Background

I have a daughter who competes in speech and debate, so I have been involved as a parent with this activity for three years. I have experience judging in CX, LD, and PF, as well as various speech types. I admire the hard work and dedication conveyed by the students in this activity and want to help nurture your success as a debater, so please take each part of my paradigm into consideration- my feedback will be reflected on how you adjust as a debater to my paradigm.

Paradigm

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge, meaning each debate is a clean slate. I will go into specifics for how I evaluate argumentation in each debate type, but I view the round without preconceived biases or framework for how the debate advances. I expect clean debates; arguments offered are clashed, burdens are met, etc. I prefer quantitative logic heavily over qualitative— philosophy is fine if it is warranted with factual evidence. In conclusion, I will adjust to the course the debate takes as long as it is warranted, clean, and evokes an academic “conversation”.

Preferences

In regards to all debate types, my preference on the following are universally applicable:

Jargon: Please do not use heavy jargon- I’m still relatively new. If you need to use jargon, briefly explain it.

Speed: I do not mind speed as long as I can understand you.

Evidence: Sources are provided per request by a competitor or your judge. I also appreciate signposting.

Cross Examination: Be respectful.

Specific Expectations/Prefs

· Kritiks: I am generally okay with K’s/K-Affs with some unfamiliarity (I do have a PhD in Philosophy, so I will likely understand most general philosophies). so you need to do heavy analysis and thoroughly explain each part of the K with heavy emphasis on the Alt. In return, I prefer negative arguments to either thoroughly deconstruct the K or provide an accessible perm.

· Counterplans: I am relatively unfamiliar with CP’s, but I will consider this argument provided that the CP is thoroughly explained and analyzed.

· Disadvantages: Disadvantages are pivotal to a neg case be it that they provide quantitative evidence and are not entirely theoretical.

· Topicality: Again, I am unfamiliar with the function of this argument, though if it is explained and extended through the entire debate I should not have a problem comprehending it.

· Framework: I heavily weigh FW as a Tabs judge, so please tell me how to evaluate the round. If there is not a FW debate, then I will presumably flow the initial FW through the round.

· Solvency: Considering this is State debate, I expect the affirmative to have a definitive solvency, though if it is implied emphasize statements adhering to solvency so I know to incorporate that into my flow.

· Time: I will hold the official time, though if competitors would like to self-time, that is fine. I do not consider an evidence exchange as prep time, but if flashing takes an excessive amount of time I will tack it on to your prep time.

Overall, I weigh respect over any argument. If I pick up on any disrespect in or out of the round, it will go into my consideration of the round and may go to tabs if I see it fit for further evaluation. Please have fun- for you seniors, this is your last go-around with debate, so make it your best!

Clarity and Warrant

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Paradigm for Congressional Debate:

Clear, logical organization

Fresh and unique arguments and refutations that advance the debate

Poised and confident delivery including appropriate voice volume and speed, eye contact with the judge and audience, and demeanor

Observation of parliamentary rule to keep the debate moving in a positive direction

Please be polite and use good manners while in chamber. Correct pronunciation of unfamiliar words is advantageous.

Presiding Officer:

Keep debate moving by recognizing speakers fairly and consistently. Appropriate use of parliamentary procedure issues.

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

Hi!

My paradigm is as follows:

1. Always be kind and respectful to your opponent(s)

2. Please, if at all possible, don't speak so fast that I am unable to understand you. I prefer quality over quantity.

3. I have no issue with self-timing just as long as it is not a distraction to your opponent.

4. Have fun! I love to see the passion and excitement of which you speak.

I'm a tabs judge. I'm good with spreading, but be careful since this is online and it can potential get confusing. If possible, flash the case so I can flow accurately. In general, I'm pretty easy going in terms of how the debate is run, it's your space please use it how you would like. I enjoy both on and off case args -- really I'm good with anything. I think theory is really fun. Other than that, professionalism is classist so you really can do whatever you want in round but don't be mean to your fellow competitors. Debate should be fun --- let's make sure that it is.

Pronouns: He/Him

Any sort of racism, transphobia, sexism, homophobia, classism, or ableism will not be tolerated in round. These things are instant drops and up to the judges discretion. Accessibility is super important and if discourse isn't accessible, then what good is it?

I have practicing law a civil litigation trial attorney since 2000. I have about participatred in many jury trials and bench trials over the years. Effective debate is part of my daily life. However, debate is not the same as conflict. I expect participants to be respectful and collegial. My paradigm focuses on evaluating whether the participants are actually responding to eachother's arguments or contentions. Simply rattling off prepared comments does not impress me. Engaging in the arguments and respinding to your opponents does. I will not tolerate disrespectful or unprofessional clash. Also, I understand time limitations but reading prepared remarks so quickly that nobody can understand them is not convincing to me. If I can't understand you, it does not matter how good your arguments are. I'm listening for content, not just volume of evidence.

Paradigm for Congress

I have judged Congress about 4 times, but not this year.

I'm looking for quality argumentation--a clear warrant and and impact included in any argument you give.

I'm looking for FRESH ideas, not a repetition of arguments that have already been made in the round.

I'm looking for refutation when another debater offers a counter-argument to your argument.

I AM LOOKING FOR STATESMANSHIP. Statesmen and women are skilled and respected legislators. They are not bullies. They do not have hidden agendas. Their goal is to work for the common good of the people they represent and the nation. This is the kind of behavior I want to see in this mock legislature.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

Background: I have been coaching for nearly 30 years - a combination of coaching at Boise State University for the Talkin' Broncos (15 years) and now 14+ years at the high school level.

Overall Debate Philosophy/Preferences: I believe debate is a game we play with our friends, so please respectfully present your arguments but do so in a way that is positive and reflects well on this activity. I appreciate organization, tell me where your clash is, and impact out your points. Tell me WHY your arguments and points take priority or should be considered above those of your counterparts.

Policy Debate: I am fine with moderate speed. If I can't understand or follow you, I will stop flowing the round. Great debate can be won or loss in cross-examination. Ask pertinent questions, answer directly. I prefer stock issues but am open to most arguments if you can JUSTIFY why it is preferred.

PF/LD Debate: As these debate formats ask you to perform specific duties, it is imperative that you meet that expectation for me to win my ballot. In LD, make sure you link your value and criterion to all your contentions. I must hear impacts - don't leave it to me to do your work. Don't just give me tag lines and evidence and expect me to figure it out. That is your job! In PF, each debater has a very specific role so make sure to fulfill it. Case, Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus are each important and a well-balanced team tends to look better.

Congressional Debate: Be professional, well organized when speaking, ask pertinent questions, and stay engaged throughout the session and you'll move up in chamber rank. Be that representative that takes the other side and challenge your fellow reps. I enjoy clash, respectfully done, and be the consummate debater and colleague.

Summation: I believe that Debate, in any format, is a combination of research, organization, refutation, and being stylistic. For organizations' sake, please road map and sign post, provide a brief summary conclusion that leaves me impressed with your skills as a public speaker, strong researcher, and believing your arguments and impacts.

Be brilliant, be persuasive, be nice. Your fellow debaters, no matter where they are from, are your friends!