Hi, I’m Owen, but you can call me judge

TLDR:

I can probably follow whatever you want to run, but if you are mean to your opponents, abuse things like Theory or Kritikes, or are unintelligible then your round won’t go well.

Long version:

I did debate in highschool and now I’m a coach.

In highschool I mainly focused on parliamentary debate where my partner and I were consistently top 5 in the state and within the top 10-15 at TOC for a few years in a row. I know how to do east coast, Oregon, and California parli (I can follow speed and lay debate well and at a high level).
My other events include public forum where I almost broke at nats one year, extemporaneous debate, and a few other events that I gave a try or helped people with at practice.
I did speech events as well but let’s not talk about those…

I judge tabula rossa, so line-by-line is important, but at the end of the day how you win the round is determined in your voters. In a perfect round you give small voters throughout your arguments, tie back the points you make to a weighing mechanism, and finish with solid voters that say exactly what I should be writing on my ballot.

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 and I work tab at Nationals). 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.

DAVID BLOMMENDAHL

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at Douglas McKay High School in Salem. This is my third 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!

I have been a coach for five years, and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 25 years, teaching communication skills. I am seeking clarity and want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. 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!!

Hello everyone! I am a coach and former college Parli debater with about twenty years of debate experience. I am familiar with all events, but I mostly coach Parli. I can best be described as a traditional policymaker judge. I am willing to go in whatever direction competitors want to take the round, but I definitely prefer to talk about real issues, with real impacts, that affect real people. I think that's why we are here in the first place.

Also, apparently I need to add this to my paradigm now: non-Topical K affs will earn you a loss in the round and the lowest speaker scores possible. I can't stand them. They are ruining debate as an activity. Rules exist for a reason, so please follow them or go play in a space where there are different rules.

General Preferences:

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.
* NO OPEN CROSS. Each competitor needs to be capable of managing cross on their own.

Specific Preferences - Parli

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

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.

I’m a second year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

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, 11 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

For 2024-2025: I am done with Court Clog. Run it at your own risk of me evaluating your cards on my own.

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.

File sharing: Please make sure you are making a speech doc and not just sending whole files and then reading things in a different order than from what is presented. It can make things confusing for everyone in the round and throws me off if I think you didn't send the evidence when it's just four pages down.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

I've coached for 10 years but this year my coaching has primarily focused on getting our speech team up and running. I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments. That means I probably do not know the acronyms you are using and have a rudimentary understanding of IP rights because my coaching focus has been elsewhere.

Put me on the email chain mdcdebate@gmail.com

Speed: You should go 60%-70% of your top speed in front of me, and slow down on analytics. I'll clear you once and after that if I miss an arg then it doesn't exist to me.

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

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.

Be bold, be kind, be creative, have fun.

What does boldness mean? Take a stand, defend a position, write a clear/specific plan text, have an alternative view of the world, straight turn something, go all-in, disco your case in the 1AR – do big fun strategic stuff. Does this mean that you will automatically win? No, but you will have a more interesting and educational debate.

Kindness is everything. We are here to have an interesting educational activity, that doesn’t include insults, exclusionary language, or meanness in general. If your strategy for winning involves making the other debater/team feel bad/hurt/excluded, it will be hard for you to find a winning ballot. Evidence would suggest that most people feel excluded.

Creativity thrives within the constraints of debate. Reassemble your files in new configurations, retag your cards, change the metaphors/stories/examples in your blocks between rounds, cut new cards, look in those camp files for those random cards in the middle of the file which could produce a whole new approach to an argument. Especially when it comes to politics, I think a lightly evidenced story you cook up is much more interesting than some cards from what may be the DC equivalent of TMZ. Fresh is fun is educational.

Have fun. I try to.

My background: I debated for Wayzata High School and Concordia College, I coached policy debate for the University of Iowa. I have worked at camps in both policy and LD debate (lastly in 2011), meaning that I have a broad historical view of how arguments came to be and can be persuaded of many things.

Current topic notes:

LD AGI: this is a great topic, especially for Topicality debate and comparisons of evidence quality. This is also a fun topic because it is well-suited for traditional LD debate, that means have a value/criterion that is actually relevant, util is a negative argument especially if you get sucked into the "sci-fi" debate. If the affirmative wants to debate Util, negatives should feel free to explore Roko's Basilisk.

Policy IPR:law topics are hidden gems that people talk about and love for years. Such a vivacious topic for case debate, get into the nitty gritty, there is no reason why you need generics on this one.

What does this mean practically?

For evidenced debate styles (I coach policy and LD):

Talking fast is not a problem for me, that said, many of you are not nearly as fast during your cards (when you think you are fast) as opposed to during your tags or analyticals (when you are actually fast). The contemporary ransom note style of highlighting is not conducive for fast debate, you may find that you are actually faster (and more pleasant to listen to) when reading full phrases and sentences.

Critiques are also fine, notice I don't use the German spelling, this is intentional. Be specific and clear about how your argument implicates the affirmative. Affirmatives: answer the theoretical core of the critique and the alternative to find success. You are not obligated to accept any structural social theory provided in the debate and I would easily be prompted to vote against a team making the circular claim that your attempts to investigate their framework proves it. If their theory set and evidence depend on Gramsci and you want to dispute that theory of group struggle, I'm your judge. One of the single biggest mistakes the academic mechanism of debate has made is allowing circular links to critique positions. Although I will not intervene on this point, I am very easily persuaded that circular claims that "questioning the theory is a link" is a reason to vote affirmative either categorically or on the permutation because an infinite link is not a link at all...

Framework type things, not super persuaded here generally, it's hard to win that they shouldn't say something, you should help me see what you want the debate to be like and make narrow asks. For example, I think its hard to win that someone must debate in a particular policy style, but you easily can convince me that in the context of however they chose to debate they must be affirming,which could be a metaphor, a demand on the state, resolution as slogan, radical utopian imaginaries of the resolution; the claim that one side must be allowed to negate on the aff is not super persuasive for me personally. If you are a negative against a critical aff and want to argue framework, make the theory claim narrow and consider tying it to topicality.

Counterplans - love counterplan debate, I generally trend affirmative on conditionality questions and negative on most others. If you have one well-developed counterplan with a full strategic system, I'm your judge. That said, the more abstract the competition theory of the counter plan the more likely I am to let affirmative teams explore the permutation space. For example: against Consult NATO the Permutation: "do the plan now and consult about something else," is a compelling argument and is not permuting the disadvantage by adding new plan elements.

LD Counterplans on non-policy topics: these MUST BE NON-TOPICAL. Counter plan theory does not mean we have two affirmative teams in the debate, if the resolution is value and your negation proves the resolution true, the affirmative should win (Aff teams should argue this in the 1AR and repeat it in the 2AR). Counterplans which change the conditions of the status quo are also hard because they beg the question of "is" or other present tense verbs in the resolution.

Agents, Politics, ASPEC: If an affirmative does not specify an agent and the action of that agent, exclude the courts from immediate action (because sua sponte action is bad), you can also run ASPEC and I will vote on it. Confused affirmations which have no idea what part of the government is acting how or why are not educational.

Affirmatives: please, please, please write more specific plan texts, this is a legal topic, you need to know if the courts or congress do your affirmative, if you are overturning a decision, if so, are you taking a Circuit interpretation, if so which one?

For non-evidenced styles: embrace the special dimensions of your activity (the reasons why it isn't policy). Please structure your arguments so I am not deciding between who I believe on a claim of fact. Resolution quality matters in this activity, if you have a really poorly written resolution this is a reason for more creative argumentation. My parli teams have encountered resolutions of fact (early 90s CEDA speak: rez-o-fact), if you are negating the hypothetical: "the sun will come up tomorrow" I am totally willing to go for metaphorical negations, counterplans, almost anything.

I debated all 4 years of high school mainly public forum and parli, as well as debating in college. I don't mind talking fast as long as you signpost well and enunciate enough to be understood. If you have a weighing mechanism make sure to put it to use.

I judged based on the debate flow and f whose impacts outweighed the others.

Make sure to stress the impacts of your case and weigh them in the round, if you don't I will weigh them at the end but it's not going to be as generous. Impacts should be weighed on the probability, timeline, and how many people it affects.

Give voters in your final speech, tell specific reasons why you won, not a general summary of the debate, you’re voters should include telling me how your cases impacts outweigh your opponents according to your weighing mechanism

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Unique note to Public Forum. Regarding a plan in PoFo. I align with Oregon rules. Pro can have a generalized idea of how we might put a policy into practice. They don't need all seven planks of a plan as in Policy. Still, Con can certainly ask questions about parts of the plan such as, " how would we afford this change?"

Final note on PoFo. When the NSDA (then, the NFL) brought in Public Forum Debate, it intended to haveonly lay judges. No coaches, former debaters or even long time parent judges. This debate should be understood by people outside our speech universe. I honor that.

Final note on LD. One of my debaters observed that "all debate forms gravitate to Policy Debate." We see spreading too PoFo and counter plans LD. I believe that each form should offer students a different learning experience. Therefore, for LD, I look to the Values debate. What world are you asking me to uphold and how is it tied to the topic and how will we know it is being upheld (the criterion) in the future. Finally, (no.really. This is the end of this paradigm.. . .most likely) I don't buy Morality as a value.

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

For debate events, I will be evaluating for clear speaking, signposting, and civility. I do not want spreading.

I prefer debates based on the topic and less on semantics and definitions. If you run K or T, be prepared to explain it clearly to me

I have been a parent judge for three years. My paradigms include clarity of arguments, minimal jargon and organization.

I value clarity, organization, and kindness. Speak clearly, convince me. Have fun!

No spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will judge only by your speech presentation skills —which will be low because you're speaking too fast.

abby.holland.ut@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)

CCHS '24 (2N all 4 years)

she/her

policy

middle school

most of this probably doesn't apply beyond the general notes. Please extend warrants and evidence from speech to speech. Impact calc and judge instruction is super important! if you're interested in high school debate I'd love to answer questions!

general

tech>truth

I'm fine with any speed just please enunciate and slow down on analytics. if I can't understand you I'll call clear twice and then stop flowing. slow down a tiny bit on online debates

please explain acronyms at least once so I know what you're talking about

I've been told its pretty easy to tell what I'm thinking based on my facial expressions, I don't know how much this translates to debate rounds

TL;DR: I'd rather watch a good round than a round that's worse because you overadapt to me, so do whatever you want just explain it well. Everything below are just my preferences and ramblings. Impact calc and judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are really important to me, line-by-line is great, the more work you do to minimize judge intervention the easier my decision is and the less confused/frustrated you will be with my decision.

DA

DAs are great, run whatever as long as you run it well. Case-specific DAs make me very happy and super generic DAs make me sad but I understand their use.

I LOVE politics DAs! That being said I think generic links such as PC are usually poorly explained (PC is fake change my mind). I have a higher threshold for voting for vague links. Specific links are amazing here and I think you should know how key politicians would vote in the world of the DA. (bonus points if you have a CP that avoids the ptx DA with specific evidence key politicians would support the CP)

i'm willing to vote for intrinsicness

IMPACT CALC please! zero risk is a thing, framing can take out a DA if its done well

CP

Great, you do you. Specific CPs are better. Please have solvency advocates and a net benefit. Stop writing CP plan texts that are multiple paragraphs long (looking at you 2Ns). I'm probably not the best judge for in depth competition debates, but i'll do my best and i reccomend you slow down a tiny bit in these debates

I lean neg on most theory, except I'm aff leaning on multi-actor fiat. uniform 50-state fiat is silly. condo is good

you should debate judge kick

T

contextualized interps are better. Please slow down a little on analytics

I won't vote for aspec hidden at the bottom of a T-flow, label it clearly. This also means I'm more lenient on 1ar answers to hidden aspec

Case

Case debate is really underrated! Utilize in-depth case debate and case turns!

K v. Policy Aff

I love these debates, a one-off k debate against a soft left policy aff is probably one of my favorite debates.

I've read cap, queerness, security, and anthropocentrism. I have some knowledge of afro-pess, fem, setcol, and a little bit of baudrillard (although I really dislike baudrillard). Feel free to read other Ks, just make sure to explain them clearly!

if your K is secretly just a CP + DA in a trench coat pretending to be a K it probably loses pretty easily. I'm going to pick a framework based on the flow, not a middle ground. Line-by-line debate is better than super long, not contextualized overviews. Also please be able to actually articulate what the world of the alt looks like and how it interacts with the aff.

If you have an element of performance, make sure to link it back to your solvency (also I think performance is super cool and would love to see more of it!)

K affs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I don't have much experience with K affs, but I think they're great! Just make sure to explain it well. I think they should have some link to the topic

I don't think I'm qualified to have a leaning on K affs v. FW, I'll vote for either. fairness is an impact, but I prefer it as an internal link

KvK

I have almost no experience with these debates but I think they're cool, so do what you will with that information.

Policy Affs

I love soft left affs! Please have a solid framing page

2as please make your plan text mean something, wtf are fiscal polices designed to facilitate regulated market socialism

LD

I'll probably judge this similarly to how I would a policy round, please explain how your value/criterion frames your impacts!

other events

I have less experience in speech, but I'm excited to judge all events so don't be worried!

Misc

Be a good human! Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Read re-highlights don't just insert them

your off time roadmap should tell me what order my flows go it

I'll evaluate dropped arguments as true, but you still have to extend a warrant and explain why it means you win for me to vote on it

I'll probably dock 0.1 speaks if you say "I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

I'll give +0.1 speaker points for mean girls or legally blonde references in context (movie or musical)

feel free to ask me anything

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=244725

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

I'm a former CX and LD debater, but it's been a very long time since I've been in a debate room so you should consider me a lay judge. I appreciate clear communication and defining relevant terms. I tend to prefer concise, logical arguments, and probably best fit a "policy maker" model. I'm unlikely to buy into slippery slope arguments or vote on kritiks, but I can be sold on a particularly good argument. I prefer more grounded arguments that don't drift too far off into the abstract, but I'm willing to follow you into absurdity if you make a compelling case. The last time I judged a debate round George W Bush had just been elected, so take it easy on me. I'll keep a flow, but keep the pace reasonable and clearly sign post your arguments so that I can keep up.

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.

The framework provides the lens through which I evaluate the round. The team that successfully argues for their framework—and shows that they winwithin that framework—gains a major strategic advantage. Lay the groundwork for how your case will win. For example, if you are using utilitarianism, you could explain it thus:

Under utilitarianism, the impacts that create the greatest good for the greatest number of people should outweigh lesser harms.

Our case shows that [policy] will save lives, improve economic security, and prevent suffering for millions. Therefore, if we demonstrate that we produce the largest net benefits, we should win the round."

Then specifically tie your contentions to saving lives, improving economic security, etc. Don't leave it to me to make up the connections.

Generally speaking:

• Don't try to pack 30 minutes of content into 6 or 7 minutes -- if you try and make me track a 10 point outline for every contention and cards for all of it, arguments about dropped or nontopical issues become much more difficult to resolve in the time allotted.
• I like roadmaps and am usually cool with off-clock roadmaps.
• Create clash -- that's just good debating -- and tell me where you are mapping your args to your opponent's.

In L-D Values, expect me to have a more "traditional" view, given that I was an L-D values debater in high school in The 80s. I expect a persuasive, perhaps even philosophical, approach to making a case.

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or off-time road maps. I believe that kritiks are very difficult to pull off and rarely justified. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments. At the end of the day, debate is an educational activity, so let's treat it as such.

Talking at a good pace, not speed talking is preferred. I'm looking for clear topics and contentions.

Hello, my name is Mya Kuzmin, I use she/they pronouns and I am a judge for Silverton High School. I am a college student studying Public Health, and minoring in biology, business, and Spanish. I have been judging for two years, and I have 4 years of experience as a student competing in both speech and debate events.

In debates, I prefer students to not spread if it is not the norm for the event as it can make it difficult to keep an accurate account of arguments. If students are using technical jargon/language, I appreciate a definition being provided to ensure mutual understanding.

During rounds, I keep notes on key arguments, key points, and refutations. I typically value argument over style, meaning the content is my primary focus. However, prioritizing clarity and making clear connections is very important to me.

The debates that I have found most persuasive typically are the ones that use a variety of appeals, are clearly organized, and are adaptive to their opponents case/refutations. I also encourage students to limit debate over definitions as it leads to a less productive debate and less discussion over the true topic. Please ensure to make your impacts clear--this is WHY I should take your side.

In round, I expect respectful behavior from debaters. To me, this means allowing speakers to present without distractions, no personal attacks, assuming good intent, and no mocking or demeaning behavior. If this is an issue, it will be reported to the appropriate places.

Thank you for competing, and I look forward to judging your rounds!

Hello! I am a first-year speech and debate coach at North Eugene High School and am definitely still learning the ins and outs of debate, but I competed in speech in high school (albeit a while ago).

I teach an epistemology class in our International Baccalaureate program called Theory of Knowledge, so I am partial to arguments that are thoughtful and conscientious, acknowledging multiple angles of an issue rather than simply hammering home one point again and again. I value quality over quantity in debate - careful argumentation versus citing as many cards as fast as you can.

In terms of speaking style, I simply ask that you emphasize enunciation and volume if you do choose to speak on the faster side - I can only flow what I can hear. Use any technology you would like, and I have no preference on standing/sitting. I would prefer you to keep your own time but am willing to do so if needed.

Please be respectful and keep an appropriate attitude towards your opponent. I do not enjoy watching students be embarrassed or humiliated.

Any questions, feel free to email me at lawless_k@4j.lane.edu after your round if you want additional clarity or feedback.

Hi! I'm Daniel Lee,

I've been doing debate for three years and I'm experienced mainly in pf and parli and will probably the most prog judge you're going to have.

I can take spreading, but if your opponents request you to slow down or if they say "clear!" you should slow down. If you continue, at best your speaks get dinked at worst I drop you if your opponents just cannot comprehend what you're saying. Go crazy for fellow spreaders. It's probably good courtesy to ask before the round though, just to be sure.

DO NOT TAKE 2 MINUTES TO ANSWER A QUESTION IN CROSS!! This is my biggest pet peeve, and if you want high speaks, you will need to answer questions concisely. I understand that every question is a pointed question, but you don't need a summary speech in order to dispute it. Although if you still do it, I won't drop you, I'll just be sad.

Defense for me is NOT sticky, you need to bring something up every speech if you want me to flow it through safely. If your opponents point it out I will drop it.

I don't flow cross, but I really like it so I pay pretty close attention.

I more or less understand K's and theory but I'll rarely buy the former.

I am a tech > truth and I'll try to be tabula rasa as much as possible. If you tell me the moon is green I'll buy it until your opponents say literally anything about it.

Add me to the email chain, I will be calling for cards if there's ever a dispute and I will be checking evidence! So have proper, cut cards. If it looks ugly and is just a massive text dump with a link I will read it but will be very sad. (dan.daniel.lee05@gmail.com)

If your opponents are inexperienced don't angle shoot/bully them. PF is tough but stomping a team because they don't fully understand sticky defense or are stuttering in cross isn't what should happen. Be nice to new teams, if you try to win off a technicality or intimidate them to throw them off I won't buy it.

If opponents abuse going 2nd I will drop their points/pre-rebuttal so you don't have to bring it up (although you probably still should).

yo what up

lejakenneth@gmail.com email me with questions or further feedback you would like! Always down to help anyone in the community.

I am Kenneth (he/they) I am the head spontaneous and parliamentary coach of Lincoln High School. I think also head of Speech/Interp? My man Ben Harrison works in the labs of Big Tournaments, and we all do the most we can for our students. I care about my students very much, but if you are reading about this then you probably care more about my experience than my love for them lol. I attended* college at Lewis and Clark and am studying both Philosophy and Rhetoric and Media Studies. I did parliamentary debate and some speeches in high school. In college I did college debate for a while, found it was awful and inaccessible, and switched to speech and did that for several years. I was nationally competitive in both, and it was a very enjoyable experience that I would encourage many to consider. Speech that is, not college debate ;) In my time I have debated in Parliamentary Debate for 3 years, Public Forum for one, NPDA for one. Speech events I have performed in are Impromptu for 6ish years, Extemp for 3 years, Prose like twice ever. Poetry for a year, Info for two, Persuade for two, After Dinner Speaking for two. In high school I never did nat quals, but won state in Parliamentary Debate my senior year. In college I nationally qualified and competed on a national level in NPDA one year, extemp three years, impromptu two, ADS two, Persuade one, Info one, Poetry one. My prose and poetrys are unanimously acknowledged as having never been good :) As you can probably tell I have done nearly every event or debate format so I am a jack of all trades sort, hence my love for teaching and coaching.

TLDR for events:

~Don't say thank you!!!!!! Number of thank yous I have heard since adding this to my paradigm: 123

It is far far preferred to end speeches with a powerful memorable line or thought. Thank yous ruin this completely and ruin the ending tone of a speech.

Debates:

Say you all deserve 30 speaks, it takes 8 seconds. I will give you 30 speaks. speaker points are bad and sexist, you know the drill.

1. Policy: Anything goes. Frivolous Ks run in bad faith will be dropped. Ks cannot be kicked, if you kick a K you are running it in bad faith. If this is confusing or you have questions, please ask me about them before the round.

2. LD: Ts okay. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

3. Parli: Ts okay within reason. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

4. Pofo: Run theory in pofo I dare you :) please don't actually. I also flow cx. Don't change how you approach cx, I just think if it is said it should have flow to refer to it.

5. BQD: I hate all philosophers. Logos is your friend, not ethos. Also don't be a sociopath and any morality arguments will probably be fine. This means you too LD.

6. Worlds: ...bruh

Speech events:

Ask yourself "why is this argument made in this event and not another".

7. Impromptu: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Impromptu is best when you use a complex range of material for examples with unique interpretations and arguments for why they support your thesis. Please do not ever use yourself as an example. If you do it once you won't rank first in the round and if you use more than one self inserted example you are bottom two.

8. Extemp: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Make an argument and convince me, easy as that. Also if you do not DIRECTLY answer the question you rank behind anyone that did, which can result in an auto last.

9. Informative: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through educating the audience about a specific thing that exists, and having some form of interpretation of what this information means and its impacts.

10. Oral Interp: This format is a little strange, but it is mostly the same as whichever style you decide to do (informative/ads/etc.) with some form of persuasion often incorporated.

11. After Dinner Speaking: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through humor with deeper thematic points and overall themes throughout your piece. I value substance of the argument heavily, so more laughs doesn't win a round in my mind, although no laughs is pretty detrimental. These laughs are mine though lol, I don't care what the audience thinks I'm the judge. This may seem rough but this helps prevents things like stacking rounds. Additionally, I don't always audibly laugh and can appreciate the art and skill of a speaker without audibly laughing. It is just the nature of the event and who I am. That being said, do not be afraid to give it your all, I appreciate the commitment and challenge of this event, so swing for the fences.

12. Poetry: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through complex and overlapping pieces of poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

13. POI: Same as Poetry, except the material used is much more diverse in medium than just poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

14. DI: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through depiction of character and character progression and story. If there is not a central character, or implied "common" character, your piece will be harmed significantly. I have seen sets for this, but the best DI's I recall have all been singular pieces.

15. DUO: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through the relationship between two people. Singular pieces way way preferred. It is harder to convey relationships if your characters keep changing. I have seen good sets, but I highly discourage it unless you absolutely know what you are doing.

Eventually I will write some manuscripts about each event individually and add them here. The thank you count will keep me coming back to this.

Background/Experience:

I debated for Ashland High School from 2012 to 2015 and was captain my senior year.

I've qualified for nationals three times, the last of which was in Public Forum.

My primary debate event was Public Forum, but I have experience participating in Parli at a semi-competitive level as well.

My area of expertise is in software engineering and building large-scale distributed systems.

What I care about:

Make me have to do as little work on the flow as possible to understand where you come out ahead.

I care a lot about the final voters speech, terminal impacts, impact comparison, and having strong, clear links.

I don't expect you to win every argument, but you need to make clear why your impacts matter more.

Speed/technicality

While policy-level spreading is a little out of my depth, I've yet to judge any other styles of debate in which speed was close to being an issue.

I don't mind technical or theory-based arguments, but I often see people make the mistake of thinking that just because an argument is complex that it's solid. Whatever type of arguments you choose to run, the links and impact are the main thing I care about. The more theoretical the argument, the more important the links are. In other words, I don't mind theory, but I dislike poorly run theory.

Current LD coach and former LD debater (with some limited experience with parliamentary and policy debate) and I judge on flow. Framework and impact calculus (impacting out to the framework) 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 progressive debate, creative arguments, Ks, other off-case arguments as well, as long as they're well explained. 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 (by the same token, if you fail to extend your own argument, I'm going to assume it's dropped too), and generally won't flow new arguments in rebuttals. I try not to impose too many of my own idiosyncratic views on debate into a round and usually happy to accommodate preferences of the debaters in the round and will entertain whatever arguments you want to run.

Hi! I'm Alicia, and I debated at Northland Christian for 4 years in Houston, Tx. I currently attend Portland State University, and am majoring in Criminology and Criminal Justice on the Pre-Law track.

I have experience in a variety of events such as LD, Extemp, Congress and Worlds. My goal as a judge is to evaluate arguments in the round as they are laid out to me. I will not intervene with what I think is the best argument, but what I am told is the most important argument by competitors in round.

Debate is a safe space, if I hear anything racist, transphobic, ableist, sexist, etc. there will be an immediate loss, and report to Tab.

Remember to have fun, I get there is so much preparation into ANY event, so just debate/do the best you can do!

What I Want to See in a Worlds Round:

- I want things to be extremely clear. This looks like explaining why an argument is true, why it's important, and how it interacts with your opponents case/arguments. Not doing this makes it extremely hard for me as a judge to know what arguments matter more, and why I should be voting off of it. If you aren't explicit with your arguments/characterization then I won't buy it.

Note: This also looks like signposting specific arguments, numbering responses if you have multiple, etc.

- It's not enough for you to simply win that the other side is bad, but ALSO why YOUR SIDE IS BETTER!!If you do this it makes it SO MUCH EASIER as a judge to compare both worlds as it played out in the round.

- I think clashes are incredibly important!!! Throughout speeches having arguments condensed in this way allows you to prioritize what matters most in order to win which i love! While I'm fine with line by line speeches, just be aware I will then evaluate the round based on what arguments you did respond to/which ones you spend the most time on.

- PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE.When it comes to offense vs. defense, I would much rather vote on offensive material because there's more comparative work done when giving offense. This also means having fully flushed out-arguments, and being able to properly weigh them

-Stick to the heart of what the motion is talking about. Yes, to some degree if both teams can't agree on FW then you can focus on that, but it's definitely not the most strategic way to win a round. Some of the best debates focus less on winning the little things, and more about focusing on the big picture of what a motion might be asking you to defend/oppose.

-BE CONSISTENT THROUGH ALL SPEECHES! If your 1st speaker says one thing and then your 2nd speaker says something completely opposite, then it really harms the arguments being made. In an ideal world, a team should stick to the arguments they plan on collapsing on in the 3. I think consistency is oftens what can save a round, and should definitely be prioritized

- I think style is important BUT not essential in order to win a round. At the very least, you should sound passionate about what you're debating about. Think of style as a tool to leverage the importance of your arguments. This maybe looks like having humor in your intro, or emphasizing strategic mistakes in a way that makes the other side appear they've lost. Don't force your style to be something that it isn't, just be you:)

-This should be a given, but PLEASE be kind during round. It's one thing to know the people you are debating but another when you are just inconsiderate to those either new to worlds/making rude comments. Speech and Debate is a safe space, so please keep this in mind when debating. On my part, I will try to give balanced feedback->What both teams can work on, Why I voted for a side, what arguments were good and which ones to leave out, and what I liked in your speech and what I think you can work on.

For Speech:

-For Extemp please have relevant sources(tell me the date and year/where you are referencing your evidence from)

-PLEASE do not make up sources.

-At the very most, sound passionate. Speech is all about emotion, and even in Extemp this is no different. When explaining your points I want to at least see you care about the issues you bring up. This looks different for everyone, but at most I should be able to tell you care about what you are talking about.

-Make sure the points you give are relevant to the topic you talk about. I think the biggest thing is having points that sound too similar, having unique points that still circle back to the topic really help strengthen your speech.

For Congress:

-PLEASE do not be pad dependent. It's one thing to look down every once in a while when reading evidence, but it's another when you look down for something like an intro. If you come well prepared, it should show by your ability to memorize the important parts of your speech.

-Make points that make you stand out. If you provide me with points/arguments that haven't been mentioned, I will notice and your ranks will reflect that. However, it's one thing to make a new argument that is relevant in round, and one that isn't. Use your best judgement when making new arguments.

-Even if you have a late round speech, please try to engage during the round. Asking questionings is a big thing I don't see, and so asking questioning throughout show that you are engaged. If you are asking questions that are strong, I will make note of that.

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.

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, critical analysis, honesty, and professionalism. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and explore many different perspectives!

Debate experience: 1970's/80's debated in Arizona--high school and ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success when aligned with strong logic/analysis. Spreading is a tool--being able to also clearly articulate and extrapolate is the key to a strong debate. For the round, I only consider what is actually said in the round for the voting issues, not what may be written on a brief. I appreciate signposting and avoiding logical fallacies when cutting evidence. (ie. if it says it might happen and you drop that word in your speech to say it will happen, that is a logical fallacy-- something that might happen, doesn't mean it will!) When discovered that evidence is misrepresented or strip-quoted--changing the impact or intent of an article by eliminating words/context-- it is thrown out and may result in a loss for ethicality reasons.

Follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate--ie. no new arguments in rebuttals, dropped issues are dropped, tag teaming restriction, current/relevant evidence, credible sources, etc.

The best debaters are those who are able to get specific as to why they are winning a round, not just saying they won the first advantage or issue--but explain how their argument won and the impact it will have on the world.

Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

Hi, my name is Kenny and I competed in Speech and Debate all four years of High School and am in my second year of competition at the collegiate level. I have vast amounts of experience in Congressional Debate, and have competed in Public Forum, Parliamentary, and World Schools in the past, along with IPDA (think LD but with Parli prep) and BP (think 4 teams of 2 doing Parli) in college. In short, I've debated for awhile and know the ins and outs (I'm kinda assuming that your a debater if your reading this, if your in IEs I've done every event in High School at least once). I'm pretty chill, if you have questions just ask, I won't be like Oh My GoD yOu AsKeD a QuEsTiOn AuToMaTiC 7. That's just stupid. If you wanna see what I prefer, here you go but really its no different than most judges. Just do you, be cool, have fun. But if you want a full paradigm, I typed this out during class when I was bored:

In general, when it comes to events (both IE and debate), I prefer an understandable pace of delivery, so if you do speak fast I will be fine with it as long as it is understandable and I can keep pace with the piece. Also, while you are in round, be sure to be respectful to your fellow competitors, judges, and spectators, rudeness is something that isn't tolerated in a formal educational setting like Speech and Debate.

For Debate in general, make the debate about the spirit of the argument and the overall flow. Still have your definitions, models, impacts, weighs, and all that stuff but do not be abusive with definitions. You can run all the Ks and Ts all you want, as long as its an engaging debate I'll be happy. (Also, they are just fun imo). Rebuttals and counterclaims should be the same way. I will say, if you want to be funny and make jokes, feel free, I'm some uptight weirdo. While asking tough questions and trying to undermine your opponent is encouraged, be sure not to fall into the realms of personal attacks. Secondly, if you are going to spread PLEASE send me your case and your opponent your case. Also be sure to steer clear of logical fallacies (ad hominem, slippery slope, worst case, strawman, etc) as these will be looked down upon, especially if your opponent calls you out on it.

For Individual debate events, my paradigms are as follows:

Public Forum

In Pofo, be especially sure to set a solid framework in the debate, but do not make your argument rely solely on tech. In crossfire be respectful but do dig into your opponents argument. Tough questions and solid answers lead to both a good debate and making your argument better. Keep good flow and be sure in summary speeches to address it, and these speeches are especially important and give you a chance to explain why you win the debate under the framework. A solid ending will lead to better results in round.

Lincoln Douglas

Same as Public Forum, have a solid framework, don't rely on tech. If your neg and aff makes an abusive framework, call them out on it. Be respectful with questions and when you rebute your opponent, don't be a jerk. You can have some sass but be nice. Keep a good flow, summarize the debate well, and lay out your arguments well. I judge the debate over how good you laid out your arguments, attacked your opponents arguments, summarized the debate, and told me why your side won.

Parli

Parli is fun. We love it. Remember the usual, be nice, be respectful, blah blah blah. The important thing I'm looking for here is as follows: Make sure your arguments are clear and concise. If you have 2 really good points, I'll be happier with that than if you have 3 okay points. Don't feel pressured to always have 3 main contentions, that doesn't dictate who wins a debate. Be confident in answering questions, even if you can't elaborate much on it. When I judge a Parli round, I look for this: Who had the better overall case, how many clashes did you win and how does your argument outweigh your opponents, how well points were made in both POIs and speeches, how well you summarized the debate and made the case to me that you won. Your last speech to me is the most important, explain to me why you won the debate.

Policy:

If your gonna spread and not give me your case before the round, I'm gonna judge the debate on what I can pick up. Make your arguments and your rebuttals about the merits of the argument, not just technicalities and things like that. Speechwise, I'm fine with new evidence and arguments in your 2NC, but not in the 1NR (even though its the second half of the block). 1AR can use new evidence and arguments only if its in rebuttal to arguments from the 2NC. Any new arguments from 1NR, 2NR, or 2AR will not be on my flow.

Congress

PO: I will be judging you based on how good of a job you do following procedure. If you repeatedly need correction, your rank will go down, if you are flawless it will go up. Your job is to lead the chamber to the greatest debate possible and your rank will be dependent on how good of a job you do of that

Everyone else: Good speeches are a must. Especially in competitive rounds you only get a handful of opportunities at this. Giving solid arguments (especially in early speeches on legislation) is crucial and will impact your score greatly. Furthermore, those giving speeches later in a piece of legislation (there is no specific number, but once arguments become repetitive is the general time), give summaries and rebuttals. There is no need to bring new arguments in on speech 6 for aff, take time to address the opposing arguments and summarize the debate for both your colleagues and the judges, and effectively doing this is crucial to both a good debate and your ranking. This is not saying that rebuttals and summaries are more important than constructive speeches, as those who make solid arguments that come up in the debate repeatedly are great ways to get points. Questions are also crucial to a good debate. Asking tough questions and trapping your opponent (especially in direct questioning) are signs of a good debater. Being able to remain calm and answer tough questions are also signs of a good debater. Congress is like ice cream: the scoops themselves are your speeches, but the toppings that really make it pop and stand out are your questions. Mixing both of those is how you rank high in a Congress round.

I will admit to not being a very experienced Speech & Debate judge yet. However, Debate should have emotion and nothing is worse than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about. However, I do not like rude or disrespectful interruptions in cross examinations.

Bonus if you can use any French words or expressions.

You do not need to ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to.

Speaker points are arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

26-27: Good

25: Decent

Below 25: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

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.)

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

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

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

- Off-time roadmap and clear delineation of contentions (and rebuttals) PREFERRED.

- To me, spreading is not good debating. I can only judge you on what I can hear and understand. Make sure that I don't miss the amazing point you're making by speaking too quickly.

I have 5 years of experience with speech and debate (Inform, OO, Poetry, Prose, OSWP, Impromptu, Radio, Duo, PF, and Congress), I have judged both IEs and debate in the past, and I have competed collegiately in debate.

• Debate

• I’m fine with speed, but I discourage spreading.

• Have organized flows, strong presentation, and signposting.

• Make sure to provide a thorough explanation of any critical, philosophical, or theoretical arguments you make, and don't assume that I know them, this also shows me that you know what you're using as well.

• I'm looking for strong clash. When addressing your opponent's arguments, do so directly.

• Clearly state what they are responding to. Bring up any arguments your opponent makes; they won't affect my choice unless you take notice of them and take advantage of them. You will have a significant advantage if you can successfully bring this up.

• Enunciate!!

• Speech

• In events where it is permitted, I appreciate good blocking, you have the whole floor, use it.

• You’re speech should have a clear impact/reason why your speech matters and why I should care the most about your speech.

• I discourage self-timing, at the State Championships your piece should be practiced enough that you are comfortable with time signals, though you will not lose solely because you self-time. I, or another competitor can provide time signals if you'd like.

• Enunciate!!

• Inform: I am looking for a speech that has VAs which add to your speech and do not distract from it. VAs will not win you the round but it certainly adds to your overall presentation. It is great if your speech has persuasive elements but remember the main goal in this event is to inform.

• Prose/Poetry: Remember you can use slight blocking but should stay primarily in one place, utilize other types of movement.

Remember to respect your opponents no matter what you are competing in. This is a competition but it is also an environment where no one should be disrespected or put down, this is a learning environment that should be protected for everyone. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at the beginning or end of the round! Good luck to you all!

Extensive Policy experience on the national circuit in high school and college (Lewis & Clark). A prior participant and judge of Parliamentary, IE's and other speech events and activities. Related moot court experience and a practicing trial lawyer. It has been many years since I last participated in organized speech and debate events.

For speech events, I am looking for both verbal and nonverbal presentation, with clear tone and voice modulation. For most speech events, I want to hear and see your passion about the topic you selected and why you are choosing to share it with me. Clear structure is important in all speech event.

For debate I am used to the speed of a courtroom and not a spread round today. I can tolerate fast rounds, but it is not my preference particularly when the presentation lacks clarity. I prefer my own flow over receiving affirmative and negative cards electronically. If I want or need something at the end of the round, I will ask for it. If you want to share things with me, that is fine but understand it is my expectation that you will do the work to advance and articulate the arguments in the round and not by forwarding your arguments for me to read at the end of the debate. If I don't understand it or it has not been clearly presented, I will not consider it. I appreciate clearly articulated and structured arguments that are sign posted with clear transitions between major contentions, disadvantages etc. I set aside personal biases as much as possible and try to be a blank slate, to the extent that is truly possible.

I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.

Also, be polite.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.

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

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

I value facts and data to support arguments, definitions based debates are often a waste of time and energy! Debate the resolution, not the words in it please!

I look for support and confirmation of your facts sighted within your contentions (your cards). If you use a source such as a study or statistic please sight it during debate/speech.

Please number your contentions and layout a road map of your arguments. When rebutting opponents contentions advise why their contention is not accurate and how or why your contention should be weighted more.

While speed is important, do not speck so quickly that your argument is lost. It is better to have two clear, concise, and poignant contentions then three which where spoken so quickly I am not able to follow them.

If you state that you want to create a program and sight the cost I am looking for how that program is to be paid for. An example is if you were to retrofit schools for health and safety and the cost is $500 billion how is this going to be funded.

The cadence/flow of your speech and debate is very important. Intonation is important to keep speech from being too flat.

Hello!

I am a judge and coach. I competed in IE in high school four four years 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 third year judging and coaching in Oregon. I also coached one type of Supreme Court Debate in Arizona for a year.

I 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 complimentary. Nonetheless, a few general things for me.

For all Debate Styles

• 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.
  
• I value organization greatly.
• I don't automatically vote for someone who wins two contentions. Winning on two smaller points is not as good as winning on the biggest point. In debate terms, I am weighing impact.
• I highly value logical consistency.
• I flow questions/cross but I don't always flow all of it. Using question periods well is a sign of a good debater.
• No personal attacks. I strongly frown on inferred or direct insults. Yes "my opponent is not a good debater" is a personal attack.
• Debate rules are not universal for all of the events. We have different events for a reason.
• Speed is generally fine but I should be able to understand you. If I can't understand your contentions, they won't get flowed and I will end up voting against you. Debaters still need to speak well.
• I love evidence.

For Parliamentary

- Stick to the framing you choose. Don't say it is a value then focus on funding, don't say it's policy and then argue morality

For Lincoln/Douglas

-Funding shouldn't be a key argument in LD.

- the focus of these rounds should be values.

For Policy

-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.

- I have honestly been voting on case a lot lately. The strategy of throwing out a lot of different case documents, DAs, Off Case and On Case arguments, Two T arguments and a K just doesn't impress me.

- If everything leads to extinction, we would already be extinct.

- Courtesy is important in this type of debate as well.

- spreading is fine with me but if you are incomprehensible without me reading your case, you are not debating, you are having me read your case.

For Public Forum

-This type of debate should not have spreading and should refrain from trying to share cases with judges. Policy is one thing, this is something else.

- Public Forum is unique in a number of ways and framing should reflect that. For instance... Public Forum does not have the "no new arguments in final focus or summary" rule that exists in other styles of debate. You might not like it, but it is allowed.

- Explaining a position is not a plan.

- Weighing mechanisms are not required but if both teams agree to them, have fun.

I use any pronouns. I'm in my third year of university. Forgive me if I'm not caught up on the latest news. It's me and my matcha latte vs the entire world (pchem). Yippee! I used to compete in the Oregon circuit in high school. I learned everything debate-wise (except policy, but I understand the format). In hindsight, I'm always giving out half-baked thoughts, and I might understand everything, but then I don't communicate all of it for a variety of reasons. I’m just a world-class yapper and some. C'est la vie, bottom-up processing is always going to screw me over somehow.

Link to Google form for questions and feedback (for you and me). (https://forms.gle/ZKoVB94q46LToGn56)

Speech

Trigger warnings and content warnings are always appreciated. If you don't know the difference, please ask or look at this. BTW, maybe you should disclose this before the round starts so that there's informed consent.

Debate Preferences (in no particular order of importance)

Please ask me if you have specific questions or would like clarifications.

1. Please signpost and give taglines. I love a good line-by-line. I like referencing contention/disad/adv/etc number for signposting. It's easier to find than a word. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I will not be able to flow your argument the way you want it. Mild speed is fine. I will tell you if I can not understand you by saying "clear." Your opponents should also receive the same courtesy. I'm not a huge fan of off-time road maps because it's something you should not need if you're signposting. (Translation: I will be mildly annoyed. Want to annoy me more? Thank your opponents and me in your speech. Hot take: Unless you're in the finals of an ultra-huge tournament (nats, TOC, etc), maybe you don't need to thank everyone.) Try me :D
2. I am a lazy flow judge. I will try not to evaluate you based on my knowledge and bias. I'm not going to be "tabula rasa" because I know that I will have biases, beliefs, etc. that will affect my decision-making. (I'm human. I’m super lazy because I'm probably exhausted.) I'll only work with what you give me. Our interpretations of the reality we share are 100% different, so make sure you present your interpretation for me to flow/consider. So I will try to judge purely by the flow unless I cannot condone something. For example, if your opponent says, "The sky is green," my flow will say that until corrected with impacts. Also, just because I see your vision doesn't mean I will vote on it. If it's not explicitly on my flow in that particular phrasing, I'm not voting on it.
3. For formats with cx, I don't flow that. If you find something significant in cx, please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it in my flow. The same goes for POIs in parli.
4. Make sure I can buy your argument. Explain the impacts of your arguments to me using links. I LOVE good link chains.
5. Theory-wise, if you think it's appropriate, fire away. Honestly, I'm more likely to vote for on-case than off-case if it's justified and you're good about it. If you find a good reason to do off-case, go for it as long as you think I'll buy it.
6. I love formal structure through a policy lens (taglines, planks of a plan, CPs, DAs, press, etc) and value (real-world impacts/natural policy consequences of valuing x over y). For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety," tell me what natural policy consequences will follow and the impacts of those consequences (e.g. deregulation of the environment, no more TSA, idk it's your round). I also appreciate a clear framework (value+weighing mechanism), regardless of the resolution. If it's a policy resolution, please have a plan on aff or at least a specific approach to affirm.
7. PLEASE TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. Not all points are made equal, so you should tell me why the points you won matter more than the points your opponent won (realistically, you will not win every point unless you're a god). I love impact calculus.
8. In terms of judging, I generally default to tallying up contentions using the framework provided in the round. If you don't give me any framework/win conditions, I'll go point by point on the flow. If you highlight the points of clash and why you're still standing, I'll weigh on those instead. If the round was a mess, I will either default to NEG on presumption or flip a coin. I have free will unless told otherwise, so do with that what you will. If you don't want me to vote a certain way or consider something, tell me. I also tend to entangle whether or not the resolution was even upheld in my consideration whenever I do presumption. My thought process: Was the resolution not upheld? Then AFF didn't uphold their burden. Make my life easier by being explicit. I am just that stupid.
9. As a judge, I will try to protect the flow, regardless of the format. However, I'm human. If I see any new points that I cannot trace back to with little to no work, I will not vote on them. So make sure you're either super consistent with your wording or super explicit. NPDL: call the POO just in case I didn't catch it. For example, if the AFF does not explicitly have a plan in the 1AC in parli the AFF will not have a plan on my flow.
10. If you're neg on a policy resolution, I love some good counterplans, disads, and/or a justified PIC. ✨Creativity✨
11. Regarding evidence and cards for prepped formats, I'll only take those into account if you properly link them to your case and framework with analysis and impacts. Otherwise, those numbers and experts are just randoms on my flow. Like sparkles ✨ You can ignore everything after the sparkle if you're not in parli. For Oregon parli, I did parli without internet prep (even when I had internet prep); so I memorized current events and learned how to extrapolate reasonably: a lost art. Now that you know my parli background, I don't really care what evidence you have because your case should be logically sound. The Oregon Public (Parliamentary) Debate creators intended for kids to write logically sound cases from the kids' knowledge, not the knowledge of experts. In contrast to those creators, I think using a policy structure in parli is super sweet. Makes my flow neat. I treat evidence from the internet like a cherry on top when linked and impacted properly. For California/NPDL, balance my preferences for prepped formats with Oregon parli (evidence not required).
12. Feel free to give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!
13. Please be respectful to everyone in your round! I don't like interventionism, but I will vote you down if you display any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. In the same vein, but also slightly unrelated, would you look at your mom that way? If the answer is "no," maybe you should reconsider how you're viewing your judge and your fellow competitors. Consider respectful gazes and make sure Freud is wrong. Our actions have impacts. This goes for competitors and judges.
14. Speaker points are arbitrary and I should not be the judge of your speaking style. If nothing bad happens, 30 speaks. If I feel like I should not reward you for certain behaviors (e.g. lack of signposting, decorum, etc), your speaks will be docked appropriately. For every single time I struggled to find you on the flow, .5 will be docked. (I NEED signposting.) Might stop docking after the 25 mark. MIGHT.

TL;DR: If you scratch my back (e.g. hold my hand as you explain your arguments, use formal structure, have a hefty link chain, and make my time flowing you easy), I'll give you 30 speaks. Or you could say you/everyone deserves 30 speaks in your speech/run 30 speaks theory on me. I'd be down to follow through on that. I’m happiest when I’m a lazy judge. So please, please, please make my life easier. No thoughts, just vibes. If you actually grab for my hand, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible and find your coach. BTW, I hate shaking hands with children. Play your cards right, make sure my hands are tied (metaphorically), and have fun!! :D

Silly Shenanigans (totally skippable)

• "Omg, why is there a lot on your paradigm?" Because I want you to know who I am so you can either strike me, have me as a judge, and/or cater to me! Everything up there probably has a horror story origin. Some of it wasn't horror-story-level. This paradigm is so long that I constantly miss things.
• Feel free to complain about me to your coach/team on the way home. Your complaints should've been channeled into the round. Anything that I used to evaluate the round in my RFD is a reflection of the most prevalent points for both sides. I do give feedback, but I’ve been dialing back on it because I can’t find the line between feedback and lowkey coaching. I cannot be that life-changing ballot (bad actor). I want to be helpful, but I don’t know what’s too much.
• I am a firm believer that a good debate has a clean flow. I know how to achieve it, do you? :D
• Debate is a game where you can lose by an inch and functionally lose by a mile.
• Istg, if I have to trace all of the dropped args one more time, I’m going to find a barrel and be a menace. There’s a thin line between y’all’s analysis and me doing the work for you. I’d rather not be *that* judge. Also, Diogenes is wrong. Ignorance is so blissful.
• NPDL: If there's an info-slide, I did not read it because my interpretation of the res/info slide is 100% different from yours. Repeat what you need/summarize it for me.
• I used to give everyone 30 speaks until I realized I was rewarding people I didn't want to reward because they did some insensitive things/didn't signpost. Now, I give them out based on a mood basis in the range of 26-28 when I don't see proper signposting. So maybe if y'all could...yk, be decent (or 30 speaks theory)...I could give y'all 30 speaks :)
• Grammarly hates my paradigm, lol
• Is literacy still a thing, or do I have to be direct?

Avoid technical speech & debate jargon and communicate clearly (not really fast). Treat each other well: do not be aggressive, patronizing, etc.

Be Objective

Believe more in Science and reasoning

Positive Energy

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.

i'm a college freshman at UO, double majoring in econ and accounting, future law student, and i coach at SEHS. :) he/him

SBHS '24, 1A/1N (i know...)

experience: did CX in HS for one year, LD for one year, and parli off and on. did every speech genre.

my paradigm is solely about policy, but most of this will apply to other debate formats. if you have any questions about non-cx formats, ask me in round. fine w/ theory, k, philosophy, speed. looking for clash and structure.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

if you have any questions about how a round went, please email me @ below or see me after round, yes, completely after the round, not in the debate room!! bring your flow (or upload pictures on email) if possible! im happy to answer any questions

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN!!!! kerezvani@gmail.com

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

speaks:

focused mostly on rhetoric, clarity, argument quality. obviously, if you’re a big jerk or super homophobic etc, you’ll get very bad speakers and an immediate vote down too

base speaks is 27, i go under if you're abusive, i often give out 30s -- not to "perfect debaters" but if i feel that you had a good round

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

speed:

OK, slow down on analytics for me please

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

respect:

if you’re being super disrespectful, i’ll report you. immediate vote down for any -isms or -phobias. obviously

you can address me by kieran, "you", or judge/judges. just not my last name. i've heard too many people butcher it lol. do whatever you prefer

i struggle with eye contact in round and really in general, especially in CX. please don't take it personally, i'll try my best

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

for real paradigm:

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

tech > truth, game theorist judge

meme arguments? cool. performances? cool and encouraged!

i'll prob know more abt economics than the avg voter but consider me moderately informed on everything else.

rhetoric and voter issues are incredibly important to me!! tell me why you win! tell me why i am signing my ballot for you or voting on a certain position!! ur speaks will not only reflect it, but i'll be more likely to vote for you

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

BASIC HOUSE-KEEPING

keep your off-time roadmap to like 5 sec max pls, should only be paper order

i don't dock prep-time for sending the doc.

i don't dock prep-time for checking the other teams cards unless it's excessive. if they're paper cards im checking post round too!!!

i will time you, but self-timing is encouraged.

idc if you sit or stand

tag-teaming is fine. i don't care who asks the most questions. i don't often flow cx (i just like to listen) but attitude is important to me!!

i understand most jargon

aff leaning on condo

v v neutral on disclosure theory

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

K

cap, qpess, biopolitics and (most) alts = i understand well (that doesn't mean explain it poorly tho just because ik about it)

afropess, afrofuturism, set col, death, property, race war, virilio = basic understanding‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

i <3 K debate

i'm okay with soft left aff's and k-aff. pref towards k aff/soft left over policy aff. i enjoy learning new things. :)

how i evaluate K: links, impx and alt. address alt well as aff and neg. i'd prefer to vote on K than anything else. i find that good K debate focuses around our own advocacy and our own viewpoints and ideologies. tell me why voting for a certain team is harmful/good for debate or for the world or for education or whatever ur going for.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

T and theory

obviously these are a bit different but this is just kinda general, you can ask me in round if ur curious

most important part of any case -- always address adequately. idc what kind of T/theory you run just ensure it at least kinda makes sense.

how i evaluate T/theory : trad way to evaluate. interp, violation, standards, voters... if you don't hit every part of T and it's imperative to my ballot, you will lose. if you drop T as the aff, you will lose.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎

CP

cps are fine, i love PICs and do not view them as abusive/bad but i can still vote on that, love the ballot PIC

how i evaluate cps : perm(s), mutually exclusivity (functional, not textual), solvency, uq

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

case specific da's > generic da's, duh

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

1 - k and k-aff :)

2 - theory

3 - t

4 - cp

5 - da

6 - tricks :,(

I began competing in speech and debate in the Fall on 1992. Over the course of my career I was a district champion and thus a State tournament qualifier in LD-Policy, Policy, and LD-Value respectively. I was part of a CX team that finished as a quarterfinalist at State and was alternate to Nationals in 1994. In 1995, I finished as a quarterfinalist at State in LD-Value. Also in 1995 I was Northern Oregon NFL district Champion in LD-Value and proceeded to go 10 rounds at the National Tournament at Nova University in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I was an assistant coach for parts of 4 seasons after that. This will not be my first rodeo.

I believe debate is fundamentally a communication activity that exists for the benefit of the participants.

Please tell me how to vote and why I should do so. Left to my own devices I will vote for the speakers I find to be the most persuasive.

For the purposes of Policy debate I tend to be a Stock Issues Policy Maker. However, I will listen to any argumentation at least initially.

I will look to drop any speakers and or teams cold if they are overtly disrespectful to their opponents or the activity.

Please ask for any further clarification.

Thanks for being a debater,

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.

LD and Public Forum;

I don't like speed, this is not a sprint is a marathon of information make me understand.

Parli

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

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

"Pretend I am dumb as a rock so 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 in competition. I have been a full time judge and coach for just under 10 years. 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. Especially in the era where all balloting is digital, I don't type as fast as I write. 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 (Parli included) 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.

Please add me to any email chains!

Hannah.Ross911@gmail.com

Please speak clearly, and explain all of your arguments very well!

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 :)

Hello Speakers and Debaters,

As of writing this, I expect to be judging several debate events and speech. A few general statements across all events to start with.

1. I will vote down any actively discriminatory arguments based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. Be good human beings within the space and outside of it
2. Clarity of speaking is important across speech AND debate events. I view this activity as a form of communication if you are going to spread cases do so intentionally and well practiced.
3. Show good sportsmanship to your competitors in and out of the round. If I see or hear any contestants badmouthing or being rude to other contestants I will mark it on ballots and let coaches know. We're all here to learn and make an environment where everyone is comfortable to do so.

Debate events

CX- I debated CX as a trad debater. I primarily did it on the TFA circuit and not NSDA. I understand more complex argumentation styles (Ks, theory, etc) and am willing to hear them in rounds. SPREAD WITH INTENTION.

PF- PF is an event meant to be judged by anyone off the street. I will use that as a metric when judging, but won't base ballots on that alone. Don't spread in PF :(. I'm fine if you're going to do more progressive arguments (make it CX), but it will still be judged as a PUBLIC forum.

Congress- Don't be rude to your peers. Make questioning intentional. I love to see students taking action when it comes to setting the docket in rounds and communicating effectively with each other to make the rounds run smoother. While this is a debate event, I do judge it very similar to speech.

Speech Events

If you're reading paradigms for speech, good on you I never remembered to check for it. I expect clean clear tags on all evidence. A well-thought structure no matter how complex is an important aspect. In all speeches, you should have variations in tone. For each event, I am willing to give time signals that can be discussed before starting the speech. I will allow you to time yourselves but will be keeping my own time that will go on the ballots. Yes, you can ask for your time after speaking :).

[updated for the osaa 2025]

​

portland urban debate league

‎​

please add me to the email chain - avneetsid28 [at] gmail.com

i only flow your speech but glance at the doc when questions arise (clipping, misconstrued ev, bad cites)

--

please do not pref me for stock issue debate / policy heavy rounds.

--

i’ve been coaching for a couple of years now and really care for this activity and all the people in it, and i can only hope for the same from you. you win when you are kind, creative, and clever & i truly believe you can achieve this when you try your best.

‎

‎​--

(yes, please read your k in front of me.)

frameworks that rely on excluding the k, disengaging with theoretical debate, and severing from your advocacy make me sad.

t is never an rvi, things like "limits bad" are better arguments, so please make them.

do affs have the burden to be "reasonably" topical? probably. very low threshold for what this means.

teams that convince me to reject the res have arguably clashed with the topic enough to make me believe it's bad.

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

1. PLEASE use taglines for 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 and TAG LINES for contentions 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. Even the status quo can be an alternative -- just please demonstrate that there is a better alternative to aff, 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.

EXPERIENCE:I am a head coach, but I focus mostly on speech. I've seen a lot of debates, but do little debate coaching.

PREFERENCES:
-Please define your debate jargon
-Please don't speak too quickly (I won't be able to track your arguments if you go too fast)
-Lots of sign posting: number and tag your contentions and refer to those calling cards often (EX: in reference to my 2nd contention on nuclear power; In response to my opponent's 3rd contention on wealth inequity)
-Give me a roadmap. Keep it on time.

JUDGING CRITERIA:
I will be counting arguments that flow vs argument that are blocked. But my decision will not be based purely on this. I will give your arguments different weight based on the following

-I will give higher value to arguments with stronger and more varied supporting evidence
-Clearly explained impacts and weighing mechanisms
-Try to appeal to my brain and my heart when relevant.
-I care about style.Use the features of a good speech to add emphasis and emotional impact. Use pitch, pacing and volume to show me..
1) you understand what you're saying.
2) the ideas and evidence I should care most about.

Explain every connection to me like I am not as smart as you. Tell me what to vote for, how and why.

Note to Parli: I try to remember to "rap" on the desk after the first minute and before the last to indicate when questions can be asked, but I often forget. Please track your own time.

I am a parent volunteer new to speech and debate. In general, I prefer clear and simple language and logical, persuasive argument that avoids jargon or specialized knowledge. I am a software engineer in my profession and believe that being able to explain a very complex topic in very simple terms is the mark of someone who understands a concept deeply. I sometimes have trouble understanding extremely rapid speech, although I appreciate that it is necessary in some rounds so I try to keep an open mind and listen carefully. I keep very detailed notes and am comfortable with an informal, humorous or unconventional delivery. We are all here to learn, grow and have fun so I make every effort to maintain that perspective as a judge and to provide useful feedback for furthering your skills.

Hello everyone,

My name is Charlotte Thomas. 2024-25 is my third 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!

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 Debate, (i.e. not LD or Policy debate) 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.

Hello folks,

I am a former head coach--and current assistant coach--of West Linn High School's Speech and Debate team.

In my mind, debate is fundamentally a way for you (both teams) and I to engage substantively with a complex topic. I like intellectual rigor and good-faith clash with your opponents. I am really turned off by the debate being turned into a game, rather than a debate, so take that as you will.

In terms of speed, you can go at a brisk conversational speed, but if your speed interferes with my ability to understand you (or if you are not particularly articulate), then I will stop flowing.

Some pet peeves:

1. I am a lay judge. For those of you who love progressive debate, I'm glad you do. I'm also really sorry--I am not the judge you want. If you make the choice to just pretend that I am a progressive judge, it will probably end badly for you, for no other reason than I just don't have the knowledge and expertise! Have a lay case that you can bring out. You should probably have one anyway.

2. This one is really petty. Please don't thank me for being here--and your opponents and your partner and your coach and your friends or whatever--at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to drop you because of this, but if you read my paradigm before the round, try to remember. It grates.

Background: I teach AP Lang and Comp. I've been an English teacher for 16 years. I have a PhD in Educational Studies - Curriculum Theory.