I competed in a variety of speech and debate events for three years in high school. I'll evaluate any argument if you have a solid internal link story. If you're capable of spreading, please make sure you discuss this with your opponent and make sure they are able to understand fast talking. If you speak more quickly than conversational speed, please take extra care to enunciate.

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

I have been judging debate two years.

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

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

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

I value respect among debaters.

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

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

Bonus speaker points for puns.

I want a civil debate with clash and clear arguments. I don't like speed if you don't have clear organization and appropriate emphasis.

Hello! I'm a parent judge that's been judging debate for a few years now. I use he/him pronouns. I have experience judging all four main debates in Oregon (Parli, LD, PF, and Policy) and am pretty comfortable with the typical arguments in all of these formats. To what I prefer in round, I think debate is a sport, which means each side needs to engage with the other side. Two teams running unrelated arguments while dropping the cases of the other team is not a debate I want to watch. I want to see cross examination. Furthermore, debaters giving me platitudes in their final speeches such as "the other team COMPLETELY dropped 'x'" is unhelpful--instead, take your time to re-explain the argument that was supposedly dropped. This is much more productive and helps everyone in the room more deeply understand the issues the debate is supposed to examine.

Etiquette is important to me, do not be rude to each other or it will impact your speaks points.

Lastly...I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of spreading. In CX or LD, if you're going to spread, that's your right, but you need to include me on flashing or email chains so I have your case in front of me, and debaters that read taglines and author names at a comprehensible speed will receive higher speaks. Other than that, debate is meant to be a fun activity - so enjoy yourself! Good luck, everyone.

Experience: Competed: 2012-2016 and Coached 2017-Present

I will judge based on argumentation, logic, and the reality of the situation.

I prefer no off-time road-maps, you have a speech limit keep it within that and the grace period, please.

PLEASE NO SPREADING, if I can't understand you it will be difficult for you to win the ballot.

Don't be rude.

Stay organized if you are bouncing all over the place it will disorganize my flow and it will be hard to ensure you get the W.

Stay on topic and stay within the parameters of the resolutions, don't pull anything too crazy that completely changes the wording or the intentions of the resolution.

Use short taglines for your contentions if you can. I don't want to spend half your speech trying to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be, make it clear right from the beginning.

Don't talk down to me, your partner, or your opponent(s). I will not tolerate this and will result in a lower score.

Make sure you have your cards ready because if I don't believe that you're presenting truthful/faithful evidence I will double-check them and if you don't have them it may not work out in your favor.

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

I am a congress and parli debater, so I like absurdity and can be convinced of anything, but I MUST BE CONVINCED. If you steal ground I'll judge you harshly, if you have no links/impacts I'll also judge you harshly. Be nice, ask questions. Be civil. NO GENOCIDE. NO NUKE HOLOCAUST.

oscars

Clarity. Position. Respect. The CPR of my paradigm.

Please recognize that I appreciate quality over quantity.

Clarity of your words: please speak at a reasonable volume and enunciate.

Position: your emotional position (speech) or values/weighing mechs. (debate) help create your performance and are critiqued.

Respect: yourself, your opposition, your judges and you potential audience

Specifics paradigms for events welcome upon request.

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.

I currently debate for the University of Oregon (NPDA) and coach for Thurston HS in Eugene.

The only important part of this document is this: anything is fine, speed is fine (I will clear you if I cannot understand you; if your opponents clear you then you should slow down and/or speak more clearly). I believe it's my job to adapt to you, not your job to adapt to me. I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible, so I want to listen to anything you want to read. I would hate to learn that any debater feels they have to adapt to me, or cannot read a certain position in front of me, or should debate in a particular style to win my ballot.

I don't think you need to know anything more to successfully debate in front of me. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that I don't have opinions, and it's the norm in this activity for judges to disclose those opinions, so here are some of mine.

Disclaimer: the following comments primarily concern the 'techy' elements of debate, but I don't have a preference on 'techy' vs 'lay' debate- in front of me, please debate however you feel comfortable debating. If these are all jargon terms you've never heard before or if you're more comfortable doing 'lay'-style debate then that is fine! If you are a 'techy' debater I won't intervene for you just because you have more tech- and if you're a 'lay' debater I won't intervene for you because you have less tech, either. Engage with each other regardless of the vocab/jargon being used. Remember that, at the end of the day, debate is debate, no matter how it's dressed up or down. (This disclaimer is specifically for parli debate, but likely applicable to other formats as well. It is simply a re-articulation of the overarching theme of this paradigm, which is that the round belongs to you and your opponents, not to me.)

Theory/T:

Theory/T is a lot of fun! Absent an articulated weighing mechanism, I default to competing interpretations, but please feel free to read reasonability. (If you read reasonability, it will be in your best interest to additionally tell me how I should evaluate the theory shell through the lens of reasonability.) It will be easiest for me to vote for your theory position if it has a clear structure (interp, violation, standards, voters). However, I can still be persuaded to vote for a theory position that lacks clear structure if it goes unanswered. The only theory position I have a particularly high threshold on is RVIs. I just don't think RVIs are good for debate and unless you were to really, really spend some time convincing me otherwise, I can't see myself voting on an RVI.

My inclinations (irrelevant to you, since you should feel free to read whatever you want, but transparency is good): Conditionality and pics are good, the affirmative should be topical, spec is silly, proven abuse is not necessary.

A final note on nontopical affs- I am more than happy to hear a nontopical aff. The most compelling nontopical affs provide clear justification for why they are not defending the topic- simply blipping out 'we have to interrogate [something] before we talk about the topic' does not constitute a particularly strong arg. I will not intervene against a nontopical aff solely on the basis that they do not defend the topic.

Critiques:

The lit bases I'm most familiar with include: Agamben/biopower, Marx, security. Reading something outside of these is completely fine, and I want to caution you that if you read a critique that's heavy on taglines and light on arguments, I won't fill in the warrants/reasoning for you even if I know what they are/should be. Read anything you like- I think critiques, when run well, are a good tool and can be very interesting.

Disads:

What a fun time disads are. I know that in debate nuclear war has become kind of a meme, but I think that well-argued internal links leading to a war impact are actually incredibly interesting. What kinds of global power shifts lead to conflict? What kinds of conflicts lead to war? In what circumstances does "conventional" war lead to nuclear war? etc. These are all cool and interesting questions that I invite debaters to consider.

Misc- likely more relevant to you than any of the above:

Please read any interps/alts/plans/counterplan texts/ROBs/etc twice, or slow down when reading them if reading them only once- basically if there is something that I need the exact wording of, please give me the time to get it down as close to verbatim as possible. I always appreciate a written copy of any texts (and if you give me a written copy you don't need to slow down or read it twice for my sake, although please be mindful of what your opponents' needs may be).

I won't call for cards unless you ask me to. If you ask me to call for a card, then you are asking me to interpret a card, something I believe is interventionist- but if the meaning of a card is contested and you make a compelling argument that asks me to read & parse a card myself then I will.

A note on speaks- I am less interested in how 'well' you speak, and more interested in how strategically effective your speech was, although of course these two are not wholly disjoint. I will dock you up to 1 speaker point if you egregiously [that is, consistently and obviously] speak over your opponents during CX. (This has only happened once; I understand that talking over each other happens naturally at times and am not looking for reasons to dock your speaks.)

Please write my ballot for me. At the end of the round, I look for weighing mechanisms and impact calculus from debaters, and if that is not clearly present, I ask myself: how can I vote to minimize my own intervention? I want you to explain the debate to me: explain all the moving pieces, explain how different arguments interact, explain what the significance of each position is. That is- do some comparative analysis.

If you're still reading, a closing thought: I love debate, and I know that you are only here because you love (or at least like) it too. I promise I will do my best to respect all the work you have put in to get here. Please feel free to ask me any more questions via email (FirstnameLastname at gmail dot com) or before the round. I am always happy (delighted) to discuss any round I judge or observe.

Imagine you are speaking to/debating in front of your grandmother. Slow down. Logic persuades me, not jargon. No ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

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.

She/her. I did LD for three years in Oregon and competed on Oregon's NPDA team for three years.

Speed is fine (if your opponent asks you to slow down, slow down). Ks/K affs are fine, but so is FW. T/Theory are fine. CPs/DAs are also fine.

I generally don't care what you run so long as it doesn't disrespect other debaters/individuals/groups.

Please signpost etc. so I can flow straight down or at least know which page I should be on.

Feel free to ask me any questions!

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

I did Parli for two years in high school, as well as LD for one year and PoFo periodically. I do NPDA Parli at UO now.

I judge based on the flow so I'll factor organization into speaker points. I want to see clash. Speed is fine. Don't expect me to extend your arguments for you. Don't be racist, don't be rude. Hold each other accountable on timing, I'm going to be focused on flowing. Feel free to ask more questions! :)

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

My Speech and Debate experience includes competing in Individual Events and CEDA debate as an undergraduate student at the Universiry of Oregon (1988-1992) coaching Debate at Willamette University while I was in Law School (1002-1995), and judging High School and College Speech & Debate as a parent of debaters at McMinnville High and University of Oregon.

I have been a trial lawyer for 30 years. I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective - that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.

Be smart and speak well.

New to judging. I have done two tournaments, I have a difficult time following extremely fast speech, I like debaters to be respectful of each other.

Paradigms:

I am a debate parent who is in their seventh year of judging. I appreciate respect in a round and will dock speaker points if you are being openly rude to your opponents or to me. I try to flow everything in the round, including cx. Speed is okay, as long as you enunciate. I value organization and strategy in debate, as well as the ability to think on your feet and adjust your case on the fly. Finally, your contentions must be evidence-based: don't make arguments that you can't back up.

2020 Update: I am no longer actively involved in the activity, other than judging a few tournaments a year, so my threshold for speed is going to be lower than it has in the past as a result of being rusty at flowing. If you are particularly fast, I would recommend starting at about 75% speed.

Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School.

Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything, however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack .

Longer (probably unnecessary) version

General Overveiw:

My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.

Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?

More specific stuff:

Theory/ T : I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given that I find myself voting on this a lot.

Framework : Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political reason.

K affs : I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report” project.

Ks : I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in the block.

CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy

Please don't refer to me as Judge during a debate, my name is Ben. Also if you call me Ben I'll know you at least looked at my wiki and you'll get extra points.

General things:

- I did 4 years of policy at Dallas Jesuit.

- My email: bmille18@uoregon.edu

- Cross-x is open

- Flashing is not prep

- If it is not said in the debate then it is not in the debate.

- Have fun but don't be rude.

- Clarity and Clash are key, I can't evaluate an argument if I don't understand it and how it interacts with anything else. I'm pretty emotive during debates, so if you are paying attention to my facial expression (as you probably should be) you will be able to tell if I don't understand something or am not really persuaded by what you are saying.

- Evidence quality matters. I won't read every card after the debate but on particularly important issues I'll look over cards. Call out terrible pieces of evidence. I will only evaluate the warrants that are highlighted.

- If you read a K aff it should probably be related to the topic not in the direction of the topic.

- Reading 10 off is not a strategy, its a waste of paper and you will lose speaks

Case Arguments:

- take advantage of case arguments.

- smart analytical arguments can be enough take take out contrived advantages

- If you run a framing contention don't expect that'll nullify a DA, apply it to the DA scenario and contextualize it to the debate.

Theory:

- Please slow down. I'm serious. You can't win a theory debate if I didn't catch your offense.

- I am not a fan of the states CP. If you do not have a specific solvency advocate I would NOT read it in front of me. That being said if the aff wants to win that 50 states is bad they have to have reasons how the neg will deal with small squirly affs.

- Probably ok: Condo, PIC's, Multiplank, Multiple Conditional Worlds

- Probably not so ok: Conditions, Process, Multiple Contradictory Worlds, Consult, Floating PIK, Word PIC's

Topicality/Framework:

- These are not my favorite debates to watch. That being said, if you can keep it organized and efficient then go for it.

- Debate T like a DA, make specific links as to why the aff's bad for the topic and be concrete in your impacts, don't just assert that they are bad for debate, explain why.

- To help with the impact debate, I think caselists, TVA's, SSD, and places where they can access their education and stuff are really, really, REALLY helpful. Framework debates shouldn't be the only places where these are things and can go a long way for the neg, and the aff focusing on why that vision of the topic is bad with specific impacts can clench close debates.

- I usually default to competing interpretations instead of reasonability, but I can be persuaded otherwise if you are related to the topic.

Disads:

- There can be no risk of a DA

- Turns case analysis should be apart of your speeches.

Counterplans:

- Should have solvency advocates.

- Impacting solvency deficits out is important and you should explain why it matters.

- CP's with internal net benefits that aren't DA's to the aff mean I give the aff more leeway on otherwise objectionable perms.

Kritiks:

- Framework on the Kritik is usually messy so efficient and comparative statements will be rewarded. I usually don't buy arguments the the aff shouldn't get to weigh their impacts that being said I think that winning the impact framing debate, or what impact should be prioritized is your best way to get ahead on that issue.

- Call out self serving roll of the ballots, they're unfair and unpredictable.

- Clear link narratives and internal link/alt explanations are key. You should be able to explain how the alternative resolves the links and how it solves the case. Make specific references to things that the aff does that are reflective to what your link evidence is criticizing.

- I love watching K debates but if I don't understand what the argument is and the depth of your analysis is limited to the tag lines of your evidence you probably won't win the debate.

Please don't refer to me as Judge during a debate, my name is Ben. Also if you call me Ben I'll know you at least looked at my wiki and you'll get extra points.

General things:

- I did 4 years of policy at Dallas Jesuit.

- My email: bmille18@uoregon.edu

- Cross-x is open

- Flashing is not prep

- If it is not said in the debate then it is not in the debate.

- Have fun but don't be rude.

- Clarity and Clash are key, I can't evaluate an argument if I don't understand it and how it interacts with anything else. I'm pretty emotive during debates, so if you are paying attention to my facial expression (as you probably should be) you will be able to tell if I don't understand something or am not really persuaded by what you are saying.

- Evidence quality matters. I won't read every card after the debate but on particularly important issues I'll look over cards. Call out terrible pieces of evidence. I will only evaluate the warrants that are highlighted.

- If you read a K aff it should probably be related to the topic not in the direction of the topic.

- Reading 10 off is not a strategy, its a waste of paper and you will lose speaks

Case Arguments:

- take advantage of case arguments.

- smart analytical arguments can be enough take take out contrived advantages

- If you run a framing contention don't expect that'll nullify a DA, apply it to the DA scenario and contextualize it to the debate.

Theory:

- Please slow down. I'm serious. You can't win a theory debate if I didn't catch your offense.

- I am not a fan of the states CP. If you do not have a specific solvency advocate I would NOT read it in front of me. That being said if the aff wants to win that 50 states is bad they have to have reasons how the neg will deal with small squirly affs.

- Probably ok: Condo, PIC's, Multiplank, Multiple Conditional Worlds

- Probably not so ok: Conditions, Process, Multiple Contradictory Worlds, Consult, Floating PIK, Word PIC's

Topicality/Framework:

- These are not my favorite debates to watch. That being said, if you can keep it organized and efficient then go for it.

- Debate T like a DA, make specific links as to why the aff's bad for the topic and be concrete in your impacts, don't just assert that they are bad for debate, explain why.

- To help with the impact debate, I think caselists, TVA's, SSD, and places where they can access their education and stuff are really, really, REALLY helpful. Framework debates shouldn't be the only places where these are things and can go a long way for the neg, and the aff focusing on why that vision of the topic is bad with specific impacts can clench close debates.

- I usually default to competing interpretations instead of reasonability, but I can be persuaded otherwise if you are related to the topic.

Disads:

- There can be no risk of a DA

- Turns case analysis should be apart of your speeches.

Counterplans:

- Should have solvency advocates.

- Impacting solvency deficits out is important and you should explain why it matters.

- CP's with internal net benefits that aren't DA's to the aff mean I give the aff more leeway on otherwise objectionable perms.

Kritiks:

- Framework on the Kritik is usually messy so efficient and comparative statements will be rewarded. I usually don't buy arguments the the aff shouldn't get to weigh their impacts that being said I think that winning the impact framing debate, or what impact should be prioritized is your best way to get ahead on that issue.

- Call out self serving roll of the ballots, they're unfair and unpredictable.

- Clear link narratives and internal link/alt explanations are key. You should be able to explain how the alternative resolves the links and how it solves the case. Make specific references to things that the aff does that are reflective to what your link evidence is criticizing.

- I love watching K debates but if I don't understand what the argument is and the depth of your analysis is limited to the tag lines of your evidence you probably won't win the debate.

In debate rounds I expect:

Organization

Sign-posting

'Clash' as needed

Professional Behavior

In debate rounds I have difficulty with:

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

In Individual Event rounds I expect:

To hear a 'well polished' speech.

Not interested in definition debates. Impacts are important. 'Tunnel vision' on specifics is unproductive. Speed debating and snark not welcome.

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.

In no particular order, with exception to #0, which overrides all paradigms and pretense.

0.) If you insult, berate, or otherwise create a hostile atmosphere for the other team, do not expect to win the round. Expect to be reported to the tournament administrator and your coach.

1.) Debate your opponent.

2.) Good ideas are favored over good presentation in debate.

3.) In speech, I'm judging your presentation and likely weighing the difficulty and/or memorability of your piece with everyone else in the round.

4.) If you talk a mile a minute, I'm going to score you lower. It could cost you the round. It's not good speech giving. It's not good debate.

5.) Do not spread your contentions.

Background: I competed in policy, NPDA parli, and NFA LD from 2011-2016. I've read and coached every genre and style of argument so have the debate you want to have. I enjoy technical and nuanced debates that showcase clever and well-researched strategies with rebuttals that construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another. Absent impact framing I evaluate probability, then magnitude and then timeframe. In carded formats, add me to the chain - drr.debate@gmail.com.

I won't vote for: racism/sexism/ableism/imperialism/colonialism good; Afropessimism read by non-Black debaters/teams (see Evans 2015 and Dixon, Porter, and Hughes 2019)

A Request for Accessibility: I can handle speed but I am hard of hearing - taper into your top speed and slow down on your taglines, analytics and overviews. I will say "slow" or "clear" two times; after that, I will stop flowing. I'm not afraid to tell you I didn't vote on an argument because I didn't hear it or wasn't able to get it on my flow so you should prioritize clarity over speed.

---"HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT X ARGUMENT?"---

- Affs: I would prefer if you have a stable text advocacy of some kind; despite this preference, I think performance affs are cool and important but you have to tell me how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Case turns are poggers.

- DAs: Uniqueness controls these debates. Tell me how the disads complicate/short circuit the story of the aff, especially during rebuttals. I'm more likely than other critics to vote on terminal link defense - to win the disad, you have to have a link so analysis of "the risk of a link" should show up in your rebuttals.

- CPs: My favorite kinds of CPs are smart PICS and advantage CPs. I prefer hearing one well-warranted CP as opposed to multiple 30 second CPs. All CPs are conditional unless otherwise stated. No opinion on multi-plank CPs or the conditionality of certain planks.

- Ks: You should assume I don't know anything about your thesis, your authors, or your alternative solvency mechanism - that means you must be able to explain things in an easy-to-follow manner within your first speech. If I don't understand what your position is saying or how your alternative functions, I give your opponents a lot of leeway in their responses, including in the rebuttals. I place a great importance on link debates - the negative cannot assume they have a link and the aff cannot just say that permutations are able to resolve residual links, so the negative should point out specific components of the aff when articulating links, and the aff should warrant how perms interact with links.

- Theory: I prioritize proven abuse over potential abuse, but I've certainly voted on "the risk of a violation" before. I'm not sure what reasonability is and default to competing interpretations. Topicality debates become much more winnable for the neg when you tell me what the topical version of the aff would be, and much more winnable for the aff if you tell me why there is no topical aff under the neg's interpretation. Make sure you clarify how precisely the aff is extra T/effects T. An important note: while I enjoy unique arguments, I have a high threshold for so-called "frivolous theory" that move beyond traditional questions of topicality, advocacy status, and specification of "normal means" mechanisms; these debates feel infinitely reductive and not useful in establishing meaningful community norms.

---"ANYTHING I SHOULD KNOW BASED ON MY FORMAT?"---

I certainly don't know anything about the newest/trendiest/slayer arg that's been dominating your event, so don't assume I do.

- Parli: Repeat texts/interps twice (or put them in the chat for online debate) and slower than you read your other args. Make sure to number your tags and subpoint your warrants or they will likely get misplaced.

- NFA LD: I don't have any opinions on disclosure theory except for one: I don't like when disclosure theory is used as an easy out against debaters/programs who are new to the competitive national circuit. If you debate like that in front of me, your speaker points will max out at 26.

- Policy: I hate one word taglines - stop saying just "Extinction" or "Nuclear War". You should not be reading tags, cites, and analytics as fast as you're reading card text. When you start reading a new off position, give it a name please - say "Next off is the K", etc.

- HS LD: I get the utility of 1AR theory, but you're better off reading one well developed interp with contextualized standards than you are 3 different 25 second shells - 25 seconds of blips will not make a very persuasive 2AR even if they're "conceded".

- PF: The evidence sharing norms in this format are atrocious. You should be sending cards you plan to read prior to the start of your speech. I'll be timing prep to limit opportunities to steal prep, pausing only if cards that were read in the prior speech were not sent.

Background: I competed in policy, NPDA parli, and NFA LD from 2011-2016. I've read and coached every genre and style of argument so have the debate you want to have. I enjoy technical and nuanced debates that showcase clever and well-researched strategies with rebuttals that construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another. Absent impact framing I evaluate probability, then magnitude and then timeframe. In carded formats, add me to the chain - drr.debate@gmail.com.

I won't vote for: racism/sexism/ableism/imperialism/colonialism good; Afropessimism read by non-Black debaters/teams (see Evans 2015 and Dixon, Porter, and Hughes 2019)

A Request for Accessibility: I can handle speed but I am hard of hearing - taper into your top speed and slow down on your taglines, analytics and overviews. I will say "slow" or "clear" two times; after that, I will stop flowing. I'm not afraid to tell you I didn't vote on an argument because I didn't hear it or wasn't able to get it on my flow so you should prioritize clarity over speed.

---"HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT X ARGUMENT?"---

- Affs: I would prefer if you have a stable text advocacy of some kind; despite this preference, I think performance affs are cool and important but you have to tell me how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Case turns are poggers.

- DAs: Uniqueness controls these debates. Tell me how the disads complicate/short circuit the story of the aff, especially during rebuttals. I'm more likely than other critics to vote on terminal link defense - to win the disad, you have to have a link so analysis of "the risk of a link" should show up in your rebuttals.

- CPs: My favorite kinds of CPs are smart PICS and advantage CPs. I prefer hearing one well-warranted CP as opposed to multiple 30 second CPs. All CPs are conditional unless otherwise stated. No opinion on multi-plank CPs or the conditionality of certain planks.

- Ks: You should assume I don't know anything about your thesis, your authors, or your alternative solvency mechanism - that means you must be able to explain things in an easy-to-follow manner within your first speech. If I don't understand what your position is saying or how your alternative functions, I give your opponents a lot of leeway in their responses, including in the rebuttals. I place a great importance on link debates - the negative cannot assume they have a link and the aff cannot just say that permutations are able to resolve residual links, so the negative should point out specific components of the aff when articulating links, and the aff should warrant how perms interact with links.

- Theory: I prioritize proven abuse over potential abuse, but I've certainly voted on "the risk of a violation" before. I'm not sure what reasonability is and default to competing interpretations. Topicality debates become much more winnable for the neg when you tell me what the topical version of the aff would be, and much more winnable for the aff if you tell me why there is no topical aff under the neg's interpretation. Make sure you clarify how precisely the aff is extra T/effects T. An important note: while I enjoy unique arguments, I have a high threshold for so-called "frivolous theory" that move beyond traditional questions of topicality, advocacy status, and specification of "normal means" mechanisms; these debates feel infinitely reductive and not useful in establishing meaningful community norms.

---"ANYTHING I SHOULD KNOW BASED ON MY FORMAT?"---

I certainly don't know anything about the newest/trendiest/slayer arg that's been dominating your event, so don't assume I do.

- Parli: Repeat texts/interps twice (or put them in the chat for online debate) and slower than you read your other args. Make sure to number your tags and subpoint your warrants or they will likely get misplaced.

- NFA LD: I don't have any opinions on disclosure theory except for one: I don't like when disclosure theory is used as an easy out against debaters/programs who are new to the competitive national circuit. If you debate like that in front of me, your speaker points will max out at 26.

- Policy: I hate one word taglines - stop saying just "Extinction" or "Nuclear War". You should not be reading tags, cites, and analytics as fast as you're reading card text. When you start reading a new off position, give it a name please - say "Next off is the K", etc.

- HS LD: I get the utility of 1AR theory, but you're better off reading one well developed interp with contextualized standards than you are 3 different 25 second shells - 25 seconds of blips will not make a very persuasive 2AR even if they're "conceded".

- PF: The evidence sharing norms in this format are atrocious. You should be sending cards you plan to read prior to the start of your speech. I'll be timing prep to limit opportunities to steal prep, pausing only if cards that were read in the prior speech were not sent.

Many years ago, I did various forms of parliamentary debate in college, but with no high school debate experience. As such, I vote primarily on who spoke and argued best, without specific attention to current debate terms. I have little debate experience since college, so treat me as if I were a lay judge. This means NO JARGON. While I may know what you’re talking about, I feel that not being able to speak to a lay audience detracts from the educational nature of debate and its applicability in the real world. If you can’t convince a random person off the street, what good is your argumentation?

As an engineer, I appreciate easy to follow organization, but please do not call out and number every single sub point, as this detracts from your understandability to regular audiences.

Again, speak and argue well to get my vote.

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.

3 years of mock trial and some Lincoln Douglas.

1) Be polite.

2) Provide clear links.

3) Signpost for me, I want to know where you're at on the flow at all times.

4) Have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

General Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific for Parli TOC:

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

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

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

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.

I did not participate in speech or debate in high school.

I value organized and logical argumentation. Apply your argument, logic or theory to the facts of the topic.

I value the clear expression of ideas. The intent should be to communicate to your audience, not spray out as many arguments & points as you can. I do not do spread.

I value the targeted rebuttal of your opponents idea's.

I value respectful behavior. If I believe the intent of a question is merely to interrupt or knock your opponent of their stride and not a legitimate question, I will penalize such a question.

I do not want to hear debate about debate. Debate the resolution.

Don't spread, don't run Ks, and be nice to people, in and out of rounds.

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School and am also assistant debate coach for Sam Barlow High School, both in the Portland, OR area. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events. For Sam Barlow, I specifically coach their WSD team.

I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but maybe more k heavy - both on the aff and neg. I judge on the tech and flow of the debate and will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter (I have seen it happen, don't be that person, I will do anything from vote you down and tank your speaks to potentially, depending on the round, report you to tab). Have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be happy hearing a policy aff and a DA / CP / T debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Speed - I am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would, for your sake. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top percentiles of speed, you're probably fine.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're on the link level or the alternative or the perm debate.

Pet Peeves:

1. Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
2. Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
3. Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Open to any type of arguments. Framework is important. No spreading.

I'm a lay judge with several years experience judging all forms of debate and speech events. I've taught college-level rhetoric, composition, and literature. In Debate rounds I'm looking for a solid argument with good supporting examples with clear and full elaboration; in other words, development is preferable to repetition. Make sure you define your terms meaningful and adhere to the actual resolution and don't wander off topic (i.e., if the issue is whether the US should pay its debt to the UN, the debate should specifically focus on that issue and not the UN in general). I love a good CX and (all things being equal) favor teams that discover vulnerabilities in the opponents' arguments and take advantage of them. If you don't have a full grasp of an abstract concept, i.e., "hegemony," "structural violence," "Occam's razor," "rational actor," "soft power," etc. don't bring it into play. Be able and willing to explain yourself and your ideas fully. I am unimpressed by spreading, jargon, or rudeness and regard off-time road maps as redundant. Similarly, telling me the "rules" of debate and claiming something is "unfair" will win you no points. I prefer to be convinced rather than told how to vote.