Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

email chain: jackcrawford1825@gmail.com

I debated in HS for 4 years under La Salle NC with 2 quals for the TOC/other nat circ experience.

Holistically I have 8 years of debate experience & there arent many debate args/styled that I haven't had personal experience debating for/against. Currently a mostly K/theory debater in college in VLD.

"Progressive debater"

Speed's cool, don't spread through your tags.

I'm tab.

Post-round me one on one after the round if you really would like to challenge my decision, I won't have an argument with you in front of a room full of people.

Everything here is for LD and below this ( I marked where) I'm slowly making a PF paradigm again because I'll start judging it later in the year.

K

To avoid an awkward conversation at the end of a round, the perm doesn't work as offence.

NEG:

I think you have the burden of providing specific links and framing your impacts at the end of the debate.

I won't do work on the Baudrillard shell for you for example, it's very important you explicitly say why you're winning what and its implications on the round. Some auths. can stretch farther and in different ways than others but you need to do it explicitly for me to give you credit for that.

TLDR: I won't vote what Baudrillard elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of Baudrillard for example.

AFF:

I'm fine with whatever, you don't need to defend USFG action but you should show how you are in some way tangentially related to the topic to avoid the FW wall. Or dont, there's still a world where I'd vote for it.

I should probably add at the bottom of this I primarily read more contemporary french theorists than anything else, with the exception of other auths. like hegelians, kantians, marxists, those crowds.

Theory/FW

Theory: So while I'm all for your TOTALLY RADICAL hijinx on the T page, it would behoove you to win more than just that the debate was difficult for you to win. In my mind debate ought to be very difficult, to reach the threshold for me to evaluate a T shell the way it ought to be evaluated (apriori) then you should hit a higher bar than "x made the AR difficult".

That said, I'm all for extremely technical theory debate, just keep in mind what I am comfortable voting on.

I don't vote on disclosure.

I don't vote on speed theory in the event there's a speech doc. (I'll still clear you in round)

FW: I default competing interpretations if for some nightmarish event happens where nobody discusses this.

Otherwise, its a debate like any other.

Case/DA/CP?

I'm tab, do whatever you like.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty.

It's not that I don't vote on your 3 word 100% certainty impact analysis, but that doing this leaves you open to a compelling argument (for me).

Speaks/CX

30's for everyone

If something in CX isn't made in a speech I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^speaks/cx^^

PF

I'm flowing. You win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Come to the round preflowed, you don't have to wait on me before you flip for sides.

Speed is fine, I debate fast in LD, you need to send out & be capable of making speech docs for the opponent if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around/accomodate to make this a more viable option for you. You spread, you should be able to take on the higher expectations that go along with it.

jackcrawford1825@gmail.com -- for the email chain

Cards

I like cards and you should read them.

If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll get angry and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access your cards quickly.

Front half (AC/NC & AR/NR)

Constructives can be anything, I'm tab and I don't ever take my own opinons of policy into a debate round.

I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Rebuttals can do whatever, I don't evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)

The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.

Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.

Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

FF

Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob. a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Offense that you don't get into ff I don't evaluate, and framed offense beats a larger quantity of offense 9/10 times.

Theory

I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, espec. in this event.

If you can't win a reason why the theory vio. made the debate impossible for you to win, it's not apriori, and I cannot imagine a scenario I'll vote on the shell. (I say why in the LD section)

It's an apriori issue that works as an RVI because the event's too short by a massive margin to prevent this from being over-strategic.

Therefore, you ought not spitball blippy poorly constructed theory args. (please) at non-tech teams because it's a coinflip if you can hit the high threshold & avoid the RVI. I can and will enforce the RVI.

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

Background

My pronouns are he/him. I've competed in debate for seven years - four years of high school Policy (CX) debate, and three years of college parliamentary (NPDA) debate. Since then, I've taught/coached both middle school and high school debaters in PF, LD, and Policy. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.

Big Picture

I consider myself a flow judge. That means the arguments you make in the round I'll evaluate, and I compare them to your opponents arguments and both of your interactions and clash with them/each other.

I don't have an issue with speed for the most part, but if your opponents ask you to slow down or to be clearer, please adjust accordingly.

I generally think you're in a better boat when your warrants for your claims are clearly explicated, which is easier when you somehow differentiate them from one another (speed makes that harder, so adjust accordingly).

Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and remember that you're here to have a good time. These things should be hand in hand.

Specifics

I don't have any arguments that are just no-go's/non-starters for me. Any argument you make should just be well justified and persuasive.

On K's: I think a good kritik needs a robust framework for how I should evaluate the argument(s) in the round. Equally important is an explication of the solvency for the alternative, which can often times be under-developed or under-explained.

On T/Theory: I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger on these arguments. Good T debates I think treat the debate on the components similarly to a DA, so take from that as you will. Also I tend to believe if you're going for T/Theory that should result in the other team losing the debate and not just an argument, you should go all in on that argument.

On non-topical aff's: I did this quite a bit during my time in NPDA, so I don't have anything against it. That being said, I think the Aff should have a clear and persuasive reason why they're not topical.

I did LD for 4 years, there isn’t much that you could throw at me that I couldn’t understand.

If you spread, be clear and tag well or I won’t be able to follow along as well and that might cost you the round if I didn’t hear an argument.

Framework is as important as you make it, if both fall though I will judge based on contentions left standing and how they counter each other. Be civil and have fun. And please impact

If you spread please give me a heads up and if its of the nat quality speed I would prefer you flash me a copy before beginning so I can make sure to follow along properly :)

(I do prefer progressive debate, but debate the way you do best)

I am a parent judge. I have experience judging Extemp/LD/Poetry at locals in the Texas circuit and Extemp/other IEs at the TOC. I value rhetoric and persuasive speaking over speed and the other technicalities of debate.

Background- I debated for Sprague High School in Oregon, went to multiple national circuit tournaments in LD with fairly good success. I now debate College Parli for Lewis and Clark College.

General Debate thesis:

This space is for you, not for you to conform to my ideologies. So, if you want to judge in a certain way or change the normal practices how I ought to judge, please provide me a method to do so (ROB, Alt, etc.)

However, without some other alternative I normally default to the flow of the argumentation that is presented, and the framing of how I should evaluate certain arguments.

Flashing doesn’t count as prep, and please add me to email chains: cgesik@lclark.edu

Specificities:

Theory/T:

I will have a lower threshold than most on theory, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t execute it well in front of me. I will need a clear interp and counter interp in order to resolve the questions about the text of the interp, and whether certain “I meets” or “we meets” are true. Something that is also very helpful for me when going for theory is weighing between interps and standards, so I can have a cohesive ballot story in the end.

I Default to Competing Interpretations, No RVI, Drop the arg on most theory, but drop debater on T.

Meta Theory is good, but I’ll listen to arguments that say otherwise.

Disclosure theory for me is in a grey area for me, I won’t paradigmatically oppose it, but I’m pretty convinced by people from small schools don’t have to disclose. However, if the other debater has similar resources or access to the community as many large schools have, or if it is egregiously under covered, I will vote for it.

K’s:

They’re pretty cool. I don’t have any particular preference as to what literature you read, but if it some dense postmodern criticism please go slower on tags. Also, it would be nice to have a ROB, but if you don’t that is fine.

Kritikal aff’s:

They’re cool as well. I’m pretty open to wherever you would like to take the discussion as long as it will not be traumatizing to anybody in the room. Other than that, just give me a reason to prefer your method, and Ill adapt. Theoretical arguments are legitimate against these positions in my mind, but you would have to win it in order for me to vote on it.

Da’s: I dig them. The good ol Disad outweighs and turns case is pretty compelling.

CP: don’t really have any preferences here. Whether PICS, International CP’s, States CP’s are justified, that’s up for you to decide.

Framework in LD:

I don’t have a preference as to what framework ought to be evaluated. That is something for y’all to decide, so if it is won the flow ill evaluate the rest of debate through its lens. If there is a presumption or permissibility/contingent standards in the framework, go for it. But something that is lacking in a lot framework debates is the lack of comparison of meta ethical standards, and weighing the rest of the debate through such lens.

Speaks:

Im fine with Speed

If you are clear on tags, I really don’t care too much on the clarity in the card. If there is something wrong in the text, that is burden of your opponent to call.

I reward speaks base of strategy, not off of speaking or clarity.

I tend to give high speaks, averaging a 28, nothing below a 27 usually, and if there are strategic decisions made on both sides ill give 30’s.

Evidence:

If there is a evidence violation, please make it a cohesive argument, and pointing to parts in the card to where I can verify the violation.

Clipping is bad, so if there is video support of the violation I will give a L 20.

If there is a dispute between what a piece of evidence claims, please say why is the text of the card different from the tag, point to a quote in the text, and ill determine whether such claim is valid.

Extensions:

I have a low threshold on extensions, especially in the 1ar in LD. So, if you just say “extend X tag” I will do it. But you should probably do further analysis on how that effects the rest of the debate for strategic purposes.

If you have any questions, you can email me at cgesik@lclark.edu.

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?

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

He/Him

2024 NPDA update: I haven't judged a whole lot of national level NPDA this year but in the majority of rounds I have teams have read some form of RVI on theory positions. I have a very high threshold for these arguments particularly when they are based on some form of time-skew or other procedural link story. In order to win these arguments in front of me I need some sort of parallel or higher framing argument for the RVI as well as impact weighing. In short, I honestly don't want to hear time-skew anymore. RVI's that pertain to other forms of abuse generated by the procedural, such as a team being racist, transphobic, homophobic, are functionally different that the aforementioned RVIs and probably operate as Independent Voting Issues.

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

For CARD debate: I am looking for strong argumentation relying on both evidence and proper explanation of the implications of said evidence. Coming from an evidence-less format I generally prioritize how well evidence is leveraged to make an argument over the quality or form of the evidence itself. Further I am extremely compelled by comparative impact calculus which entails a comparison between magnitude, probability, and timeframe. CARD debate includes specific ordinances that preemptively answer questions left up to debaters in other formats. This means that theory and topicality operate on the same layer of the debate as case, conditionality is discouraged even for procedural arguments, and that procedurals rely on proven abuse opposed to potential abuse. This focuses the debate on the case level making it the starting point for my evaluation as a critic.

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.

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years. 

 

I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.

 

Other aspects to keep in mind:

 

I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework. 

 

I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework. 

Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed. 

 

I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.

I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.

 

Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.

TLDR; Be nice or your speaker points perish, a good pun gets you 30 speaks (no, puns do not counteract being mean). Do what you want; I’ll weigh the round how you tell me and all positions are pretty equal in my mind as long as they are probably. I’m more likely to vote on a probable conventional war scenario that kills 50 people than a nuke war scenario.

Speed: I’m decent on speed, but don’t stress, I will clear or slow you if I can’t keep up. While I don’t mind if you go fast, don’t be a jerk to the other team, slow down at least a bit. Also, don’t abuse clears. Use them when needed and I’ll do my best to protect both teams. For example, if one team is all speed and the other is a fair bit slower, y’all should try and meet in the middle so we can have a good debate.

DA’s/Plans/AD’s: Keep them organized and well explained and I’ll be happy. I don’t have a huge preference for the style; I’m just as likely to vote on a kritical advantage and I am to vote on a heg disad. My one qualm is, if you’re reading politics, make sure the link is clear and the specific scenario is explained well in your first speech. I dislike when I don’t know who the lynchpin of the politics scenario is until the member speech and dislike when the reason X politician will dislike something is “just cuz”.

K’s: I like K’s but prefer them to be well explained. Don’t just throw out a name, explain the line of analysis. For K aff’s I prefer if you either are topical or just reject the topic; no point trying to shoehorn arguments about why you’re kinda upholding the res if you aren’t. For a neg K, make sure the links are solid and unique to whatever the aff team reads. Don’t just say, you use the USFG and so bleh!-give reasons that their plan is uniquely problematic.

Theory/Fw: Condo is bad, that’s just the truth. I like theory and Framework, but I don’t like pointless theory. So if you read a theory on no neg fiat, it won’t have much weight for me. However, if the theory position seems like it does have some bearing in the debate, I’m willing to weigh it how y’all debate it. Framework can be a good way to answer the K and does not always have to be prison guarding. I prefer if the framework shell you read has some weighing comparison to the K framework.

Speaker points: Simple rules, I will try to be very gracious in my speaker points, but if you are rude or mean to the other team or your partner, I won’t hesitate to give you 11 speaker points. A little bit of sas is fine and all, but the animosity in debate rounds usually gets out of hand and devolves into pettiness. Debate should be enjoyable, we’re all smart people and can win arguments without being buttheads about it. I also love puns, so if you make a pun, you almost guarantee yourself 30 speaker points (and no, being a jerk, then making puns does not make your speaker points better).

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I debated four years in high school and four additional years in college (NPDA). I have spent the last five years coaching debate and judging nearly every other weekend.

Policy/LD - I have significant experience judging both events and am comfortable with all speeds, strategies and arguments.

Parli - teams should debate the resolution unless there are significant problems with it. I believe parli should primarily be a limited prep event, I do not often vote for canned cases that teams just try to apply to every resolution. I am comfortable with policy, value & fact debates and believe that as long as they provide group and stay topical, the aff gets to set the parameters for the round. Speed is not a problem as long as you are communicating. K's are welcome on the Neg and I treat them as any other argument. But every K (no matter how much you like it) does not fit in every round.

For all debate formats- Run whatever you want, but for the love of all that's good and right, please, please respond to what your opponent runs, explain your clash analysis, and give me a weighing mechanism.

AND...

LD- Not only should V/VC be defined, I'd like to know your rationale why they are superior over other V/VC you could have chosen. ALSO, have clarity on how the VC gets you to the V. And of course, contrast how your V is superior. In the event your opponent has the same V, and/or tries to claim your advantages through his/her V, clarity of comparison analysis, and reinforcement, are pretty darn important. All too often I'm seeing debaters essentially referring to an opponents position, as if that somehow provides clash. I need analysis of opponents arguments to give me a reason to flow to your side.

CX- I like on-case arguments, T is fine. Not huge fan of Theory when all you know is how to read the canned script of your Theory argument w/o understanding or being able to explain your own argument, same goes for K.

PF/Parli- Comparative Impacts! Logical pace w/o spread- breathe and just explain ideas and clash.

There was a time in which I had a four word paradigm, but then things happened and now it comes with a disclaimer:

If you are racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or anything of the sort you will lose my ballot on the spot. That being said - Don't kill each other.

I competed through high school and at Whitman College in debate and IEs. I coached debate and IEs at the University of Oregon as a graduate teaching fellow. Quality arguments with solid reasoning work well! Marshal evidence to support your conclusions, please explain why issues are important. Be skeptical, be courteous, have fun.

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.

tbd

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.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

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.

I did 4 years of LD and Parli in high school and then competed for the University of Oregon in Parli and Policy for 4 years.

I've been coaching high school debate for 3 years in Oregon and have had a high amount of rounds lately.

Comparative analysis is important to me. Weighing your arguments (probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc) against your opponents will get you far in rebuttals. Please help me write my ballot for me.

Critical debate is great but one of the reasons communication and lay judges seem to hate it is when teams refuse to explain the thesis of their position. A brief explanation of your position goes a long way and should make critical debate better for everyone involved. And ideally it will make critical debate easier to embrace among the rest of the community. So give an short overview or underview, it's easy. I promise

Going for theory is cool. Badly going for theory is not. So if that's the position you want, go for it. For the whole rebuttal. Seriously. Unless it is completely unanswered, It's very hard for me to justify voting on a theory position if you spend 30 seconds talking about it in the rebuttal and then try to go for everything else too.

Other than that, have fun. Don't be mean. Debate is pretty neat

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

Tl;dr Please tell me where to vote and do the impact calculus necessary for me to not have to intervene. GO FOR OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS!! Run what you want and I will do my best to evaluate your arguments through the paradigm that you wish for me to adopt. The only caveat is that I won’t vote for teams that go for racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic etc. arguments or perpetuate oppression in round against their opponents.

I did national circuit LD in high school and parli in college. I’m in my fourth year of college debate at Lewis and Clark College. Basically, I’m down to hear most arguments. I’ve spent majority of my time as a debater in college running Kritiks and K Affs but most of my time in HS reading really small topical affs, disads and counterplans. Theory, Framework, “projects”, poetry etc. are all fine in front of me and I will evaluate them how you tell me too. The only thing that I have already decided before the round is that the individuals within the debate space should not be excluded by judges or opponents because of the oppressive structures that permeate this space. I don't think debaters have to be overly and excessively kind to one another because who is required to do that is also based on oppressive structures just don't be unnecessarily rude. A great example of this is that if both teams/debaters dont spread then just have a debate at regular speed, or if an opponent asks you to clear or slow so they can engage with the arguments please do. Basically don't be an asshole.

Few extra things to keep in mind

1. I really am not a fan of frivolous theory but I will evaluate it if you go for that strat, just don't expect high speaks from me if thats the case.

2. Repeat your advocacies, interpretations and perm texts twice at not top speed. Or just give me a copy if you want to do that. Those are things that the exact wording is crucial for me to evaluate other arguments.

3. I will listen to independent voters, especially if the other team/opponents forward violence in the round.

4. I’m not going to fill in the blanks for you just because I ran and preferred reading the K in college—if anything, it might mean that I hold ya’ll to a higher standard.

5. Don't assume pronouns onto your judges/opponents, either ask or just call the other team/debater aff or neg.

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.

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've been an assistant coach at Ferris High School for four years now. I've coached and judged for Ferris at the local, state, and national level.

Intro:

Tech over truth. Speed is great, I've never had to clear anyone. I don't want to intervene so please do enough work to justify a vote for you (see below, this isn't a problem in most high level debates but if there is heavy framework argumentation in the debate it will be like a breath of fresh air for me). I've voted on Policy, Theory and Kritikal arguments in the past. I like CX debate. I judge because I enjoy the game. Flashing isn't prep but please don't spend too long doing it, a timer should be running for as much time as possible during a debate to preserve fairness and for the good of the tournament schedule. I try to be as attentive as possible so if you have any questions or concerns please let me know before the round starts.

Paradigm proper:

I know that the paradigm so far has been pretty non-specific and not really that helpful but I try to be as much as a blank slate as possible. When it comes to my actual biases, I'm not overly fond of generic procedurals or any arguments that could be described as gimmicky by someone reasonably acquainted with CX. That doesn't mean I won't vote on a procedural but I would probably be more sympathetic towards arguments made against a procedural so long as there isn't a blatant warrant for the procedural to be read.

I'm not particularly tied to any philosophy when it comes to how I should make my decision or what the ballot signifies. Disturbingly often, I'm frustrated by the lack of framework arguments made in rounds and the general lack of instruction about my role is, what my ballot signifies, and what I should be doing when I make my decision. In those sorts of rounds, I'm usually left to make a decision about what I should value most in the debate which is uncomfortable and leaves room for "judging errors" if the framework I was presumed to have assumed but wasn't told to take wasn't taken. I understand that my paradigm should describe the framework that I bring to a round before any arguments have been made, but I am generally apathetic towards most arguments when presented in the abstract. It isn't my job to come to the debate with a well built schema of what should and shouldn't be valued (that is what impact calc and framework arguments are for). In the absence of framework my decision is based off of what arguments I think would be most easily defended in an rfd.

In the unfortunate absence of any framing:

In the absence of any framing to go off of, I suppose I am usually most swayed by the biggest impacts in the round, as most judges are. Those impacts most usually come from policy arguments but can also stem from kritikal arguments as well. I think that a lot of time in rounds is wasted on the link debate, at least in my debate community, which leads to frankly boring debates with excessive defense. I don't vote on defense, there is no reason to (not linking to the negative is not a reason to vote affirmative, it's at best neutral). I like offense heavy debates with well developed off case positions from the negative and well made affirmatives.

Round operation:

My flow is really dense. I write down as much as I am physically able to in every speech. I think that email chains are nice and I appreciate being sent cases. I keep time and will stop speeches that go over time with some leniency. I still encourage everyone to keep track of time within the debate to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can address me as judge, I don't like being referred to directly in a debate round because it breaks my emersion and is at best a waste of time to try to get my attention/ add emphasis to a point when I am already writing down what you are saying. Outside of the round Kyle is fine.

Preparing for a round where I am judge:

Do not fret over anything I said in the sections above. The biggest concern of mine that I bring to a round before anything has been said is the tournament schedule. Please arrive on time. When considering what to run in front of me please consider what would be the most strategic answers to your opponents case. Be polite and respectful to all parties involved. I want to have a pleasant time.

But most importantly of all,

Follow Your Heart.

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.

Jean Ward Update, 17 January 2019:

Nothing new - just note that everything below applies equally (to the extent that it applies at all) to policy as well.

Parli TOC Update, 19 March 2018:

Hi! I do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

The rather long paradigm below is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to parli as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask!

I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. Please be respectful, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please number and organize your arguments. I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me, and you may go as fast as you like.

12. Call the point of order. I'll likely know if something is new, but I'm averse to making that judgement alone.

---

Critical/Preclusive Notes

If I am judging you and the building is far away/you, for whatever reason, don't have enough time to read this, then just ask me before the round and I'll summarize it for you.

If asking me specific questions before the round would be more time efficient, comfortable, or helpful for you, then I’ll gladly do that as well/instead. If there’s something you need to know about my judging that is critical to how you wish to engage in the debate, in whatever way, then I will be as honest and forthcoming with that information as possible, and I hope that you will be comfortable with asking me any necessary questions.

The below paradigm only discusses LD, because that’s the event that I did most in high school and prefer to judge. However, anything within it that isn’t LD-specific applies to other events as well.

---

About Me – Geographical and Competitive History

I debated for four years at Sprague High School (class of 2016) in Salem, Oregon. I began with Parli and Public Forum, but then switched to LD and debated both traditionally and on the national circuit for roughly 3 years from then on. I qualified to NSDA Nationals 3 times in LD, and earned 2nd Place in Extemporaneous Debate there my sophomore year, and 15th place in LD there my junior year. My senior year, I qualified to the TOC in LD and went 4-3.

I now do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

---

About Me – Argumentative History

As I said, I debated both progressively and traditionally, so I’m familiar and comfortable with either style, or something entirely outside the traditional definitions of either.

I would hope that the types of arguments I have read/now read don’t have any influence on the way you wish to debate, or the ways that I am predisposed to adjudicate rounds, but for transparency’s sake, I’ll list them here.

I preferred to debate fast and technically. In LD I preferred thick philosophical frameworks, strict interpretations of those frameworks throughout the round, as well as my fair share of tricks. I didn’t really have a “pocket K” in high school, but I enjoyed reading Jungian Psychoanalysis, the Hierarchal Complexity Kritik that many have read in LD recently (perhaps best called “Oppression Weighing Bad”), Spivak, Neoliberalism, and some others. If you would like to see what I read at TOC my senior year to get a better idea of what I was like, feel free to look at my 2016 Circuitdebater page.

In College Parli I’ve branched out. I almost never cared much for LARPing (roleplaying as the government and loosely using a utilitarian/consequentialist calculus) in high school, but now I do. I’ve grown to really enjoy reading T/Theory, and I enjoyed debating the Elections DA until the Uniqueness came to a sad and surprising end recently. As for Ks, I’ve read Rancière, Welsh, Agamben, Nietzsche, and Virilio.

---

My Broad Paradigm

Because I think that Phil/FW debate is dying in LD, I’ll boost both sides’ speaks to reward engaging in an in-depth framework debate. An example would be Emotivism vs. Deontology.

I want to leave as much to you and the other debater as possible. I do not want to be selfish and try to impose my conceptions of debate on you. I'm judging because I like watching debate, not because I like only a certain kind of debate. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should. Whether that's LARP, tricks, theory, performance, Ks, something brand new, something everyone else does, whatever it is, that's cool.

I really want to be a low anxiety judge—I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

---

Defaults

The presence of nearly any argument in the round that has bearing on a paradigmatic issue means that I will abandon my search for an appropriate default and use that argument to frame my evaluation of offense. (I say “nearly any” because it’s a question of whether such an argument has bearing on that paradigm. “Util Good” may be a reason to prefer comparative worlds, but the fact that the sky is blue likely doesn’t imply truth testing, for example. My tolerance for my own intervention is so low, however, that I would like a response to such supposedly-frivolous arguments nonetheless.)

I don’t really have a set of things that I could call defaults. What I would be inclined to default to is context sensitive and depends on what exactly happens in the round. If both debaters assume/agree to Util, but don’t justify a comparative worlds paradigm, (over truth testing, offense-defense, best justification, etc.) of course I’ll default to comparative worlds. I prefer that things like that are justified though, particularly if there is a conflict and it matters, such as the common case of one debater truth testing and one comparing worlds.

Please justify the paradigm for evaluating theory, such as competing interpretations or reasonability. Reasonability scares me a bit because I don’t like the idea of me “gut checking” things, so if you win that reasonability is the best theory paradigm, then please clarify it further. Establishing a ‘brightline’ for reasonability would help everyone understand, engage, and evaluate your arguments on theory that depend on it.

If I had to default between competing interps and reasonability, I would choose the way that has the least direct causal impact on my evaluation of the round. This method of defaulting is one that I will attempt to use on other paradigmatic issues as well. Essentially, if someone seems to be winning theory for the most part, and competing interpretations and reasonability aren’t debated at all, then I’ll default to whichever prevents me from having to undermine and circumvent that debater’s winning of theory. If that’s too difficult for me to do, then I’ll default to competing interps and weigh offense and defense between either explicit or implicit interps on the theory debate.

---

Conduct

If I am on a panel, I will not talk to other judges unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and critical to the round/tournament/somebody’s wellbeing. If not, I feel that judges talking to each other during a debate round, especially a high-stakes outround, is distracting and disrespectful to some debaters, and I want people to be able to focus.

If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

---

Arguments in General

In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds.

Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as “racism good,” and the like.

Other than that, I don’t have a preference for some arguments over others. I don’t want to be dogmatic, and attempting to appeal to my intuitions/background as a debater isn’t persuasive to me.

I think that what counts as ‘offense’ or an ‘argument’ varies greatly, and that arguments come in many forms through a variety of different avenues and mediums.

For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

---

Speaking

As someone who always has a very dry mouth/has a hard time swallowing/is frequently sick, I’m not a stickler for clarity. I don’t listen to card texts very carefully in constructives because, if my job is to listen to and clearly understand the card text, then tags are redundant. I’ll call for cards if asked, but I’ll go by tags/analytics/extensions if not regardless, because these are the actual arguments made by debaters.

If there is something that will impact your ability to present your arguments, let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. I would hate to put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you feel it is necessary, I can flow your speech off of a flash/email of your speech doc. Otherwise, I only ask that you try your absolute best to be slow and clear on tags and analytics.

Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

If you need to pause your time to take a drink of water or something like that, that’s totally cool. It’ll help your clarity and comfort so I think that it’s conducive to everything. Just please don’t use this as a way to steal prep; I trust that you won’t. I don’t consider this to be allowing prep during a speech, because every time I take a drink of something I’m thinking “don’t spill don’t spill don’t spill” in my head anyway.

Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

I won’t penalize speaks for speaking issues.I decide them based on a variety of factors. They’re inevitably arbitrary, but this eliminates at least one fairly arbitrary factor from the mix, and any penalization (whether deserved or not, unfortunately) for speaking comes in the form of me missing arguments anyway. I see no reason to add to that by penalizing speaks as well.

I think that I am, and I do strive to be, more generous on speaks than other judges. That is my method of approaching how arbitrary they are. I haven't judged a lot, so I'm not sure what my average will be.

---

Card Calling

I will call cards for the purpose of evaluating the round only if and when I’m asked to. I think it’d be intervention to do so otherwise. Just saying, “Broth, their evidence is terrible on this question,” isn’t sufficient to warrant me calling for it or ignoring it. I know that you’re pressed for time, so just a simple “their evidence is tagged as this but doesn’t make a causal claim/have a warrant about it,” is sufficient.

I may call for something if I’m curious, but that won’t affect the round. Even if the evidence that I call for in these instances isn’t very good, (by my conception of what that means) I won’t let that effect the way in which I evaluate it because of that. I’ll still treat the tag, or the explicated implications of that card, as being true. An argument about it would have needed to have been made for me to treat the evidence otherwise.

---

Extensions

I would say that I have a low threshold for extensions compared to other judges. If something is conceded, I don’t need you to very thoroughly rehash the warrant, and would rather hear “big picture”/more line by line/implication work instead. This is because that (a) tells me why that thing being true and extended matters, and (b) helps me evaluate the round a lot better.

---

Prep

Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

If you have computer problems, let me know and show me, and you can pause your prep.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters agree that it is.

---

Policy Update, 7 March 2018:

Hi! The rather long paradigm above is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to policy as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask! I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. My pronouns are he/him. Please be respectful of others, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

12. Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

13. I will only call for cards to evaluate the round if asked and given a reason to do so. I may ask out of curiosity or to give better feedback, but, in such cases, what I find will not affect the round.

---

I did LD and parli for four years in high school.

Write my ballot for me. Give me clear voters, use frameworks to evaluate arguments, and/or do impact calculus. Tell me what the most important arguments in the round are and why.

If you have any more questions about my judging philosophy, please ask.

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Hi! I'm Mary. Thanks for reading my paradigm :)

Who are you?

I am an attorney practicing business and employment law in Oregon. (If you are interested in law I'd love to chat!) From 2020-2023 while I went to law school, I was co NFA-LD coach for Lewis & Clark College. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best!

What is the tl;dr?

I will listen to any argument that you make and will weigh it how you tell me to. K's are my favorite and topicality is not (though I am down for the silly stuff!) Please make clear extensions. Don't be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate discriminatory behavior or post-rounding.

Note for High School:

You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!

How do you allocate speaker points?

I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases... SO I usually give high speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted, don't read into it, I have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if you have any questions.

How do you feel about Speed?

I have not kept up with debate ever since starting my career and need you to go somewhere between your mid and top speed. If it's really important PLEASE slow down. If there is a doc, I can keep up better with faster spreading so please share it with me! I'll slow and/or clear you if I need to.

What about the K?

I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.

How do you feel about perms?

Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.

What if I want to read theory/topicality?

If you read theory or topicality, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, and “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”

I prefer proven abuse. I don't think potential abuse has an impact.

I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.

We meets are terminal defense on T.

I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?

Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.

Condo?

Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway.

Anything else?

Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, and have fun ;)

Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at marytalamantez@lclark.edu or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round!

I am not a native English speaker. Please speak clearly and loudly, and not too fast.

I value clean, straight-forward flow of logic.

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

For TOC:

I am a parent judge with some training and experience. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require.

- I expect you to time yourselves and each other. - Refrain from being rude to each other. - Keep your Camera's on at all times. - Keep in mind that communication with me is key to effective argumentation.

For Local NSDA debate:

I am a parent judge with three years experience, please speak clearly with reasonable speed. I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in the round. I like a clear debate with lots of clash and clear summaries that explain how you think I should weigh things and how I should vote. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

I believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and know your case. As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions, I usually give more weight to logical reasoning, which is more persuasive.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. Do not ignore your opponent's case, you need to rebut your opponent's case in addition to making your own case.

I am a flow judge. I vote on the arguments. I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards.

Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions, and overall how you carry yourself in the round.

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.

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.

Background: I teach AP Lang and Comp. I've been an English teacher for 15 years. I have a PhD in Educational Studies - Curriculum Theory. I am comfortable with critical theory and welcome its appropriate/creative use in debate.