dramatic interpretation:
No props. Try to have fun and do your interpretations. Make sure what you are displaying is a clear picture. Lots of emotions and passion behind it. To make the scene more surreal.
Program of Oral Interpretation:
Make sure you sure what you are doing is very CLEAR!!! Please remember to bring your manuscript with you. I wave heavily on making sure that things are balanced.

Platform:
After dinner speaking:
Be funny and show the passion behind the art. Put yourself in the scene and it should all be natural and flowing. Try your best to make me laugh. I want to be out of air at the end of it.
Communication Analysis:
Make sure what you are explaining to me can be explained to children.
Original Oratory:
Show the emotion and the fire you possess in your soul. I judge on how you can put your side in the best light possible.
Sales Speaking:
When you are speaking be interactive with it. And act like it's the best thing ever.
Information Speaking:
I do like accurate information and double-check on it so be aware of that.
Draw:
Impromptu Speaking:
Just act like it was like it was all part of the plan. Have passion and have fun with it.
Radio/Broadcast Journalism:
This is the ONLY EVENT WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THEIR PHONES!!! The round goes a lot of better when in you are in the character of the one you are assigned.
Retold Story:
Act like you are with five olds. Change your tone and body to where it would suit kids. Having different voice changes goes really well. And having different emotions as well.
Extemporaneous Speaking: Act like a professional.
Panel Discussion:
How well the flow of conversation goes and how you are talking to one another.

brown.earl@westada.org

Philosophy as a Judge

I prioritize clear communication, logical argumentation, and clash between competing values.

I believe Lincoln-Douglas debate should be a space for intellectual exploration and advocacy. I value clarity, engagement, and a well-supported clash of ideas, balanced by respect for the rules and norms of competitive debate. While I am open to nontraditional approaches, debaters should ensure their arguments remain accessible and grounded in logic or evidence. I seek to evaluate rounds on the merits of the arguments presented, not based on my personal beliefs or biases.

My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate through the lens of the arguments presented, not personal biases or assumptions. I will assess the round based solely on what is argued and how it is warranted.

Framework and Value Debate

1. Framework (Value and Criterion):
• I evaluate the round based on the frameworks presented. If neither debater provides a compelling framework, I will default to the framework that aligns most clearly with the resolution.
• I view the framework as the foundation of the round and prefer clear articulation of how your value and criterion interact with your case and weigh the round.
• If you choose to critique the framework debate itself (e.g., meta-ethics or kritiks of value structures), explain its relevance to the resolution and the round.
2. Resolution Focus:
• I expect arguments to stay tied to the resolution. Philosophy, examples, and evidence should directly link back to the central question of the debate
• Traditional Arguments: Strongly grounded frameworks, clear value/criterion structures, and robust philosophical or policy analysis are welcome.
• Progressive Arguments: I am open to kritiks, theory, and other nontraditional arguments. That said, these arguments must be clearly explained and not rely on buzzwords or assumptions about my familiarity.
• Performance/Advocacy: I am open to creative or performative strategies but only if they tie back to the resolution or the spirit of competitive debate.

Delivery and Communication

1. Speed:
• I can handle speed, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot weigh it. Please slow down on taglines, value/criterion, and key points.
2. Organization:
• Clear signposting is essential. I appreciate when debaters explicitly tell me where they are in the flow ("Responding to their first contention," etc.).
3. Persuasion:
• Strong rhetorical delivery and ethos can add to the overall impact, but they should not overshadow substantive argumentation.

Decision-Making

1. Flow-Centric:
• I am a flow judge. My decision will be based on the arguments that make it to the end of the round and how they interact with the framework.
2. Weighing:
• Explicitly weigh impacts for me in the round. If you do not explain why your arguments outweigh your opponent’s, I will make that decision based on my evaluation.
3. Dropped Arguments:
• Dropped arguments will be weighed in favor of the side that presented them, provided they are extended and warranted.
4. Kritiks (Ks):
   • I am open to kritiks but expect clear links to the resolution and the opponent’s advocacy.
   • Explain the alternative thoroughly, including how it resolves harms or outweighs other impacts in the round.
   5. Theory and Topicality:
   • I will evaluate theory and topicality arguments if they are run well and presented as voting issues.
   • Frivolous theory or "blippy" arguments that lack development will likely be dismissed.
5. 6.Evidence and Warranting:
   • High-quality evidence is important, but your explanation and warranting carry equal weight.
   • Debaters should not rely solely on card dumps; articulate why your evidence supports your claims and why they matter in the round.
   7. Cross-Examination and Clash:
   • Use CX to clarify or challenge key points, not as a time to grandstand.
   • Clash is critical; engage directly with your opponent’s case and extend arguments to final speeches.
   8. Weighing and Impact Calculus:
   • Comparative analysis (e.g., magnitude, probability, timeframe) is crucial in crystallizing the round.
   • If you don’t weigh arguments or impacts, I may have to make assumptions when deciding the round.

Speaker Points

I award speaker points based on a combination of:

• Clarity and organization.
• Strategic choices and weighing.
• Professionalism
• I reward creativity and bold strategies when executed effectively

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

GENERAL :

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding, learn Judge adaptation. If I can't understand your arguments, you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically—I like to be able to connect the dots.

SPEECH:

• Be clear: Ensure your arguments are clear and organized so the judge can follow.
• Be confident: Be confident in every speech and make it seem like you are invested in the round.
• Be respectful: Be respectful of your opponents.
• Be strategic: Consider what will be most compelling to your specific audience.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line-by-line, some humor helps) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too

For both LD and PF:

I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

"An essential element of persuasion lies in the ability to adjust communication to resonate with the audience."

I am an experienced judge and former coach of individual events, LD, CX, PF debate and congress. I prefer a rate of speaking that is conversational. I am typically persuaded by specific direct impacts and clear analysis.

Persuasion must include more than just series of data, but an analysis of presented data and clear connection/discussion of the impact of such data.

Looking for students who speak clearly and address all of opponents contentions.

I do not have a background in speech and debate, other than judging over the last three years. However, I have always been a good listener and am willing to hear people out on any given subject without getting too riled up. I have always been able to see from many points of view on many subjects, and appreciate well thought out, factual, and calm responses to any argument. I don't mind some speed when talking, as long as words still come out clear. I do enjoy judging and look forward to learning even more as I go.

Debate Paradigm

1. Introduction:

• My primary criterion for evaluating debates is the strength of the arguments presented. I prioritize well-researched and fact-based arguments over emotional appeals.

2. Evidentiary Support:

• I expect debaters to provide clear, credible sources to back their claims. Arguments should be grounded in reliable data, statistics, expert opinions, and well-documented research.
• I value direct quotations and citations, so I can verify the accuracy and relevance of the evidence provided.
• Debaters should be prepared to defend the reliability and relevance of their sources during cross-examination.

3. Logical Structure:

• I appreciate well-structured arguments that follow a clear and logical progression. Debaters should have a clear thesis statement, supporting points, and a logical flow from one point to the next.
• Signposting, or clearly indicating the main points they are addressing, is essential for helping me follow the argument.

4. Cross-Examination:

• I encourage debaters to use cross-examination to challenge their opponents' sources and arguments. Effective questioning can reveal weaknesses in the opposing side's case.
• Debaters should be respectful and concise during cross-examination.

5. Relevance and Significance:

• Arguments should directly relate to the resolution or topic at hand. Debaters should explain the relevance of their points to the central question being debated.
• I value arguments that address the most significant or central aspects of the topic, rather than peripheral issues.

6. Comparative Analysis:

• Debaters should provide clear comparisons between their arguments and those presented by the opposition. Explaining why their side's arguments are stronger or more relevant is crucial.

7. Clarity and Delivery:

• Effective communication is essential. Debaters should speak clearly and concisely, making it easy for me to follow their arguments.
• Avoidance of jargon or overly technical language, unless it is necessary and explained well.
• "Spreading" shows volume of information, but not always quality of information. Well thought out and delivered arguments with a good cadence are valued higher than information delivered at a high speed.

8. Respect for Time Limits:

• Debaters should adhere to the allocated time limits for speeches and cross-examination. Going significantly over or under the time limits may affect my evaluation.

9. Sourcing and Citation:

• Proper citation and attribution are critical. Debaters should clearly cite their sources during the debate, and I will take this into account when assessing their arguments.

10. Conclusion:

• In my evaluation, I will prioritize the side that presents the most compelling, well-supported, and logically structured arguments based on facts and evidence.
• Emotional appeals will carry less weight than well-reasoned, factual arguments.

Hey guys!

My name is Madison and I’m super excited to be your judge. I am a former debater, so that means I am good with speed and jargon. However, despite my debate background, I am a comms judge. I will flow the debate, but ultimately I’m most concerned about your arguments being cohesive and making sense. Furthermore, keep in mind how important respect is. Clash is important and is a natural side effect of the activity, but it needs to be clash over the arguments and not an attack against your opponent. I am cool with self timing as long as it’s within the tournament rules, but my timer will be the official timer. If anyone has anymore questions, feel free to ask me before we get started. Other than than that, I wish everyone the best of luck!

I have been a coach in Idaho since 2013 with students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate. In general I prefer clear articulation, solid logic, and in depth analysis. I will add style specific details below.

Public Forum

I believe that public forum should remain the most accessible format of debate and should strive to avoid over reliance on Debate Theory or jargon. I prefer a few in depth and detailed arguments over a larger quantity of superficial arguments. Final Focus should include key voters on both sides.

Lincoln Douglas

I am on the progressive side of traditional for LD debate. I believe the value debate is the key to Lincoln Douglas debate and expect clash on the value level as well as the argument level. I like the inclusion of philosophical arguments and may vote only on philosophy if it is warranted. I enjoy definition and theory debate but you'll have to work very hard to get me to vote on a K.

Policy

I am a traditionalist in Policy debate. I vote almost exclusively on the stock issues, I believe that the Affirmative must sufficiently address each of the major stock issues and have never voted on a kritical Aff. I believe T is a voter, but that the default assumption is that the Aff is topical. I don't like topical CP's and you will have to work pretty hard to get me to vote on a K. I default to Condo Bad so the neg will need to justify any conditional positions. I am not a fan of high speed "spreading" or any rate of speed which inhibits clarity of arguments or speech. I want to be able to flow the warrants and links as well as taglines and impacts.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

My Background

I have been judging for two years now, primarily Congress. I strive to be impartial and judge by reasonable standards of argumentation and presentation. Genuine civility and respect for others impresses me. I do my best to judge on the merits of argument and presentation, putting aside my personal opinions on the subject at hand. I take notes for myself and write as many ballot comments as I can in the allotted time, aiming for respectful honesty and recognition of merit.

Content

I expect the premise to be clear immediately, followed by logical, well-developed arguments with convincing evidence to support them. If an argument requires technical language, it should be explained.

Delivery

Eye contact, please! Connecting with the audience is an important part of convincing, both of your sound arguments and the integrity and believability of your character. I am greatly biased toward understandable speed of speech. If I can't understand a speaker because of speed, I cannot give that person a positive critique. There is a way of beginning - becoming suddenly much more forceful and raising the voice - that I find distracting.

Background: Policy Debate

Looking for: Respectful debate, sound logic, distillation of issues, grounded in evidence or fundamental philosophy

Avoid: Logical fallacies, straying off-topic, whataboutism/muddying the water

Hi! I'm Lexi. I did Speech and Debate in highschool for three years. I went to nationals in LD my senior year and placed top 45 in the nation. I love great flow work and respectful banter. For speech, I mainly did DUO, HI, and ADS. Regardless of what I'm judging though, I expect everyone to be kind and caring. Speech and Debate is fun.

I'm a former debater, so I have a really big appreciation for good framework that flows throughout the entire debate. Final focus is really important to me as this is when you are supposed to tell me why you won the round. Evidence is good but a single card with no warrant is not a refutation in my opinion. Explain WHY that evidence is relevant and why it adds to the debate. I will try as best I can to go off my flow when making a decision but if you believe there was a contention or refutation left unaddressed throughout the debate, I will not flow it through unless you bring it up in the final focus. If the point is important then it makes sense that it should come up in the final speech. Lastly, respect is a must in a debate round. This activity takes a ton of courage and it's super demoralizing to have rude opponents. It makes everything less fun to be rude so please be nice!! :)

It's important that participants speak loud enough to be heard and that they don't speak so quickly that I can't understand what they're saying.

It's also important that participants are professional and courteous in regard to the process and to others.

Lastly, I look for roadmaps, framework, and well supported contentions/arguments. Poorly structured or supported contentions and arguments are not as strong or as easy to follow.

I expect everyone to debate honorably and with respect to your opponent. Debate the topic- not the person.

LD/PF/Extemp Debate:

What I love to see is a case that goes beyond the obvious; straight-to-the-point questions; a well-organized rebuttal that can attack every aspect of your opponent's case; and voters that clearly point out why and how you won. If I notice issues in your opponent's argumentation that you do not bring up during voters, I will view that as a point against you.

Congress:

If you stand up to speak, you should have new points and evidence to back up what you are saying. Speeches based on feelings or repeating what has already been said are not effective.

Policy:

I’m 100% a lay judge for policy. My team does not do this event, and I do not teach this event. If you want to talk super fast, make sure you’re enunciating clearly enough so I know what you’re saying.

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

Hey! My name is Adelle Levanger (she/her). Please include me on the email chain – adellelevanger@gmail.com

Some background on me:

· I did policy (3 years) and LD (1 year) in highshcool

· I did mostly limited prep IEs in higschool

· I am competing in IPDA and several IEs in college right now

General

· I am big on tech>truth. I will come into the round a blank slate. What you tell me, I will believe (except for things like racism good or homophobia is justified- but that should be an obviously bad argument). If you tell me the sky is orange, I will buy it until it is disproven in the round. I have had so many rounds impacted by judge intervention and it is literally the worst- so i will do the best i can to keep my personal views on what is right/wrong out of things because this round is about your arguments, not what i think about things.

· However, because I am a blank slate you need to tell me how to vote. Give clear voters, impact calc, and framing. And be clear when you are kicking out of things.

· I am comfortable with speed. Please just be clear. I will flow whatever you say. I am confident I will be able to catch most of what you say, but if there is an email chain, I would like to be included so I don’t miss anything.

· Put offense on the flow! Having offense on the flow makes it much easier for you to win that argument.

· I like off time roadmaps and signposting. The more organization there is the more I can flow.

· Please have clash!

· I love debate, so just make it a fun round and enjoy yourself!

LD

· If you want to go fast, that is fine with me!

· Have clash and impacts and tell me which impacts to weigh first.

· Show me how you best meet the V/C.

· Aff doesn’t get inherent access to an advocacy, so if you read a counterplan you should prove why you deserve access to an advocacy.

PF

· I have my background in mostly policy, LD, and ipda, so I am not as experienced with PF. That being said, I am still comfortable following arguments and general debate lingo so don’t feel like you need to treat this like a totally comms round and explain all of the lingo. But still explain and warrant out your arguments.

Policy

On Case

· Tag teaming is fine. Just do it within reason. It should be clear who's cross it is supposed to be. But policy is a partner event for a reason. so feel free to work and collaborate with your partner, but don't overshadow them when it is their time to question or speak.

· I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. That being said, I will flow whichever type of aff you read.

· I am moderately informed on the NATO security topic, but if there are really nuanced arguments that require a solid understanding of current legislation or something like that, be clear with your warrants and explanations so I can follow you 100%

· Give me impact framing!

· I give aff fiat. You get to claim that your plan will pass. But you don’t get to fiat your solvency. You must prove that you actually solve.

· Case debates are fun, just make sure there is clash. And neg – work to put offense on the flow.

K-aff

· Again, I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. But I will still flow a k aff. But prove why your k is more important than the resolution!

· I am fairly comfortable with the general concepts of a lot of K authors (Baudrillard, Freud, Zizek, Foucault). But aside from Foucault, I haven’t read a ton of the actual literature, so be clear about your claims and warrants so I make sure I understand you correctly.

· There needs to be a way for all parties to engage with the kritik. Debate is a game we learn from. There are a lot of kritiks that center around identity and identity politics specifically. Someone in the round who does not fall under the identity in discussion should have the opportunity to engage in meaningful, educational, respectful, and constructive conversation surrounding the kritik. If someone is unable to engage because they are not personally impacted by the topic at hand, that is bad for debate and education. Discourse around someone's ability to engage with a topic surrounding identity can also lead to outing or disclosing information that someone doesn't feel comfortable sharing- which is never okay. so everyone in the room should be able to respectfully engage with the topic.

Disads

· I like disads! For my first two years of policy my neg strat was usually Disad and T.

· I am sympathetic to the fact that you have lost a lot of internal links over the past few years due to current events. But still work to have a clear and complete link chain.

· Have an impact and a link please. It is tricky to weigh a disad that has no impact or link.

Kritiks

· I got into K debate my last year of policy debate. I think Ks are really fun. I usually ran Biopower, Chaos/Entropy, and occasionally cap or disability.

· Just make sure you have a good link and an impact

Topicality

· I ran a lot of T in policy. My affs were also a little on the untopical side of things, so I did a lot of T debate as aff too.

· Have impacts to your T shells

· I buy that T (and Kritiks) are A Priori voting issues.

Counterplans

· I never read a ton of counterplans, but I am comfortable enough with them to follow.

· Consider slowing down on your Text just a little bit so I make sure I get it all.

· You need to have a net benefit of some sort. A disad or even a turned advantage. But you need to be able to do something that the aff can’t do.

Theory

· I think Theory is fun. Just explain it and impact it out

Everyone:

tldr: I know this is a lot of information. But I think the most important thing you should know is the tech>truth thing. I really will do my best to be a blank slate. Tell me what to buy, what to evaluate, and how to vote. Feel free to ask me more specific questions before the round or email me with questions when you get ballots back. Have fun!!

I did speech and debate in high school and now I help with coaching. My main format was Public Forum, but I have experience in a lot of formats and events.

With that, even though I can track with a lot of complicated rounds, accessibility in debate means a lot and we should all be striving for that.

For Debate:

I always try to be a tabula rasa, but I would still say I'm a flows judge, so signposting and taglines are super important to me. If I don't even know what side of the flow you are on in your speech, I probably won't even write down what you're saying. With that, I'm not going to make connections for you, so if you can't communicate internal and external links in your speeches, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through.

I am good with speed but clarity, projection, and inflection are where I'm giving speaker points. If I can't understand you, it's not going on the flow.

My decisions are based solely off what is said in speeches. If a great point is presented in cross, it doesn't matter to me until it's in a speech.

Warrants are also super important to me, so make sure all of your links are clear and your evidence is good.

For me, impacts are really what win rounds. If you can show me a clear link story with clear impacts and weigh them well, you'll probably win my ballot.

I can handle some fun RA's and stuff, but if it's not done well then it will be difficult to win my ballot.

Be nice and have fun!!

In PF, I think framework is important. It is the only way to really convince me why your arguments matter at the end of the day. If you're going to run framework, you need to stick to it.

In LD, I think your Value and Criterion should be the core of every single argument and I want to hear about it in every single speech. It will usually be my main judging issue. I am a firm supporter of traditional LD, I don't want it to sound like a PF round and I definitely don't want it to sound like a policy round!

In Congress, clash and preponderance of evidence has always been really impressive to me in this event. A good speaking style and presentation goes a long way for me.

Speech Events: (My Favorite!)

I am pretty simple.

As a judge and avid public speaker, I am looking for articulation, annunciation, good projection, and an engaging presentation.

Be presentable and prepared.

Debate: (Also fun!)

Convince me that your argument is the best prepared argument being presented. I am impartial to "sides". As a judge it is my responsibility to judge fairly and equitably. Facts matter in the debate. Ensure that the material you are using/presenting is accurate, and you have vetted your information. The way you present your information is just as important as your accuracy and use of sources. I want to be able to comprehend what you are conveying, so please, be articulate, project so the room can hear you. Presentation is just as important as the material, be engaging, I want to be interested in what you are speaking about. Time is of the essence, but so is being able to understand you.

Spectators are always welcome unless otherwise stated by NSD event rules or the participants choose collectively to not have spectators. Spectators, please be respectful of the competitors, no phones, no sideline chatter please. Please hold applauses until the end of the competitor's presentation.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

I really just want for everyone to be personable. Make sure to speak clearly, and really just try to convince me that you should win. However, also be friendly and respectful.

add me on the email chain or lmk if you have questions before/after round (: parsons152@gmail.com

CX: Thrilled to to judge whatever you're comfortable doing. Read and/or go for whatever you feel good about, it's your round and I'll work hard on adapting to your style and the substance of your argument. One word of caution: I'm not at all familiar with what's being read on the 2022-2023 topic, so don't assume that I'm going to be versed in your argument just because it's been read all year. I'm pretty familiar with K debate, and I love examining T and theory debates (but if you're going for T or Theory, impacting out the argument is the most important thing on the flow to me.). I almost exclusively went for T or cap or DnG when I was competing. If you are going to go for a K or read a K aff, I think it's really important to spend a lot of time on framework and answering the top-level questions about what we're doing: What does it mean for us to share this space together? What significance does my ballot have and why does it matter who I vote for? And what does the alternative effectuate within that framework?

LD: Progressive or trad are both fine, but aff lmk if you're reading a plan because I have a different flow for that. If you're doing progressive debate, see the CX section.

PF: The only type of debate I've never done. I guess the most helpful thing suggestion I have is to just walk me through your argument cleanly and clearly, and tell me how I should weigh/evaluate arguments.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged and coached it since I completed school. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

Please be respectful to each other and do not cut each other off harshly during crossfires.

Less is more meaning if you speak so fast I cannot remember what you said, that will work against you for how much I can remember of your argument(s). I would rather you have less content and speak slower so I can comprehend and remember what you're arguing for vs. have you speak so fast to fit in all that you are trying to say.

It's ok to use your phone to time yourself

Engage the audience...if you read from your computer the whole time, that's not engaging. I'm not interested in if you speak verbatim of what you've written. Know your content, be able to articulate it succinctly and precisely and it will convince me why your argument is the preferred way to go.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

No Spreading, if you talk fast, I can't understand and follow your case.

Hi! I’m Sarah. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Penn State in the spring of 2022. I’m now at Cornell Law School. I currently don’t have any program affiliation, but I love the activity and am glad to be involved however I can. If you have questions about this paradigm, any of my decisions, want to talk about law school applications, or just need a friendly ear, feel free to reach out via Facebook or email (ses452@cornell.edu).

General things

• I’m a person first, educator second, and adjudicator third. You do what you enjoy and I’m excited to learn from you. Tell me what to do with the ballot and I’ll listen.

• I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa. I’ll share my biases because I can’t be perfectly neutral as much as I might want to. Everything in this paradigm (except decent human being things) are only defaults, you can change them easily with an argument.

• Tech over truth but it’s way better when your arguments are at least dubiously true.

• I’d like novices to stick broadly to the topic and to reasonably understandable arguments. It helps nobody to hand your novice a Baudrillard file. I’m pretty willing to fill in the gaps for novices making smart arguments who don’t make them in technically correct ways.

• I’m good with speed if and only if everyone in the round is, please slow on tags.

• Don’t do things to make the debate community a worse place. It shows a lot more skill to win elegantly and cleanly by an inch than to bash the other side and win by a mile.

• Please make complete arguments - this means at minimum have internal links, ideally ones with warrants. If your argument isn’t complete, I can’t vote on it even if nobody points out the flaws.

• I get that there are things the community universally accepts even without links (e.g. politics disads) and I’ll probably give those to you if nobody points out the lack of links. I’ll err on the side of granting them for predictability but I want to be up front that since I’m new to judging I don’t know yet where my threshold is.

• It’s fun and makes for less frustrating decisions when you weigh and meta-weigh.

• CX is underutilized and it would be cool if you accomplished something with it.

• Things I reserve the right to stop the round and give you the L for:

• Doing or reading something the other side explicitly asked you not to do for mental health reasons

• Misgendering someone after being corrected

• Explicit bigotry (exception: if everyone in the round agrees beforehand to test arguments like “sexism good for econ,” I think that can be educational. But you can’t spring that on someone)

• Making arguments about sexual violence or suicide without ASKING the other side if it’s okay. Content warnings that do not ask are not okay. If you do this I will stop you and confirm with everyone in the round that it is okay before continuing, and if it’s not and you can’t read a different position, the round will end and you will lose

• Ad hominem arguments - you can attack the argument or the framing, but not the person or intention

Feedback and evaluation

In novice or JV divisions, I’ll type out notes mid-speech. I think it’s more important that you get specific feedback than that my flow is perfect. In open, I’ll prioritize my flow but make a point to be extremely detailed during the RFD. The distinction is mostly that open debaters can benefit a lot more from strategic analysis. I’ll also do everything I can to give you tips on fixing errors instead of just pointing them out. If you feel like you’d learn more from a different kind of feedback than this, just let me know and I’m happy to oblige.

Speaker points are silly, arbitrary, and biased. My hope is if enough people simply refuse to take them seriously, it will disavow people of the notion that they have any value as a metric and we can get rid of them. As such, you’re all getting 30s unless you do something worth getting 0.

Ballot comments on Tabroom go to you and your coach (and anyone else with access to your team's Tabroom page). Nine times out of ten this is good for education. If for some reason (and I won't ask the reason), you do not want your coach to see your feedback, just let me know privately and I'm happy to give feedback orally or share it via PDF in the Speechdrop instead of putting it on the ballot.

Counterplans

• Dispo > condo (dispo means a CP is like a disad where you can extend defense but can’t kick out of offense)

• Two condo fine if it’s a CP and an alt, more than that probably bad

• Perms are probably advocacies

Theory

• I-meets are terminal defense on theory

• Competing interps > reasonability. I’ve been told I think of theory in the NPDA sense more than the LD sense if that helps anyone

• I don't need proven abuse. I honestly don't know what proven abuse is. If your practice is bad, it probably had some impact on strategy. You don't need to execute a bad strategy to prove that it's bad.

• I’m probably more amenable to resource disparity arguments than a lot of people as a product of debating for a student-run team in college

• Disclosure theory is elitist and bad. Aff disclosure is probably good, but 9/10 times people don’t do it because they don’t know how (especially with these new confusing caselist updates). Educate, don’t punish

Kritiks

• Alts should either have some evidence indicating solvency in the traditional sense (of fixing the problem you present) or subvert traditional notions of solvency. Alts that do neither probably do nothing and the other side should point this out

• Alts that operate in a different paradigm than the aff (e.g. discourse alts compared to policy affs) need a ROB to be cohesive. Otherwise you’re just talking past each other because the government could do the aff and you could do the alt and there’s no contradiction. Perms are really strong here and at best with these alts and no FW you win on K turns case

• Fiat is illusory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, and it would be better if you had more than “the plan isn’t real”

Performance

• Nontopical affs should have neg ground and you should be able to tell us what it is during CX.

• If the neg ground is theory and you then make IVIs to theory I’m going be really persuaded by arguments that there is no neg ground

• It’s much preferable imo if the neg ground is topic generics (e.g. a movements case where the effect is change to election laws, a topical plan text with narrative evidence, or a critique of NFA elections in the direction of the topic)

• In novice divisions you have to be topical or at least have topical neg ground - predictability reasons are overwhelming when it comes to making newbies want to stay in debate

Miscellaneous thoughts

• I won't enforce the rules simply because they're the rules. Appeals to the rules are fine though if you warrant why following the rules is good.

• One piece of unethically cut or cited ev → drop the arg + ballot comments to your coach. If it happens again, auto-loss. Unless you’re a novice, in which case still fix it but you get more leeway

• New NR and 2AR arguments don’t get flowed

• Zoom lets you do cool things and if you need to screen-share to do them that should be allowed. We ought to get something out of this virtual debate thing

• Baum-Barret is a garbage card written by people who need to at minimum SKIM Rawls before incorrectly citing him. I’m pretty sure most people under the veil of ignorance would care a lot more about the threat of crushing poverty than a 1% risk of nuclear war

• Evidence comparison > tons of cards that all say the same thing

I’m sure I’m missing something. I’ll try to edit as I notice things. Feel free to ask any questions before round!

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

Hi, I'm a first year judge with minimal experience and did not compete in speech and debate growing up in high school. I enjoy listening to evidence based arguments with strong conviction. I prefer to have competitors steer away from assumptions in their arguments.

I have been an English and History teacher since 2002.

Although this is my first year judging speech and debate, I have judged National History Day competitions since 2010.

I like a logical flow with well-structured evidence to support your assertions. Politeness is important to me. I appreciate when competitors time themselves.

Clear links to your values and criterion are important to me.