I have been judging debate two years.

I appreciate a clear off-time road map and clear signposts along the way during the debate.

I value clarity over speed so that I can flow AFF and NEG clash and flow.

I enjoy a robust, honest debate on the topic, and the broader context of the debate.

I value respect among debaters.

Bullying tactics will earn lower scores. I will not vote on your clothes.

Convince me your side has a weighing mechanism that holds water, that the opposition does not, and that your side clearly prevails, and why.

I tried every form of debate in High School excluding LD, and stuck to parli. I am mildly comfortable with K's and topicality debates but it's been awhile. I'll flow, but may not catch everything if you decide to spread. I probably remember most jargon, but no promises. Please be respectful and rein in arrogance. I think there is pretty good evidence that speaker points are ablest/sexist, so if the tournament allows ties I'll give everyone 30's.

she/her pronouns

I am a parent judge though I have judged Parli numerous times at other tournaments in Oregon and at NPDI last year.

Please speak slowly and clearly and only run technical arguments (like theory) when absolutely necessary and explain them when you're using them since I'm not very familiar with them.

I will do my best to judge you on the merits of your arguments rather than your speaking style. I will vote for the team that is most convincing.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I debated in high school and studied philosophy in college. No types of arguments are off limits, so if you've been saving a performative K AFF, now's the time. That being said, if it's really weird, it would be good to run it by your opponent first for the sake of having a good round.

Don't try to convince me global warming is a myth or racism is over. Other than that, each round starts with a blank slate. No new arguments in rebuttal speeches, tell me how to weigh your arguments, and don't belittle your opponents. I don't flow CX, but it is binding.

Public Forum debate is not designed to be a talk as fast as you can debate. It is designed to be spoken at a clear and reasonable rate and pace. As a newer judge I want to be able to keep up with the debate.

Background

I did parli and extemp at Ashland High School in Oregon. I also occasionally did LD and PF including on the national circuit and at NSDAs. I ran a really wide range of things in high school, and I love creative debaters. I studied broadcast journalism in college, so this topic excites me. Have fun and let me know if there is any questions before the round.

TLDR

Do:

Run what you want

Collapse at the end of the round

Have structure and signpost

Don't:

Shadow Extend

Read something you don't understand

Say all Ks are bad

General

I'm five years out now, but I think I can still keep up. I will vote on almost anything, but I am lazy, so please make it easy for me. That means explain your arguments, why you won them, and why that means you won the round. Anything you want me to vote on, should be in your last speech, regardless of debate style. I will disclose after the round if I can.

Speed/Speaks

Vocal inflection should not disappear when you go fast. That is especially true in later speeches. I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. Speaks are about clean speeches with good strategy. An overview never hurts.

DAs/CP

Case debate is fun. I am down for generics, but that does open you up to non uniques easier. I will probably not vote on politics unless the link is really good. CPs are underutilized, especially advantage CPs.

Kritiks

Ran them a fair amount when I was debating. Please understand the K you are running. Links are key to everything. I am pretty sympathetic to the perm if there is no clear link. I am most familiar with whiteness, cap and anthro. High theory needs to be explained, but I am open to it and familiar with a lot of the general ideas behind it. Identity Ks are great, but saying you deserve the ballot only because the debate space is unfair an uphill battle with me. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

Theory

Default to competing interps, no RVIs and theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but it is stronger with it than without it. If you want me to vote on it you need to make sure each part of the shell has clear offense that you extend. More specific interps are going to give you a better shot at the ballot and better speaks

Framework

Default is net benefits/policy maker. I am fine with anything however self serving roles of the ballot are really annoying and if they have no warrant, then they are easy to get out of for your opponent. I am comfortable with most of the major moral theories that are used. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know.

Weighing

Default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise.

Evidence

The warrant is the thing that matters no matter the style. Put me on the email chain or tell me what cards you want me to call. The more card calling I have to do by myself, the more I am having to intervening.

Miscellaneous

I believe in terminal defense, so going for try or die when you have conceded you solve nothing is not going to win you anything.

Tag teaming is all good, but don’t be that team that tag teams the whole time.

Shadow extensions are bad. Arguments need to be extended throughout the round.

Jargon is meant to make debate more efficient, not more exclusive. Use whatever terms you think you can get your point across best with.

If you have questions or want to talk more about a round I already judged you in, email me at karl.moeglein@gmail.com or message me on Facebook. Feel free to clarify anything you want to before the round.

I participate in a format similar to Public Forum in college. I like concrete and convincing arguments, over winning on technicalities. Speak clearly and try not to use too much jargon.

The Aff must convince me that they in some directly support the text of the resolution.

I enjoy creative arguments, as long as they are well reasoned and impacted. Unless you make a convincing argument otherwise, I will tend to weigh arguments such as "X leads to a 0.0001% chance of nuclear war" less highly than real, tangible impacts to peoples lives.

In Public Forum: I won't tolerate speed reading (spreading).

In formats with cross-examination, there are two sides of the coin to consider:

* Firstly, if you are asking questions, make them simple and direct; if you are asking obvious "gotcha" questions, you must be prepared to let the other team response "yes technically, but thats not the whole story because X Y and Z", don't overburden them by saying they may only respond "yes" or "no" when it is clear there is more to the story.

* Secondly, if you are answering questions, make your responding simple. As they say in courtrooms, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the question is a "gotcha", I will not penalize you for fighting back a bit and trying to point out the flaw in the question; but if you are just rambling to waste the questioners time, I will not enjoy that.

TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.

---

My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.

Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.

*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.

--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.

--Speed is fine, but please articulate.

--CP's are fine.

--No new arguments in rebuttals.

--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.

As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.

---

My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.

Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.

*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.

--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.

--Speed is fine, but please articulate.

--CP's are fine.

--No new arguments in rebuttals.

--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.

As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

Tl;dr Debate is a game, so have fun. Just please don’t have fun by pushing other people out of the space.

Background

I competed in parli and policy for Ashland High during all four years of high school. I was pretty active in both the Oregon circuit and the NorCal parli circuit.

Approach to Judging

I don’t believe debate occurs in a vacuum. One of my least favorite paradigms I heard in high school was “If you tell me the sky is yellow, I’ll believe you unless your opponents dispute it.” I know the sky is not yellow; please don’t flat out lie to me in round and hope your opponents miss it. That being said, I will not answer or extend arguments for you, or make cross applications for you.

Also

If you want me to vote for you, make it easy. That means final speeches should include impact calculus and weighing.

General

Please don’t shake my hand. Nothing personal, I just don’t want to get sick and I don’t know where your hands have been.

If I don’t give you feedback in round for whatever reason, you can find me after and I’ll probably be willing to discuss the round with you.

I’m fine with tag teaming, but if it gets excessive then it may be reflected in your speaker points.

Use questions wisely.

Be respectful to your opponents. You’re trying to beat them in a debate round, not verbally abuse them. If someone is startlingly rude or offensive, I’m open to hearing rhetoric turns but would rather avoid this situation altogether.

Krtiks

I will listen to whatever you want to run as long as you can justify its relevance to the round. I was pretty into kritiks in high school. I mostly ran cap, neolib, and absurdity, but I read and heard all sorts of other stuff. That being said, the thing I hated most about the circuit towards the end of high school was that teams started to get away with assuming that the judge knew the argument. Just because I know the argument it doesn’t mean that I will warrant the claim for you. Performance is super fun; I read parts of FDT by YG in a couple rounds last year. If you’re performing something or rejecting the resolution and you don’t have good framework blocks, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Theory/Topicality

I dig crazy theory rounds as long as they’re well structured and warranted. I defer to competing interpretations but if you can prove that reasonability is better for a specific instance, that’s cool too.

Counterplans

If you have one, justify why.

Condo?

Fine.

Speed

I can understand most speed pretty well, but in my experience in high school I only met a handful of people who could actually spread clearly. If you trade speed for clarity it’s gonna be tough to vote for you. If you use it to push your opponents out of round, it will be reflected heavily in your speaker points, but probably won’t lose you the round because I have yet to hear a convincing speed theory interpretation. Please don’t do that though.

Be the kind of opponent your coach thinks you are.

Clash flows better.

Clarity is good; topicality can be. Running T for the sake of running T is not.