I am a parent judge. Speed is okay, be polite to everyone, be organized and concise with arguments. Impact Calc is encouraged.

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.

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

DO NOT attack your opponent or any of their characteristics.

Deal with ideas!

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.

1. Speak at a normal conversational speed

2. Roadmap and signpost

I am new to judging and to Speech and Debate. I may need time to finish typing between debates. Please do not talk to fast or spread. I am not familiar with all the terminology used when discussing and writing about speech and Debate, but I will do my best. Please speak up as I cant hear well.

My paradigm is generally pretty simple. I will buy anything in round if you make me believe it. Show me the link chain. Tell me where I am going on the flow. I am comfortable with speed. If you provide framework please carry it through the whole round, this is paramount in LD for me.

I coached for 8 years, and before that I was a competitor. I have judged/coached every style of debate.

Ask me questions in round if you need more specifics. I will vote on anything. :-)

I am a novice parent judge with some HS speech / debate team experience. When judging debates I take flow notes to track the arguments and the responses. Generally, I notice clear arguments that are backed up by relevant evidence and rational reasoning. I appreciate sign posting and summarizing. I am able to understand you if you enunciate clearly and use a moderate speaking pace.
I hope you learn from the experience and that you have fun!

Last updated December 2023

Speeches and Debates:

I look for the simple yet important stuff. Eye contact, not having nervous movements, not having filler words, good enunciation, and good speaking speed. Even if your speech was interesting and compelling, not having these skills will hurt you when I am judging.

It is ok to have direct communication and be passionate, but don't be condescending or insulting. I will not allow a rude person or team to win a round.

Debates (some of this information might not apply to your type of debate):

1. Be clear about your argument and go point by point.

Ex for Parli. My first contention is _______. My claim is __________.
My warrant is __________. My impact is __________.

Policy and Lincoln Douglas debaters doing Parliamentary rounds: You need to debate in a parliamentary format!

2. Talk at a reasonable pace, I do not like spreading. When you are refuting make sure that you say which argument you are addressing.

3. Impacts are the make and break for me. Make me care. Tell me what super bad or super amazing things will happen and how that benefits the world. Go all the way. Don't just say "WW3" - the earth is destroyed due to nuclear radiation, there will be mass starvation and famine, no drinkable water, etc. Tell me those things. Go all the way.

4. Do not just throw debate jargon around and expect that to be considered a proper refutation. If something is non-unique tell me why. If something is non-topical you need to have a full topical argument (standard, violation, impact, alternative, voter). I will not consider debate jargon to be a proper rebuttal.

????If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, ect. I will vote you down and tank your speaks????

I pretty much exclusively did parli while I competed so I am generally pretty comfortable with speed and theory, but I'm also not a fan of "jargoning" anyone out of a round. Please be kind to each other and mind the way you speak (not just in content). Please please please sign post, if I don't know where you are on the flow I can't follow the round and I will stop typing. I love a funny speaker so if you really want high speaks cracking a joke or two would be a good way to get them.

I need you to tell me how to measure the round! Your value and weighing mechanism should be tied to your impacts! Please also fully impact out your contentions and refutations because I will not do that work for you.

Also like, dont lie...

Hello! I am Deborah Kurtz from Portland, Oregon. I've been teaching English Language Arts at Mountainside High School in Beaverton for the last five years. Prior to teaching, I had a career developing training and marketing programs for large corporations, such as Intel and Petco.

I'm thrilled to be coaching and judging Speech and Debate this year. Clear, organized, and engaging communication is most important to me. When it comes to debate, I'm looking to see who can present the most organized and persuasive argument. Please focus on the issues to strengthen your positions; I'm not interested in getting into the weeds of debate theory. I'm interested in discussions that would educate and persuade everyday people. Most of all, be positive and respectful to your competitors.

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.

Former LD debater and I judge on flow. Framework and impact calculus are the most important--explain clearly how I should judge the round and why you won. At the end of the day, will vote on the issues you convince me to vote on, and generally open to creative arguments as well. Crystallize at the end of the round how I'm supposed to vote and why. I will assume as a default that unaddressed arguments are conceded unless you explain why they shouldn't be, and generally won't flow new arguments in rebuttals (of course refutations are fine).

Email for the chain: brian.simmonds@gmail.com

DEBATE BACKGROUND

I was active in debate from 1994 to 2005 (seven years as a debater, two years as a full-time college coach/judge, two years as an occasional judge of college debates). Most of that experience was in policy debate, but I also competed or coached/judged in most other events at least once, including high school LD, parliamentary (NPDA), worlds style (in Scotland), and most individual events.

Since that time, I have judged a few high school debates. I am an attorney.

What follows are my views on judging policy debates. I do not have strong views on theory or style issues in other debate formats other than that I will follow the rules of each event as written.

SPEED / CLARITY

I can still comprehend high-speed debates so long as they are *clear*. But I can't flow back-to-back analytics read at top speed, so please slow down for those -- this is most commonly an issue when a debater is reading theory blocks or 2AC blocks against off-case positions. And everything needs to be clear, cards included.

TOPIC BACKGROUND

I have judged very few debates on the 2023-2024 policy topic (economic inequality). I am generally aware of these policy issues, but I do not have an extensive professional in any of them.

JUDGING DEBATES

The following is adapted from judging philosophies I wrote in 2004-2005, but I suspect it is a fair approximation of how I will judge debates now.

General approach

I judge debates similarly to most other former debaters [of my era?]. I won’t vote against you just because your argument or style is not my favorite. The preferences and predispositions that fill the rest of this sheet may do more to mislead you than help you -- you are almost certainly better off doing what you do best than adapting to my sensibilities.

Theoretical Predispositions

If the framework of the debate is contested, I begin my evaluation of the debate by deciding what framework should be used to decide the debate; that is, what am I deciding? Which policy is better (i.e., what should the US federal government do)? Which team's rhetoric is better? Something else? Personally, I believe that policymaking is the most defensible framework available, but that is a legitimate issue to contest in the debate.

Topicality. I was a better than average judge for the negative on topicality.

Counterplans. I did not have any particularly strong opinions about counterplan theory, but to the extent I did, this is where I stood:

- Very unfair: non-textual alternatives, alternatives like “not affirmative”, international fiat, multiple conditional counterplans/alternatives;

- Unfair: states counterplans;

- Fair: one conditional/dispositional counterplan or critique alternative, federal domestic agent counterplan (e.g., courts);

- Very fair: Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Critiques. Framework arguments are very important. Are you defending the status quo? (Probably not.) If not, then what are you defending? Vote negative doesn’t strike me as adequate. Is the debate about what the US federal government should do? What scholars should do? What citizens should do? About rhetorical artifacts? About ideology? About epistemology? And why should the debate be about what you want the debate to be about?

Argument Evaluation

In the later years of my debate judging, I became less enthusiastic about the value of quoted evidence -- and that is probably more true now, two decades later. Of course, evidence matters, but advancing arguments not included in the text of the evidence can be very persuasive to me as well. Spin matters. Reasons especially matter.

1/2024

I am a parent who was honored to judge at many tournaments last year, both Debate & IE rounds. I have a legal background and currently work in the pet and veterinary space doing research and analytics. Thus, pretend that I know nothing about speech & debate. Explain what you are doing and why.

I prefer clean, eloquent and well-supported arguments in debate events. Please don't speak too quickly (spread) even in policy debate. If I can't hear you/understand you, I can't evaluate your position. Debate still requires skills of persuasion, and much of that comes from tenants of communication like eye contact, facial expressions, vocal inflections, etc.

With IE events, please hold yourself with confidence. Body language is the first point of impression. Speak clearly, take pauses when you need them rather than stumbling (you can catch yourself and breathing through moments for clarity is key).

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.)

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.

As a judge I expect debates to be civilized, organized and equitable. Competitors should walk in a room prepared and presentable. Organized and easy to understand, as well as follow arguments are a must. Speech and Debate is meant to be fun, it is not the place for pettiness or discriminatory language.

In regards to speech specific events, pieces should flow, be easy to understand and be entertaining. Understanding your source material is important. While I obviously am judging based on speaking capabilities, when it comes to breaking ties the entertainment value is the final breaking factor.

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.

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

High school value LD, collegiate IPDA. Not a huge flow judge

Don't run nuclear war impacts, respect your opponent, and don't defend human rights violations or you're getting dropped

Hello everyone,

I am a first year parent judge. Would prefer if the speaker gives a clear roadmap, do not be too fast in your delivery, so that I follow through your points and arguments.

Good luck to all the participants!

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.

Thank you for reading my paradigms! And thank you for being part of speech and debate. I have a few priorities. In debate...

1. Number your contentions, advantages, disadvantages, etc.. Make it clear to me what part of your argument we are listening to, and likewise, which part of your opponent's argument you are addressing. Good road maps and sign posting help me be a better judge.
2. Rules are important, but don't hide behind them. In some events, Neg doesn't have the burden of a counterplan. That said... I expect you at least mention what kinds of plans could exist as an alternative. Saying "Aff's plan is bad" can work...but at least describe a couple alternatives that are feasible. You need to demonstrate that there is an alternative, even if you don't flesh it out. It's totally possible your opponent's plan is terrible; what I'm asking is that you demonstrate that your opponent's plan isn't simply the least terrible option out of really, really terrible options.
3. Tone matters. Spirited, enthusiastic, even emotion-filled debate is great. But always treat your opponents and partners with enthusiastic respect. This includes non-verbals: looking at your opponent like they're crazy doesn't make me happy :)
4. I start timing when you're talking. Off-time road maps don't fly with me because everyone has a different vision of what exactly can and can't go into an off-time road map.

Last, some background about me that may help, especially for people doing Individual events or interps:

I am the West Linn Coach. That said, I am a newer coach, so particularly with LD and PF I may need greater levels of context to grasp what you're discussing. For something like POI or Poetry, don't assume I can grasp poetic abstractions immediately. Speak at a pace that gives me time to process.

I teach history. I'll be honest: an argument or speech that effectively draws on history can really catch my attention; likewise, one that messes up historical analysis can undermine a case significantly.

I also have a theater degree, and have spent a lot of time with our pal Shakespeare. I have spent a good deal of time on stage, and directing plays. Know that I appreciate a good performance, and good speaking craft.

In contrast, sports and music are weaknesses of mine. I don't know them well. While I think Taylor Swift is cool, as I write this...I can't actually give you the name of a song she has written. Though I might recognize one. Maybe. That doesn't mean you should avoid mentioning Taylor Swift or talking about music or sports -- you just have to give me context. What does that lyric you recited refer to? How does it apply? What does that sports metaphor mean? Why do these things matter to what we're discussing?

Given the background described above, when it comes to speaker points: I am in this coaching job because I want students to develop public speaking skills that will serve them throughout their lives professionally, politically, theatrically, or in whichever setting you desire. As such, speaker points for me are about quality, not quantity, of arguments and respect for the process and others. An appropriately placed pinch of dramatic flair never hurts either.

Oregon debaters: I will only evaluate arguments on the flow and not consider (eye contact, cx, speed, etc). I am capable of evaluating all arguments (plan, counterplan, theory, kritiks, etc) on a fair and technical level and am okay with spreading. Although I was a circuit-debater, please only read arguments and debate in a manner you are familiar with and do not over-adapt (e.g. saying "this is your nuke war impact" when reading a structural violence aff; spreading when you can't). I am not receptive to these arguments and will likely give you bad speaks.

(Should not have to say this but ...) Arguments that are not extended (either implicitly or explicitly) in the 2NR/2AR will not be evaluated - I need a coherent explanation about what the aff/neg does and the impact of it.

Prefs info (how I evaluate debates):

In 2019 I qualified to TOC with 3 bids - I'm familiar will all types of arguments (K's, Theory, Plan's etc). I judged for 1 year and have not touched debate in a few years.

I will evaluate all arguments fairly - shoes theory can beat Wilderson if debated better on a technical level, although if you win "reasonability" I will almost certainly view silly theory or framework tricks to be bad.

I am familiar with K-affs vs Topicality debate and will evaluate this argument fairly for either side.

Pre-round info (things to consider when debating in front of me):

I don't know any of the current topics.

Tags of cards MUST be read clearly. Even the worst flower on the circuit should be able to flow your tags without needing to look at a doc. This also applies to blippy, pre-written analytics as well. I will call "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing anything I can't understand.

*If you are debating a novice/someone with unfamiliar with circuit debate, win quickly (extend a theory shell and sit down after 30 seconds) OR make the round engageable for them (read a lay position). If you take full prep and speech times to read a K against a novice who drops all the links and makes 0 perms, you will receive terrible speaks.

Hi, I'm new to judging; please be kind. I'm a parent judge, so please don't use too much confusing jargon, and don't spread. Above all, have fun!

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.