I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

I like a good spirited debate that is well mannered and respectful of each other and being attentive. I wouldnt judge based on my own beliefs or knowledge of facts, but based on the arguments and counter arguments between the debating individuals/teams.

For speech events, I like to see content relevant to the topic and not consume time with material to fill in time.

In both debate and speech, I enjoy when contestants do not read from written script, but use their gestures to articulate their point of view.

DAVID BLOMMENDAHL

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at Douglas McKay High School in Salem. This is my second year in that role.

I consider it a privilege to judge and have a deep respect for the preparation and commitment that participating and competing in these events entails.

When judging, I will always ask for your name with correct spelling, your assigned code, the school you represent, and the topic of your presentation. I use this information for my own notes which I usually take on a Google Doc.

The nature of each event is different, but invariably I focus on your "hook," evidence of organization, clarity, annunciation, correct grammar, emphasis and dramatic pause for key points, and voice. I want to see YOU come through in what you present.

I will give all competitors feedback, usually in bullet point form, on the strengths of their presentation as well as areas for improvement. I will always try to be constructive.

I am newish to judging debate, but I focus on the clarity of your arguments and the respect you show your opponent(s). If there is a disparity between your argument and that of your opponent, clearly engage with that disparity and use facts and logic to make your own case. I am not impressed with emotional arguments. Facts weigh heavier than beliefs.

I value and respect what you are doing and how you show who you are and what you are capable of in these events.

Best of luck to all!

About me: I am an experienced debater in Parli, Spar and Congress. I have also done Radio and impromptu. In round I believe that no matter how the judge feels about something it is not their job to have it conflict with the outcome of the round. Needless to say we all have bias's and it can be hard to separate yourself from them.

Parli: Sign-posting, Debate should be a safe space and environment so please don't make it unsafe. Also if you want to use the time old tradition of saying "I'd like to thank my opponent and my judges for being here and making this debate possible" Personally I would prefer you didn't it just is an add on that I find usually gets dropped by partners by their second year. If you can't part with it fine I wont mark you down however I will mark you down if you start each speech with it, because it is unnecessary and tedious. Please don't be the debater who goes over time and just continues talking I will take off points and will discount whatever you brought up. If you go over a couple seconds its fine but after 20 I will stop you and it will have aggravated me. If you are using abusive tactics I will mark you down. If you bring new information in your last speech I will mark you down and discount whatever it was that was brought up.

I have been a coach for four years and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 21 years and teach communication skills. I am looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. I will put down my pen if I can't follow you. Please emphasize your points so I know that they are important and remember to pause on occasion so that I can take in your ideas.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position and I will be listening for how you support your position. Roadmaps are appreciated.

You can keep your own time, or I am happy to time and give you cues.

Be kind, be professional, and have fun!!

I want a civil debate with clash and clear arguments. I don't like speed if you don't have clear organization and appropriate emphasis.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

If you're racist, homophobic, et., I'll vote you down.

Debate:

I did Parli for most of my time as a competitor. I judge through a policy lens, so please give me very specific impacts in each of your "worlds". All theory is open game if its done well. If no one brings up theory or metadebate, I won't vote on it. Whatever you tell me becomes reality- so build your reality well and remember to address all parts of the opponents' reality! Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Tell me what to vote on, or else I'll just default to whatever I think is most important. If you tell me that one impact is more important than the others, and have good reasoning to support that, I'll vote on it. Comparing your side's "world" vs. your opponents "world" will make my decision much easier. How will voting one way or the other actually manifest in reality?

Impact calculus really helps me decide how I will vote. If you have a really low probability high magnitude impact (like nuclear war), tell me why that matters more than your opponents high-probability, low-magnitude impact.

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

Structure- If you have a hook, intro, thesis (if necessary), a few points and a good conclusion. For interps, just having a good intro and clear points is good. '

Content- Having interesting content is my second way of ranking people. I especially like personal anecdotes.

Rhythm / Clarity / Tone- Having consistent word density, memorizing your speech well, and hitting the 'highs and lows' of your speech are all important to me.

I want to see the points of argument be addressed at each stage with an emphasis on rebuttals— essentially, flow everything.

I am a tabula rasa judge for the most part. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Basically, tell me how your impacts outweigh at the end of the round. I am fine with speed and K.

Affiliations--

Lewis and Clark College '23.

Assistant coach at Lake Oswego.

Background--

Hey! I'm Eden :) I'm an alum of the LC IE team and no longer debate, but I was a nat circuit LD'er in high school from 2015-2017. I competed as an independent, mostly attending bid tournaments in California. I mostly read phil affs and K's, but don't let that influence what types of args you read. I'm happy to evaluate anything so do whatever you're best at!

--Only arguments I won't listen to are ones that actively make the round unsafe (ie. overtly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.)--

Speed--

**Speed is the only element of your debate style that I think you should adapt for me.**

I've been completely out of debate for almost five years and don't judge often, so while I'm comfortable evaluating all types of arguments, I'm probably not going to be able to flow spreading at your top speed. If you're super fast (ie. 350-400+ wpm), please go significantly slower than normal, include me on your flash/speech doc email, and really slow down for any important analytics/tags/signposts. My goal is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, and I can only do that if I flow it properly. I will say slow or clear as many times as needed, but it may affect your speaker points.

Crystalizing and weighing impacts will go a really long way in getting my ballot. Please tell me exactly what argument(s) I'm voting for you on and why.

*Keep in mind I have zero knowledge of the current LD topic or any new jargon from the past few years, so you might need to spell things out for me a tiny bit more than normal.

Theory--

I was never a very good theory debater (but complete respect for those who are!) so if you read theory, please make sure to spend a little extra time explaining the arguments for me. I'm going to default to reasonability because I'm not fully confident in my ability to evaluate theory line by line, but I think strong theory arguments are very important for debate so please feel free to run it.

If you end up collapsing to theory, taking time to thoroughly explain the abuse to me (and how the interp solves) in the nr or 2ar is probably more important than blippy line by line, because I'm not well-versed enough in the nuances of theory debate to extrapolate the argument for you based on a single sentence.

**Side note: spreading a frivolous theory shell (ie. with only hypothetical abuse) against a lay/traditional opponent is one of the only things that would make me give you low speaks, because I just find that overtly exclusionary.**

K's--

I love Ks and critical affs so please feel free to read them! I understand most critical lit pretty thoroughly but over-explaining any really complex internal link arguments wouldn't hurt, especially if you're reading something on the obscure side. Other than that, just make sure it's clear what your alt actually means and tell me if your impacts are pre- or post-fiat (or both).

Keep in mind, an ethical framework linking into the K doesn't inherently mean it's false. If the impacts of the K don't link to the standard, you need to engage the framework debate directly because I won't presume that the K comes before ethics solely because you tell me it has pre-fiat impacts.

Framework--

I was largely a framework debater in HS (mainly affs but also the occasional NC) so I'd love to hear a good phil case. IMO a strong syllogism that you know the ins and outs of is usually better than a bunch of weak independent warrants. Make sure you explain the impact calculus under your standard, especially if its anything complicated.

Advantages, Disads, CP's, etc.--

Not much to say here--I'm always happy to learn about the topic lit and these debates can be super fun to watch. I'm always super impressed by LD'ers who know the ins and outs of the topic! Really clear crystallization and impact weighing is definitely key here. Err on the side of over-explaining link arguments, especially in rebuttals. Make sure your impacts matter under the winning framework.

Speaker Points--

I probably give higher than average speaks, especially if the round has good clash and strong weighing.

Good Luck! :)

I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.

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.

Debate through high school (2009-2013), primarily Lincoln Douglas

Coach of the Silverton High School team (2015-2019)

Clash

You can pick up cheap heat from dropped defense and impact out into oblivion - which, admittedly, can make the difference - but if I feel you're being abusive impacting out, I have no problem saying so on ballot. Use any weighing mechanisms/cards to make your impacts believable and I'm a happy judge.

Specificity is key. I want to see pin-point accuracy in the line-by-line; so much of debate skill is economy of ideas, and I want to see you use what matters. Tell me exactly in the card where you are at all times; just that little bit of extra time keeps us all - including yourself - on track for the offense you're generating. If you're being intentionally vague to cover, you should have considered dropping the point.

Personal Notes

Any case/k/etc that requires you to take my laptop from me is an easy win for your opponent. If you follow through with Baudrillard and take it without asking, I will listen, but the second I get my laptop I sign the ballot.

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

This is not a tabula rasa judge; on the contrary:

"Making an evidence presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. To maintain standards of quality, relevance, and integrity for evidence, consumers of presentations should insist that presenters be held intellectually and ethically responsible for what they show and tell. Thus consuming a presentation is also an intellectual and a moral activity."--Edward Tufte (Emeritus Professor, Yale University),Beautiful Evidence(https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_be).

In Policy Debate:

I expect the affirmative to present a standing problem in the status quo that they can solve by means of a plan that affirms the resolution. I expect the negative to explain to me how their opponents have failed on one-or-more of these simple tasks, or why the problems they see with the plan their opponents presented outweigh the benefits.

(Why am I a boring "stock issues" judge? Because the framework is useful in the real world, see also https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selling-project-proposal-art-science-persuasion-6028 -- they rework HITS to PCAN but it's fundamentally the same.)

None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can enunciate. None of the competitors should be speaking faster than they can think. I will be judging the debate as presented as I hear it and I should not need to judge evidence as written (and if I do then something bad has happened).

Speakers will time themselves, the person asking questions times Cross, I time prep and prep goes until your opponent is successfully able to see the evidence you handed/flashed/emailed to them.

Addendum: The best policy debates (with high speaker points!) get progressively wonkier/nerdier as each team tries to get to a level of detail that their opposition hasn’t done the work/research to know. If you know Scott’s Seeing Like a State then you can pretty much guarantee that there’s going to be a likely breakdown in plan-as-written somewhere, the question is: can you convince me that you know what it is (neg) but have accounted for that contingency (aff)? To quote Saxe (via Foucault): “It is not enough to have a liking for architecture. One must also know stone-cutting.”

In Values Debate:

I expect the affirmative to have a clear and good motivation they want to lead me to action with, a means of measurement showing me that the action they're advocating supports their motivation, and some evidence to support that the action tilts those means of measurement towards their sense of goodness. I expect the negative to explain to me why the affirmative's reasoning is faulty on any of these levels, or present a superior competing motivation (similarly structured) that is advanced by rejecting the resolution.

(If you need more guidance on what this looks like, might I recommend watching this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA)

In Public Forum:

I expect both sides to present coherent, defensible research boiled down to relevant talking points. This event is about doing a lot of draft and prep work so that you start and stay at (what is for you) the heart of the matter while you are on the clock.

(This is far harder than it sounds to get scripted even once, and has to be re-done month after month after month -- the disciplined cadence of perpetual research-to-presentation is what you learn from the "Public Forum" debate format.)

Include me on the evidence chain: myhre_joshua@salkeiz.k12.or.us

I have experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli. I debated in policy throughout high school and some in college.

I am out of practice with flowing speed. There's not a lot of fast policy debate in my region. I appreciate slowing down and clear articulation on taglines as well as theory/framework arguments. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing if you don't oblige.

I am willing to listen to any form of argument - I have no particular bias against kritiks or any kind procedurals.

Topicality - I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting on topicality. If you want to go for T then it needs to be a substantial part of your 2NR. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability unless you clearly articulate your impacts.

If you want to make theory an argument, I'm willing to listen. I can be convinced that conditionality is either good or bad depending on what happens in the round.

I tend to think K's are okay, although most debaters can never really tell me what the alt actually does. If you want to make a framework argument, then go for it.

Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.

Extra speaker point for whoever can make the most clever Dune reference.

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.

To me, clash is really important. I want to see ideologies go at it so that there is no right answer, just a better debater. I'm not a fan of spreading, but I'm fine with debaters going at a quick pace. I just value winning the arguments over throwing out as many as possible and taking away from a potentially good debate. Your opponents have to have a fair chance at understanding everything you say and having reasonable enough time to attempt a refutation.

Likewise, I want a debate that is fair on grounds. I'm flexible if a debater feels the typical interpretation of the resolution is unfair, but need to be convinced that the alternative is more fair. Basically, I want everybody to have an equal shot at winning the debate so it to come down to who provides the best impacts and refutations rather than the side of the res drawn or the amount of contentions given.

This carries over to kritiks. I value the ideas behind kritiks, however I do not like it when it is implemented to take away from the opponents chance at winning. If winning a k requires you telling me your opponent does not have a right to win, I won't buy it. Kritiks, plans, counterplans, grounds debates, definitions debates, all of it has to be done to take away from one's own disadvantage, never to push your opponent into one. I want an even playing field for the collision of opposing ideas in every round.

I have three years of debate experience, but I don't want you doing anything complicated without an obvious effort to make things clear. If you baffle your opponent or me within complex frameworks or advanced organizational strategies, it will not help you. If its not something that the typical novice would learn within their first year, explain the process and why you're using it so that everyone is on the same page.

Most of all, I want to see both sides having fun as they compete. That should be the goal.

I take strong consideration on presentation considering voice projection, speed, tempo and eye contact. I also consider organization to be important meaning that you have introductions, main points and conclusions.

All Debates:

Feel free to time yourself but my time counts!

I don't mind "Off Time Road Maps."

Looking for good organization with clear concise ideas supporting what you are trying to convey.

In LD and Public Forum; I don't like speed, this is not a sprint is a marathon of information make me understand.

Courtesy to Opponent (includes abusive behavior or interrupting the other team let them finish statement n questioning). In Parli when talking to your partner during presentation do it quietly not to interrupt the speaker.

In Parii my expectations have risen due to the use of internet. I am expecting good quality work and quoting of sources will be a must to support your contentions.

"Pretend I am dumb as a rock and educate me!"

My paradigms are few and fairly simple. This is partially for your own information as well as a way I can remind myself when asked in round.

1. I am a seasoned veteran in the space with competitive experience at the high school and college level. Roughly 5 years in total. I have been a full time judge for almost twice as long. So you can understand that I am able to understand most arguments and positions one may choose to run in a given round. With that in mind certain position pertaining to theory or K shells I would rather not see in events outside CX. If a parli round does involve a Counter plan or a T sheet of some kind, I can roll with it as long as it is well explained and reasonably fits in the scope of the resolution.

2. Given my experience you may think that I can keep up with speed. Mind you I can but it is not something I particularly care for. What I like to hear is well thought out and warranted points that best describe your position. I'd much rather see 2 fleshed out contentions rather than 5 blippy ones you hope to out-spread your opponents on. Along side this if (Pertaining to everything not Parli) if you have a card and you read it, explain what you just read or how it connects to the overall thesis of the contention/argument. Don't just read a study or a statistic and expect the judge to do the work for you.

3. In cases where a definition or the value criterion/weighing mechanism is a point of clash, I want to see good argumentation explaining why I need to prefer your side over the other. DO NOT assert that you are in the right for one shallow reason or another. Explain why the debate should be looked the lens you believe it should. On the same page, if you have a value you want considered, try to tie your case back to it. IE, when explaining the impacts of the case show or reference it is the more utilitarian or more just impact. You get the idea.

4. -LD can disregard- I believe partner-style debate to be exactly that, a partner/team sport. So if you wish to confer with your partner at any time at all during the course of the debate, fine. I encourage it. That being said, please be advised I only flow and focus on the words coming out of the currently timed speaker's mouth. Meaning if your partner says something to you or helps you answer a question during cross that is fine, but if the speaker does not audible say it, I will not care and likely disregard the comment. Therefore, make sure you and your partner are communicating effectively to make sure all cases notes are properly presented.

5. When is comes to question and answer periods (cross examination or questions in parli) REFRAIN from making any argumentative statements/questions. Any and all questions should be purely clerical in nature. Meaning, please limit your question to matters pertaining to explanation of statements made by the opposing side. If you want to ask about mechanics of a plan or to explain a point more, that is fine. Along the same line, please keep question periods civil. Do not step over your opponent until they have finished their answer. Lastly I do not flow during cross examination periods. If there was something brought up in those moments you want to be addressed, bring them to my attention during your time.

6. Simply put. BE. COURTEOUS. I cannot stress how much I despise overly hateful rhetoric, calling out the other team in a demeaning way, and just overall cockiness. Be kind, be conversational, be nice. No calling the other team racist, no blaming groups of people for current global crisises, no homophobia. Makes sense? It should.

7. -Parli only- With the dawn of internet prep I think it is more incumbent on the competitors to have some evidence. Now granted evidence does not win debates and I won't take a lack of evidence as a reason to prefer. That being said I expect more fleshed out contentions and hopefully a stronger debate. If you can provide evidence and leverage that as a voter cool. I really would like to hear at least one full citation from each side.

If you have anything more specific to ask in round, be my guest. I will answer straightforward and honestly.

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.

Hi Everyone, I am a parent judge with extremely limited experience. I'm unfamiliar with how different forms of debate and speech work, so I hope competitors will be patient with me and explain to me.

For speech, I respect a speaker who can enunciate and articulate, with vocal variety, without loads of filler words. I will not be able to provide time signals, so if you need them, I recommend asking another competitor. That said, you are allowed to self time as long as the rules permit it. Please be supportive of one another during a round by staying quiet and offering support and encouragement between speeches/rounds.

For debate, I have limited debate experience. I am not sure how long each speech is supposed to go or the order of speeches and crossfires, so if competitors could guide me, that would be great. I would like your contention to be clear and supported well by your points. Please, no spreading, I would like your speeches to have a good pace and enunciation. I would like competitors to be respectful to one another and to the judge during a round.

Thanks so much, and I look forward to a fun round.

Debates are meant to be educational for all, clear to listeners, fair in competing content and skill, and charitable to the opposing side. As your judge, I want to see your side take seriously the responsibility to educate the room on the topic at hand, assuming little to no prior knowledge. Your judge approaches each topic with an open mind, so you should be filling my mind with exactly what you want me to add to my flow. Educating means speaking at a reasonable pace for understanding. Every person in the room should be able to follow your arguments clearly, the first time around (or, if applicable, through cross-examination). What this means is you are speaking slow enough, signposting often, stating links explicitly, and impacting your arguments. (Don't just tell me I should value safety, liberty, democracy, etc. Persuade why I should value it or why it matters.) Furthermore, if you sense your opponents are less experienced, knowledgeable, or prepared, leave them room to still engage in the debate and learn something. This means asking good questions and answering questions in a helpful manner. Finally, winning arguments take down the BEST argument from the opposing side, not the worst. Follow the philosophical principle of charity, assume best intent, be courteous, and practice empathy.

DON'T squirrel, run topicality unless absolutely necessary, fabricate evidence, talk over others, spread your case, drop arguments, use derogatory language, or engage in personal attacks.

DO prepare a strong case, speak well, practice mutual respect, read and think critically, and seek not only to win arguments but to understand other viewpoints.

I am a volunteer parent judge for three years. Please be respectful to your opponents and don't overuse jargon. Also, please speak clearly and at a pace at which your opponents and I can understand what you're saying. Please be concise with your speeches and don't try and make them longer than they need to be. Off-time road maps are also helpful, and I would appreciate you using them. It is easiest for me to vote for a team/debater when they have a clear speech and good rebuttals to attacks on their case.

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.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

Hello everyone,

My name is Charlotte Thomas. 2023-24 is my second year judging Speech and Debate, and I am very glad to be supporting all the students who compete! In my working life, I am a psychotherapist, which means that I am skilled at tracking communication and intention. I will always work to remain objective in my assessments and comments. I will also enter the judging space with a fresh, open mindset.

In debate rounds, I am looking for clear and concise arguments which I am able to track. I also place high value on respectful behavior before, during, and after the rounds. I love it when I am offered a roadmap of where your debate is headed.

Thank you, and good luck!

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

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

Hi, I’m Trevor

I’m currently studying English and Education at Oregon State University.

I’m a former Parliamentary debater and Extemp speaker with four years of experience in high school.

For Debate

I primarily judge on major points and impacts. Signposting and good clash summarization are essential for me to understand what the important pieces of your argument are.

I am tabula rasa, so I won’t connect the dots for you other than the broadest layers of your arguments. Make your points clearly and engage with your opponents in the same way.

Please be courteous at all times to everyone in the room, I will not hesitate to give exceedingly rude teams the loss even if they’re performing better.

The ultimate impact of debate is educational value for all involved, so keep this in mind when creating and presenting your cases, and in your conduct in-round.

Notes on jargon/spreading: I can and am willing to handle only so much of these. Make sure you are clear in your presentation and try and limit the amount of debate jargon you are using. Ultimately these arguments should be based in the real world, and as such they shouldn’t be completely incomprehensible to listeners unused to debate language. That being said, I’m pretty experienced so I won’t mark you down unless you’re being over the top. But please don’t spread.

For Speech

I have experience competing in Extemp, but when it comes to judging I will try my best for any speech events I am assigned.

Clear speaking, emotional impact, limited distractions, all good stuff. Also follow the rules of your event, please, I will almost always give the loss to, for example, an Oratory that is read and not memorized. Follow the rules, and I will do my best to judge based on the quality of the speaking and the thought put into the content.

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.