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

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*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

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Updated: Mar 2024

he/him or they/them - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Former head coach in Oregon. Background in economics and data analytics. Just call me Jeff, please. Local and nat circuit judging experience.
Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.

LD Paradigm -TL;DR: Speed is fine. I am here to observe and evaluate your round, not inject my own beliefs, but I can't really disregard scientific reality. Solid warrants solve this issue. I like good theory and default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. LARP is good. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability. Assume that I am familiar with the topic but not your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine. Don't spread the analytics, but you can still talk faster.

Argumentation:
1) I will vote on topicality. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning topicality is necessary but insufficient for Aff to win the round. Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge, a line-by-line is not necessary. You don't need to spend 2 minutes answering. Disclosure is not an answer to a topicality.
2) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first.
3) Warrantless/impactless arguments are not weighed. Warrants can be evidence or analytics.
4) Extend and impact drops if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
5) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. I favor consistent weighing mechanisms.

K's: K's must be thoroughly explained even if stock. Clearly establish a solid link. I may be the wrong judge for an Aff K.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) I default towards drop the argument, feel free to make a different case.
3) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
4) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations.

Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.

Misc:
1) I'd rather judge good substantive debate than bad T rounds. If I feel like your bad T is stopping good debate, I will probably undervalue it.
2) Disclose, unless it is not a norm for this tournament.
3) I am probably a middle of the road speaks judge. 28 is average.
4) Pref list:
Plan/Value/Phil/LARP/Trad 1
K 2
Theory 2
Aff K 3
Tricks/Spike 5

Policy Judging Paradigm -TL;DR: Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. Policy is more of a game than any other debate format. Tech first.

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow or differentiate your analytics a bit so I can detect the distinction without referencing the doc.

Argumentation:
1) I vote on topicality. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff only needs to answer why/how they meet or why/how the challenge is illegitimate. I consider this one of the only "rules."
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Tech over truth.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got.
3) I default towards drop the argument. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.

PF Paradigm -Consider me an informed judge with debate experience, that may not be familiar with technical PF aspects. If the teams agree to something before the round (open cx, spreading, whatever) I will honor those agreements. I still consider PF a more accessible form of debate, so please don't make it less so.
1) Speed is fine, if everyone is ok with it.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaks if only one partner ever answers questions.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first.

K's:I've never seen a PF K. It must be thoroughly explained and have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.

Parli Paradigm
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation. The earth is not flat.

Disqualifiers:

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If it is blatant, you lose the round. Opponents to people that use these things, you may ask me for your options between speeches off prep time. Options are 1) Ignore them, 2) engage them, call them out, make them voters, or 3) end the round and ask for a summary ballot. If I concur, you win, if I don't you lose. I am not here to steal your opportunity to stand up to these things, but I can understand needing someone to protect the safe space. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.

Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.

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

I've been a debate coach at South Eugene High School and Springfield High School (both in Oregon). I'm also a law professor at the University of Oregon. I was a lawyer before I became a professor.

I'm not going to write too much here because this is YOUR round. From my perspective, speed is fine, any K is fine, any competitive CP is fine, esoteric theory is fine, and T is also fair game (but rarely dispositive unless the aff has really overreached). If you prefer a straight-up policy debate, I'm fine with that too. I'll listen to anything. Just build your arguments carefully and explain why you think you have won.

When I flow, I devote a separate sheet to each argument. I'd appreciate a brief off-time roadmap in advance of each speech so I can put my flow sheets in order. You'll make a better record if you give a plain label for each point.

Be a good sport, don't whine, and above all, have fun!

Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

Affiliations

Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years

Past:

- Cornell assistant coach

- UW debater

- Interlake debater (long time ago)

TL;DR

1. Open to any argument.

2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.

3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.

4. Don't steal prep.

5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.

6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.

Comments on specific lines of argument:

T

The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.

Theory other than T

I vote for and against theory args.

- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.

- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.

- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.

- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.

CP/Disad

Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:

- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.

- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.

K

Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

My name is Irin Mannan and I am one of the coaches and classroom instructor for Oak Hill School debate team. While I am new to the Oregon debate circuit, I am a veteran to debate in general. I did 3 years of debate in high school (in Reno, Nevada), mostly Policy debate and some Congress. I love all IEs and I enjoyed doing interps like DI and HI when I was in high school. I had the opportunity to compete at NSDA Nationals twice, and competed in other national tournaments like UC Berkley. I also did college debate for one year at the University of Nevada, Reno. Before moving to Eugene, OR I was a volunteer coach at Hug High school in Reno from 2013-2015.

I have a MA in International Studies from the University of Oregon, and am currently working on my PhD in Prevention Science.

My paradigm is very simple. I like a debate round that is educational, respectful, and has clash. For Policy (CX), I don't have any biases regarding certain arguments i.e. I am OK with you running T, K, CP etc. For Ts, I generally don't like it when it is run as a time suck, but if neg makes good arguments about T's relevancy, significance, it usually results in good clash which I enjoy in a round. Ks are great as well but you have to be VERY clear with me about why it's relevant in the round and why your arguments are superior to Aff.

For all debate in general, PF, LD, Parli, give me a road map, let me know where you are going in your speech. Let me know when you are moving from on case to off-case i.e. policy: say "moving on to 1st DA... next is CP... now Topicality etc. In the final rebuttals give me voters and tell me why you should win. I am a flow judge, I like line by line arguments, so tell where to put what on my flow.

I'm OK with speed but within in reason. I HAVE to understand you. Don't go so fast where I can't understand your arguments because if I don't hear it, it's not on my flow.

Be respectful. I don't like it when you are not nice to each other, it puts me in a bad mood and not like you in the round. Debate is a privilege, we're lucky to be a part of it, let's respect the activity and each other.

Overall, have fun in your rounds. I love a debate round where both teams are clearly having fun debating each other and they make me laugh.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

About me:

Email chain: cameronnilles@gmail.com

NEW EDIT: I have taken ~1 year off from debate and will be fresh to the topic as well, everything else below is still valid. Prior to the 2019/2020 school year though I was judging 50+ rounds a year w/ TOC & National qualifying teams on my squad.

----

I have competed and judged for a combined +14 years (averaging 40+ rounds a year) at the varsity-national circuit level.

If I debated in this current era I would be a framework debater. Tech > Truth, up until the point where I need to evaluate directly two objective claims (this happens less than you would think).

I have not read every piece of critical literature that you have read to write your arguments.

I will vote on 0% risk if there is dropped defense or even much better warranted argumentation, but I default to a 1% risk calculus most of the time.

Communicating:

I am OK with any level of speed. I think it is worth reminding most debaters that I am (oftentimes) not looking directly at your evidence as you read it which means that varying tone/speed on tags is necessary. Only be rude if you can back it up.

What I aim for:

I believe that the debaters frame the debate round. Any RoB or Framework lens will stand and will guide my ballot unless contested. I will default to a policy maker/utilitarian if no one tells me otherwise. Overall, I aim to leave my biases towards positions out of an objective evaluation of the arguments as they are flowed.

Biases:

Debate is a game; create your own rules. However, ensure that they provide competitive fairness to both teams (I think fairness is intrinsic to debate/a competitive activity). I firmly believe that the K needs to provide a fair division of ground for the opposing team to argue - you need to explain what your alternative is doing well enough that I know what I am voting for, not simply that the plan is what I shouldn't.

If Framework wasn't applicable to a round I would be reading mostly a CP/DA combo. But that doesn't mean I won't hear your Kritik, just please make sure it follows the above two criteria (provides fairness, has an explainable alternative).

Things I like:

Make signing my ballot very clear and easy; take the easy way out. Creative topicality violations and well thought out theory debates. Uphold competitive equity. Don't use every second of your prep time if you are clearly ahead and don't need it. I believe some T debates can be resolved with only a bold "we meet (+ explanation)."

Pet Peeves:

Stealing prep and not realizing it. If no one is taking prep in the room do not be typing on your computer, flash/email time is not a free-for-all. Telling me a team dropped an argument when they didn't. The sudden shift of teams seemingly not flowing arguments makes for very poor line-by-line and that makes for worse quality debates. Card clipping will get you in a lot of trouble on my ballots; have integrity. If you say "cut the card there" I will ask to see your evidence (if not already on an email chain) and I will expect you to mark your evidence accordingly. I actively monitor for card clipping if your behavior makes me suspicious and I will drop teams that do any degree of clipping.

Hello,

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

TL;DR: Tab/flow judge. Organization = high speaks. Speed is fine. Ks/K affs are fine, but so's FW. T/Theory are great. CPs/DAs are also great.

Note: The below was written with Policy and TOC Parli debate in mind. If you're a PF/lay Parli debater, probably just focus on the General Preferences and DAs sections. If you're circuit LD, it all applies to you, plus see the LD Specific section. If you're trad LD, check out the General Preferences and LD Specific sections.

Me: He/him or they/them, third year college student, debated NPDA parli for the UO for 2 years, previously 4-year high school debater at Oak Hill, mostly policy, some parli.

General Preferences:

I consider myself entirely tabula rasa. I do not care what arguments you run, only that they are chosen strategically and well executed. Thus my argumentative preferences will mainly explain what I consider to be effective and not-so-effective execution.

Organization is really cool; when your line-by-line is in order and I can flow it straight down, I appreciate that. When you clearly indicate when you shift from one argument to another and one sheet to another, I appreciate that. When your second rebuttal highlights a clear and coherent path to the ballot while showing why your opponents' path doesn't function, I appreciate that.

You should probably know that I'm actually not the fastest flower in the world. I can certainly keep up with speed, but if you're a fast debater, please please please slow down on especially important or convoluted arguments if you actually want me to catch them all. Also, slow down on plantexts/interps/roles of the ballot and read them twice if you want me to get the whole thing. I will say "clear" if you're unclear, and "slow" if you're too fast, and if I have to do that to you more than once or twice, your speaks will suffer

DAs: Yes please. Generics are cool, specifics are better (not because I think they're more "true," but just because they're more strategic). When answering them, please read some sort of offense, cause I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't believe in "zero risk." You can of course win on defense, but it has to be because your aff outweighs the risk of the DA being true.

CPs: Love 'em. Probably the most overpowered neg argument, when used correctly (that is, with a proper net benefit that outweighs any solvency deficit they might have). If nobody makes an argument about it either way, I default to functional competition over textual. I assume all CPs are conditional unless neg says otherwise. I don't have a strong position on conditionality theory, I'll vote for the team that wins it. All CPs are legit until the aff proves they're not. That being said, I am quite receptive to arguments that certain types of CP are abusive. See the theory section for more.

T: Unpopular opinion, but I love Topicality. I think T debates tend to actually be more educational than the same generic politics DA or cap K everyone has blocked out, and I really like to see how well debaters can think on their feet, which T forces you to do. That being said, I certainly wouldn't say I "err neg" on T; T is a very powerful argument, and a collapse to T gives neg a very positive time tradeoff. With that in mind, I'll give aff a fair bit of leeway when it comes to answering T, and so if you're the neg and you're considering going for T, you better be ready to win decisively.

Theory: Even more unpopular opinion, but I also love theory debate for the reasons I explained on T. For the reasons discussed on T, I lean in favor of the "defending" team on theory (i.e, the team having theory run on them). But, you should still definitely run theory in front of me, because if it's well-executed I will gladly vote on it. I like to think I'm more willing than most judges to hear non-conventional, outdated, or "stupid" theory shells. In my opinion, just because the community has decided a given argument is silly, doesn't mean teams shouldn't be prepared to answer it. So please, run A-Spec, Plan Flaw, Whole Rez, Disclosure, No Neg Fiat, No New Args in the 2NC, or whatever else you feel like. As long as you can do it well.

Ks: Sure. Run Ks if that's what you want to run, I will evaluate it like any other argument. Personally, I find a lot of K debate, especially when it's a K vs a policy affirmative, to be rather stale. But, I won't fault you for that, you do you. Just make sure to tie it into the affirmative, and explain in layperson's terms what the alt is, who does it, what it solves, and why it solves. Aff, when answering Ks, please don't neglect the framework and thesis, and consider impact turns - maybe capitalism/securitization/biopower/static identity/whatever is actually a good thing?

I'm not incredibly well-read on the lit, but I can probably keep up if you're explaining things properly. I'm pretty familiar with Marx, Ahmed, and Agamben, somewhat familar with Buddhism, Foucault, DnG, Baudrillard, Churchill, Tuck and Yang, and Wilderson, and I have a decent understanding of the overall arch of Western philosophy and political theory. Make of that what you will.

K affs: If that's what you wanna do. If you're not gonna engage with the topic, at least have a little blurb explaining why. Performance is cool, but you may not touch the ballot, and I will only flow arguments from the person who is officially giving the speech. Refer to the above for further info. If you're the neg vs a K aff, try to get some decent case answers on the flow, that tends to make all the difference

Framework: I won't vote for you because you ran it, but I have a soft spot in my heart for FW. I think a non-topical aff needs a clear and persuasive explanation of why the benefits of the aff outweigh the benefits of conventional plan-focused debate. There are a few arguments that the neg should always make on FW that I find especially strategic. Topical version of the aff, "read it on the neg," and "clash is key to see if your aff is actually a good idea."

Case: on-case arguments are both the most strategic to deploy and the most fun to watch; please read them. Case turns are an immensely powerful tool. In general, the more offense you read on case, the more likely you are to win, so lay it on thick. Defense is cool too, and should be leveraged extensively when you do your impact calc. 8 minutes of case turns is the best possible 1NC strategy, and I'll give both neg speakers very high speaks if they pull it off.

LD Specific: I'm not super experienced with LD; I never competed in it, and I've judged it only a bit. But, just debate how you normally would and I'll try to give you a good judging experience. If you're circuit LD, you'll like me, because I am most comfortable with Policy and Policy-like debate. If you're trad LD, don't try to become circuit style to appease me. Do what you like/are good at. That being said, I will remain a flow-oriented judge in LD, and so if you're trying to win on flowery rhetoric alone, I'm a poor judge for you.

My only argumentative preference is that both debaters put a little bit of thought into the Val/Crit debate. I see many debaters treat the V/C as if they are some mini-debate entirely separate from the rest. They aren't. The value and criterion are tools you should use to evaluate impacts in the rest of the debate, and if you're not using them as tools, why read them? Also, if a debater values something incredibly vague like "morality," I will roll my eyes. If a criterion doesn't provide a clear method I can use to weigh impacts and decide the round, it's not a criterion, and I won't know what to do with it.

Specific for Parli TOC:

Points of Order: Go ahead and call them, if the argument is actually new. I frown on frivolous POOs, but pointing out genuinely new arguments helps me as a judge and shows me that you're keeping track of the round. Use your better judgement

Prep: There is none. If you're whispering with your partner while the other team gets their flows ready to speak or whatever, you're cheating, and I'll probably tell you to stop. Avoid the embarrassing situation by not stealing prep.

Facts: Generally in debate, I think facts don't matter. However, if a debate comes down to two competing factual claims (which they rarely do), since there's no evidence, I have no choice but to intervene. In such a case, I will intervene on behalf of the team I believe to be closer to factually correct. This should only be a problem for you if you have a habit of saying things in round that are not true, so just don't do that and you'll be fine