UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Background

I did 4 years of PF for Gig Harbor High School (Gig BK), competing on the local and national circuit with relative success. I am currently a student at the University of Washington.

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. Warrant your arguments. PLEASE weigh. Signpost - I need to know where you are. Speed is ok.

Wear what you want. Feel free to enter the room, set up, and flip before I arrive.

Don't be a dick. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

Case/Rebuttal

1. If you are clear, I can flow speed. If you spread, I expect you to be able to provide a speech doc if asked.

2. Please warrant your arguments. Good logical warrants beat bad evidence imo.

3. I will evaluate arguments under any presented framework as long as the framework is established early and well extended. If there are two competing frameworks, please tell me which one I should prefer and why.

4. I consider arguments that are dropped in rebuttal conceded - but you can still outweigh a conceded arg.

5. I think theory and K debate can be hard to do in PF, but I will evaluate theory arguments and kritiks to the best of my ability if you run them :)

Summary/Final Focus

1. WEIGH. PLEASE.

1. If there are ten arguments on the flow but no weighing, it is a lot harder to evaluate than if you only have one argument on the flow but weighed well.

2. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy, do actual comparative analysis and even justify why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.

3. Don’t just weigh impacts - weigh links. Tell me why your link to the impact is stronger than any links your opponents go for, AND tell me why your impact is more significant than theirs.

2. I will only vote on arguments extended in both summary and final focus. However,

1. First summary does not have to extend defense for it to be in the final focus, but should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined. If second rebuttal doesn’t frontline, you can extend defense straight to FF.

2. To extend a turn as offense, even if it was dropped, it must be mentioned in summary.

3. When extending, do not just extend author names and taglines - try to also extend the warrants of your arguments and why your impacts matter.

4. No new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is addressing something new from second summary).

Cross

I generally will pay attention to cross, but if there is something in cross you really want me to evaluate, bring it up in a speech.

Evidence

1. I prefer if you do not paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round.

2. Please read the author's name and date.

3. I will only call for evidence if you tell me to, so if you believe an opponent is misrepresenting a card, tell me to call for it.

4. Evidence exchange should be quick; if you can't find your evidence i'm dropping it.

Speaks

Speaker points are dumb, I'll probably give you a 30. However, points go down if you're unnecessarily rude.

*I will generally disclose who won, and feel free to post round me if you disagree with the decision.*

Email: griffinbird19@gmail.com

Also if you're looking for private coaching or a new team coach hmu, I am open to it if available :)

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

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


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

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

As far as specific arguments go.

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

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

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

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

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

hi im kai! I did 4 years of debate in hs for Kamiak and im currently a senior studying computer science at university of Washington with a specializations in algorithms and ai! my debate background is that i did policy in hs and qualled to the toc and stuff. i also have coached policy, ld, and pufo since graduating.

my pronouns are he/him or they/them‏‏ i really have no preference.

add me to the email chain: daikaile13@gmail.com

NOTE: I have not judged debate for like 2 years, so please talk to me like i know legitimately nothing about the topic

policy paradigm

tldr – read whatever you want, im good with anything. I ran args from queer asian poetics to hard right policy affs so just argue well :)

some tips and things about me:

- more flow oriented and im fine with speed

- i don’t think debaters have to be nice, but please don’t be obnoxiously rude.

- i tend to nod my head to things that i am responding well to or if i’m confused it will probably be visible so looking up from the flow or computer occasionally could help u!

- i dont know much about this topic so pls avoid too jargon-y words!

- also it takes me afew seconds to adjust to spreading sometimes so if you could start your speech just a bit slower and then amp up in like 5 second to full speed that would help me a lot thnx!

‏‏‎ ‎

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎topicality – because i’m not super familiar with the topic if you go for t I would appreciate you slowing down at parts so i can really digest the arguments. in general, im not the perfect judge for t but if you win it you win it

- for aff – the aff doesn’t win reasonability without a counter interpretation, however I think leaning on reasonability is usually the right move

- for neg – a good t debate should (1) have comparative impact calculus on the standards debate and (2) probably have a caselist. I do not think im the best judge to go for contrived t violations infront of because I tend to lean aff in those debates but also if you do impact calc right then it shouldn’t be small bc ur standards have massive implications for the topic.

‏

kritiks – where im most comfortable and have the most experience. but like a lot of k judges, I actually find myself voting against the k because teams tend to just throw out jargon words or find 6 different ways to make a “structural antagonism” link.

- the neg should contextualize the link to the aff, have external impacts for them, and explain why each one turns case and is a reason for competition. the link specificity is what makes k debate persuasive so take advantage of that. that being said, you need to win either an alt that resolves the links or a framework question that resolves your offense while nullifying the aff’s normative mode of politics.

- the aff should probably challenge the alt with both theory and substance, hedge back against self serving framework args, and answer the k contextually with the affirmative (as in don’t let your aff get lost in the muddle of ontology questions, keep it relevant and central to the debate). please just have a coherent strategy like if you are reading a hard right aff, impact turn the k and leverage your aff’s huge impacts. if you are soft left, you might not wanna say heg good but rather go for the perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits. regardless, make it obvious to me that you have thought out the kritik prior to the round and have developed a larger narrative as to why the aff is still a good idea.

- as for literature bases im probably most familiar with antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, deleuze, imperialism/set col, and embodiment args. I am fine with Baudrillard, bataille, and psycho debates, but I’ll probably need you to unpack them a little more in cross-x and make arguments past ~we are insurrection and our performance is transgressive~.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

k affs – your aff should probably talk about the topic and should have a competing model of debate. if you are kritiking debate, i'll prob be more persuaded by framework but also if you win you win. embodiment framing? cool. semiotic insurrection? sure, why not. i myself did identity performance affs so I tend to like that avenue a bit better, but if you wanna do some white pomo stuff, and if you can explain high theory args in a way that is palatable and accessible to my feeble stem major brain then go for it! I will say that framing and impact calc is esp important in k aff v fw debates. the aff needs to explain to me why something like minority participation outweighs procedural fairness or how access controls the internal link to portable skills. the same goes for the neg, explain to me how your model of debate can encompass the aff’s offense or how procedural fairness is the only thing my ballot can solve in round. a lot of times in these debates it gets to the final rebuttals and both sides have just really not articulated why their thing is bigger and why it warrants a ballot which makes everybody in the room unhappy so pls try to do impact calc

- also, the neg should probably answer case, even if they aren’t “predictable” and you “don’t have well researched arguments”/ cards - you need to put ink on case because half the time just analytically breaking down how illogical the k aff’s method is can go a long way. I will say, however, I do think that the strat you go for should be tailored to the aff you’re hitting and it’s perceptually disappointing to watch an amazing k aff only to watch the neg stand up and read the most uninspired neg strat ever.

- i actually see myself voting for framework teams a lot because the aff really drops the ball and they let the debate no longer be about the 1ac but rather be about framework. please keep your aff alive and central in these type of debates - do things like extend the performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc.

- as for neg teams - i lean towards fairness being an internal link HOWEVER i will happily vote for it as an impact if you are winning it. i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. but with that i will say - k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~. innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks

‏‏‎ ‎

disads – I don’t think I really need to explain much for this one but here are some of my thoughts – disad should turn case somehow and links should be contextualized. ptx disads can be really great arguments and I will reward well researched and original takes on the political process of enacting the plan. that being said, I don’t fw riders disads. I do think there can be 0% risk of a disad, esp given than the internal links are already extrapolated lol. case specific disads are always a plus. also, framing rarely is enough by itself to answer the disad bc of turns case args but if you win aff framing with defense/offense on the disad then you are prob in a good place

‏‏‎ ‎

counterplans – aff theory vs counterplans are underused and a necessary check against how abusive cps have become in debate. pics and process cps are probably abusive in truth but its debate so like if you win ur .01% better than the aff then im gonna pick you up no question. aff needs to win offense against the cp AND explain why that outweighs the net benefit.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

‎theory – underutilized in policy and can be really interesting to watch, so here are some of my opinions.

- condo is probably good but anything over 3 is ridiculous

- id rather see you go for substance than theory in a round where you are ahead on both and ill reward your speaks for doing so

- reading a ton of conditional planks that fiat away any solvency deficits is probably bad and I encourage aff teams to beat on this with theory‎

‏‏‎ ‎

case – do it please (esp the k teams out there). good case debate = good speaker points, and affs so often drop warrants in 1nc case answers that you should extend as conceded solvency arguments. and to the k teams, even reading links on case and contextualizing the argument to the specifics of the affs advocacy is enough for me. case turns are easily the sexiest arguments you can make infront of me so please do things like PLEASE read heg bad or china rise good esp when reading a k.

ld paradigm: I'm competent I swear but prefer progressive flavors of ld but I can evaluate traditional ld just fine

Parent of student competitor and very novice judging experience.

I like a cordial debate, and I weigh the content slightly more than the framework, but they're fairly close. Proper analysis matters and every contention should be thoroughly analyzed – not just stated, and then you move on, (a surprising number of competitors do this, so don't just count yourself out like, "that's not me"). Make sure that analysis is backed up by good evidence. I try my best to weigh each round with only the information you give me (table rasa) but you know no judge is truly a blank slate.

Pragmatic over Philosophical.

Debate coach at Sedro Woolley, 3 years.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

Background

he/him

uw'23

add me to the chain if u want @ fageeriomar@gmail.com

Be Kind :)

First and foremost, debate is an activity where at the end of the day, you are debating topics that influence real living people so understanding the weight of what you're saying is something that should go without saying. This activity is meant to be a safe environment where you can grow as a debater but also be inclusive to those who do this activity with you. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates, offends, or is abusive to their opponent regardless of whether it was to "prove a point". Anyone who does this will drop instantly with very very low speaks ❤️

Each and every one of you has something valuable to contribute and no one should have the opportunity to minimize those contributions :)

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

TLDR:

take risks, have fun, and try your best!

all events //

larp >> th >> k & lit >>

weighing mech

impact calc

cp // remind me what the status of the cp is throughout the round

condo good

very high speaks if you make me laugh

signpost! :)

tricks are fine --> your burden to get it on my flow

theory --> reasonability > competing interps

drop arg > drop debater

preferences:

LD PARADIGM

speed// slow down on tags but be realistic with speed. I am not going to tell you to slow down, you should be able to assume that you need to if I am not flowing what you are saying. Also, online debate means dealing with mics so let's acknowledge that. Also, acknowledge who is in your judge panel. When you have parents, volunteer judges, and people with no experience judging and you decide to default to prog, that is horrible. Adjust to lay and win that way. This activity should be accessible to all judge ballots not just the ones you think are more experienced.

roadmap// off-times are dope after constructives if you are gonna collapse to any t's , da's, etc. —otherwise no need—. Usually I can navigate fine without em so they wont matter on my ballot but people with them can expect high speaks for organization :P Dont run what you think I want to hear because I dont really care as long as you make it digestible (again online means i need it to be understandable. Run whatever you are most comfortable with.

K// do it if you want but structure is pretty important here (ie. on my end your goal should be to concretely outline for me what is epistemologically / ont. wrong bad/violent/evil/idc about their case or how they are presenting their case / addressing the resolution) I guess this is usually done in peoples link and impact but I think the K's I vote on or find value are the ones that 1. clearly frame the round under their K (ie. what should the ROB be given the impact behind what your opp did that you see as inherently bad) and 2. outline for me the extent to which the ballot is an alt how it addresses some of your impacts there. Also, your tags best be very slow when introducing all of that (link,imp, alt, rob) lol.

TLDR: I don't resonate too much with K's because I feel like most people deviate from the actual abuse they are arguing on but if you do, just be really clear with what I said earlier I guess ( practical args on case will make it easier to sway me nevertheless!)

T// These annoy me sometimes bc they get messy at least where I have seen them. Similar standard as above, give me a comprehensive interp of the resolution, the stand. they violated I guess and in voters why I should care. Especially with everything being online, imma need this to be digestible when you're reading it as well! I usually default to reasonability unless opp offers a c.i in which case I will default to competing interps

another note: rvi's are cool and on t debate, 1ar's that collapse to them will more often than not pick up. i buy that winning a c.i is enough to win the round and rvi's are the only drop the debater arg i will probs ever buy.

tech > truth.

dont deviate entirely from case debate. if you read the tldr, you know i like larp debaters largely because thats what most people can do well and more comprehensively in a way that I can evaluate. Impact calc is still vital and the side that does the best job of winning on case flow will more often than not be the side that picks up a ballot (all of this include exceptions those being obv what I have talked about earlier).

voters!!!

CX

Respect your opponent!! You don't have to pretend to love them but respect everything they have to say :) You can be aggressive but don't be abusive (... they are different!). Concessions in cross should be on top case in the 1NC and 1AR

PF PARADIGM

*first time judging this topic (12/11-12/12)

fw in pf is dope imo. otherwise just weigh and we'll be chillin

I will vote purely off the flow. stop trying to extend deadweight args and just collapse to the ones your winning on and weigh. that tends to be the best strat to get my ballot bc it saves you time and makes the debate a lot less messy on the flow. I rarely call for evidence because defaulting to cards on an rfd is wack but if it ends up being something thats carrying you on the flow prepare for that.

summary // make it clear what arguments still matter in this round, which ones you're winning, and which they're losing. i would much rather see you collapse to the ones your winning here as opposed to spend hella time defending the ones you know you're losing.

ff// spend these few minutes with an overview, why you solve for any weighing mech / fw, and which arguments I need to vote on to make my ballot.

I dont want to hear cards in your ff, at this pt you should be focusing on what links, straight / solv turns, etc you have already made and telling me what you're winning and why those are my cleanest voting issues in the round.

I feel like a lot of the time in PF, teams are really hung up on empirics with like zero internal links--> so have those.

Voters are really important here! (Only args fully extended through ff and summary will be considered)

^this doesnt mean you necessarily need defense on every arg to extend every arg to win a round. I vote on collapsed args a lot!

Give me a standard to vote on. This should be clearly established on top case in your first constructives and ff and tell me why you solve :)

I rarely see prog in PF but surprise me if you want!

CONGRESS PARADIGM

tldr: content 3/4 speaking 1/4 , rehash is dis cos tan, i hold authorships to a higher burden because they dont have an opportunity to refute (authorship cx is the most important cx on my ballot usually for every bill)

solid impact turns in congress are like an automatic top 3 for me

crystalization speeches are dope (overview --> flow --> weigh :))

Jokes are great!! if you make me laugh that makes it more tolerable for me and you will stand out :) Keep in mind we do have to sit there for 3 hours+

**This event is called congressional debate. As often as it appears that people who do get ranked are great speakers, I will weigh content more regardless of how pretty you sound. Clarity is obviously important, but it is more beneficial to have clarity AND a comprehensive case

po's // generally will get ranked top 6 unless you make tons of errors. best po's are the one's that make me as a parli feel as if I could leave the room and never come back and everything would still feel the same. own the room. cross check what rules (nsda , wsfa, etc.) you're using and make sure the statutes actually exist (ie. the "no three aff speeches in a row" is a tradition more than it is actually documented in any rule book).

rehash // will automatically place you in the bottom half of my ranks at best (w/ exception to crystalizing)

If you repeat an argument that was just run in the speech before you, I will flow everything you say under that speaker and assume you did not give that point. The reason congress is rarely seen as the debate is that a lot of competitors try to go the easy route without contributing to the debate. If you do not have a new point, crystalize, tell me the most important args, give me missing links, weigh, and clear up any messiness in the debate. That in my opinion can actually end up being a better speech than most constructive ones.

Unique arguments are preferable but don't give me bad efficacy arguments w/ no int. links. (in other words, I am not gonna believe your card if u dont have a warrant).

evidence //

This is your opportunity to pretend like your source is doper than it actually is. Look up who wrote it and how they came to their conclusion (that adds to your warrant and makes your case more substantive) . I should be able to fact check you with the citation I hear even though I probably will not lol. I don't just want to hear what your evidence is but also why it is important i hear it. If there is an area in your argument that can be quantified, I want to see empirics.

impact calc//

Just mentioning what someone says and reading a card after is not a refutation. If you cant explain why their argument is uniquely bad, that is not a refutation. Reference other senators in the room but also make sure you are giving me material reasons

cx//

WA circuit doesn't do direct cross but I still weigh it in my rankings. Also, tbh it seems like people suddenly lose their hearing when the round starts

ie. "I did not understand/hear your question"

I can tell when someone is trying to avoid the question and that doesn't reflect positively in your ranks. If you do not know the answer to the question, I would much rather see you try to explain why that question is irrelevant or how regardless of the answer your case wins bc ____. Also please don't answer with " I do not see how that is relevant to my speech". You are debating on the bill either in support / against, just because you didn't directly mention it in your speech does not mean you are not capable of answering the question (After-all you only get 3 minutes).

Those who know their cards well in questioning and can respond with comprehensive answers are those who will get ranked high regardless of speeches. The #1 pref is making cx valuable. If your question doesn't move clash forward.. dont ask it :)

Background

I did policy debate throughout high school, but it's been a few years. I also have a limited background in PF and LD. I have limited experience judging. I'm currently an undergrad studying education and gender studies.

Paradigm

Generally, I would fall into the "tabula rasa" category of judges. I will flow and am comfortable voting for cps, disads, Ks, etc as long as you can support your argument and tell me why I should vote on it. However, I will not be convinced by arguments that appeal to logic that upholds systems of oppression (racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, nativism, etc.).

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

I competed in PF, LD and Policy in high school, and have been judging sporadically for the last 19 years. I don't have any particular argument preference and am most looking for thorough warrants and clash through the round. Final speeches should include clear voting issues. Speed is fine. Please use tag lines instead of citations when extending arguments. This is my first time judging this school year, so please don't assume familiarity with the literature.

I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.

I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

For Speech Events:

Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.

Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!

I am lay parent judge. I judged LD last year but still can't handle spreading or progressive arguments. I enjoy good speakers with well-articulated and constructed points. Please be nice when debating.

I have been a coach since 1993. I have coached & judged Cross-X; L-D; and Public Forum. I have also worked with all of the individual events and Congress.

Here is the basic philosophy by which I judge the debate events:

For all debate events - you think about this information a lot, I don't. I'm an educator with over 25 years in schools. I like reasonable arguments and understanding your arguments and evidence.

C-X: I weigh the round based on the evidence given and explained. To simply read a card(s) with an author and expect that I know all about him/her, is not reasonable. You must explain why this is important and why this author has a superior analysis. Also, I won't intervene unless you give me no options. I flow - speed is not a problem. If I stop writing, you may want to slow down a little. Flashing is irritating, so keep it quick and clean. Technology problems are yours and I won't stop the round/prep/speech time if you are having tech problems.

L-D: I am old school. I look for a great value/criterion debate and a reason why your interpretation of the resolution and the evidence you provide is superior to your opponents.

P-F: I just want each team to explain why they have the superior position on the resolution. Be nice to each other, as I will deduct speaker points if you seem aggressive. I will only judge on a framework if and only if both teams agree to the framework. There is no room for rudeness.

Congress: I like to see the debate advanced. I don't want a lot of evidence, just a few pieces explained well. Civility - this is huge. I've found Congress in the 2019-20 season to be rude and unkind. This will play in my speech scores and rankings. You can be passionate, just don't be mean/rude/harsh in your tone. Be clear in your questions.

***Ticky Tacky Stuff***

-No I do not care where you sit whether you are aff or neg. Aff can sit on the right or left... I don't care.

-If you have similar questions, like whether or not I care if you time yourself, take prep time, etc., the answer is I don't. I have been in debate rounds where the 1AC was a freestyle rap and poetry. There are no rules in debate besides time limits.

-Maybe instead of asking everyone in the room individually if they are ready, ask, "is there anybody not ready?"

-Don't start with your speech with "starting....my time.....now..." Or any variation of this. I don't know how this became a thing.

-Read impacts to things: tell me why economic collapse is bad instead of assuming I know.

-If you only have a lay case, which includes a variation of evidence and analytical arguments, do not speed unless you are super clear. I listen for tags/claims, the author, and date. I then wait until I hear another tag, author, date. I don't flow analytical arguments in fast rounds when they are mixed in with cards. I don't think that's even fair UNLESS you file-share/give your aff to the neg because they can't tell when the card author ends and your analytics begin. Ask about this if you don't get it!

***Rant Over***

LD has basically become policy, which is where most of my experience has come from.

Here is my experience, and I'll let you decide what you would like to read, I'm fine with anything you want to do.

High School:
4 years policy
4 years LD (NFL 08, 09)
4 years speech events

Wichita State Univ:
2 years policy

Kansas City Kansas Community College:
1 year policy (NDT 2011, CEDA Octos)
1 year LD (PRP National Chmpnshp)

Univ of Kansas:
1 year policy

John Gunn                                                                                                 Updated: 11/12/17

I was an assistant policy coach for Cornell after debating there as an undergraduate.  I also debated for Saint George’s in high school.

In my own debates, I preferred running semi-topical policy affs and taking a K or PIC in the block.  As far as K authors go, I am most familiar with Nietzsche.

I have run many different kinds of affirmatives and negative strategies.  I will vote for any argument if it is presented well, but I will default to a utilitarian policymaker framework if an alternative framework is not presented.

I think debates should primarily be about the resolution.  Affs that make no attempt to address the resolution will have trouble with T/framework in front of me.  That being said, I can be convinced that your particular aff should be included, and I am down to judge method debates.  Either side will have trouble convincing me that debate is bad.  I tend to think that the state can be an effective mechanism of change.

I am flow-centric.  This means that while I won't vote on an unwarranted rvi that was dropped, I will vote on a warranted rvi that was dropped.  This also means that I will (grudgingly) vote for an argument I disagree with as long as it was debated better than the other side.  I see this as a way to limit judge intervention.  On the flip side, I will not evaluate new arguments in the rebuttals (except the 1NR) unless they are justified with theory.  I can be convinced that some new arguments in the block (or even the 2AC) should also not be evaluated.  It is still helpful for the other team to point out new arguments.  I give the 1AR leeway when answering new K links in the block which do not relate to the original link or the 2AC.

I believe in neg flex.  Conditionality is usually fine and competing interpretations are usually good.  Floating PIKs are usually abusive and Consult CPs are usually not competitive.  Terminal defense can make me vote on presumption, but having offense is way easier.  On the aff, severance perms are usually bad.  Trigger warnings (if applicable) are usually good.

If you are paperless, I will stop prep time when you are done preparing and allow you to save and email/flash calmly.  If possible, have all your evidence in one document.

Experience: 3 years of policy, one year of Congress lol. Four years out.

Speed: I’m fine with speed (rusty so bear with me), but if you don’t slow down for the tags and authors I will most likely have trouble flowing your evidence.

If you're going to be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. please save everyone the pain and just concede the round at the start.

PARADIGM:

Topicality – I have a very high threshold for topicality. Unless there is obvious abuse, I find it difficult to vote neg on T. That being said, if the aff does not handle topicality well, then I have no problem voting neg. I don't really buy RVIs.

Kritiks – Okay with Ks, I've run cap, fem, and orientalism, so I'm relatively familiar with the terminology. Otherwise, you need strong analysis/OVERVIEWS for me to really understand. If you use jargon without defining it, I may not understand what you're arguing.

Framework – Bottom line, I need you to tell me why to accept/reject FW, and how that affects my evaluation of the round. Without framework/without clash on competing frameworks, I default impact calc.

Counterplans – If you’ve got a net benefit and prove competition, I vote for the CP.

Theory – I usually won’t view theory as a reason to vote down a team; I will more likely reject an argument. You have to prove actual abuse (unless it's dropped).

Tl;dr – I don’t like judging debates that are super heavily evidence based. I need good analysis and argumentation in your own words why you should win the debate. USE OVERVIEWS!!! Also I'm rusty so bear with me.

@ Varsity CX (and really every team tbh): I really want to understand all of your super kritikal and advanced arguments, but honestly sometimes I struggle. So if you want me to evaluate your case accurately, you've gotta have some pretty sick overviews by your second constructive or you've probably lost me.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Debate coach at Eastside Prep in WA since 2018

Speed is okay, but I much prefer well-explained arguments and claims that are delivered with eloquence and conviction. Too often, debaters seem to forget that debate involves giving a speech, so use elements like tone and pauses to get your points across. I have a particular distaste for spreading; if I cannot capture what you say in the flow, it does not register.

I teach political science, political philosophy, history and economics, and I have a degree in International Relations, so chances are, I have a greater than average starting understanding of nearly all PF topics. Therefore, use complex concepts and theory with caution - make sure you fully understand what it means, otherwise do not use it.

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

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

Other aspects to keep in mind:

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

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

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

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

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

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

He/Him pronouns.

(anyone and everyone is allowed to be aggressive in round regardless of gender/sex/etc. That being said, don't be mean. If you think I'll perceive your aggression as being mean then don't do it.)

Win my ballot by winning the debate. Debate is a game and you should probably treat it like that. If you want the debate discourse to matter outside of the specific round, you should probably tell me that.

I'll give you high speaks if you're fluent and fill speech time. Being funny also helps you get speaker points.

Impact calculus is also important! If you can use impact calc to reasonably outweigh your opponent's args, I'll probably vote for you.

Make sure to have fun! If you're not having fun doing debate, you shouldn't be doing it.

TLDR: Debate good and you'll win. Don't be rude or a bigot and you won't get auto dropped.

Tabula Rasa: If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Framework arguments do not automatically get flowed on my ballots as a priori unless you outline them as such and explain why they are a priori voters. Additionally, I will not do work for you on the ballot, meaning that if I find an argument you have made convincing but you do not reiterate it or bring it up as a voter I can't vote on it. Finally and most importantly: clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. If I say "clear" or "slow" you MUST abide or lose the round. I ask that you show your opponents the same courtesy.

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot. I don't believe in civility politics (It's not taboo in my book, for instance, to call your opponent out as racist if they say something racist), but I do believe in basic common courtesy and dignity. Treat your opponent respectfully like a human being and we'll have no issues.

I did congressional debate from 2013-2017 and have an MA degree in Economics. I am not comfortable with speed and prefer that you argue your strongest arguments well instead of relying on burying your opponents in arguments by speaking quickly. I've judged multiple tournaments in both Washington and Idaho. I like to see a lot of clash and like line-by-line down the flow. Make it easy for me to know where you are going in your speech. I don't like to see dropped arguments and I don't care much for framework debates especially in PF, but I get that it is important in LD. Last speeches should lay out voters and make it clear what I should be voting on. My ballot will automatically go to the opposing team if "racism okay, sexism okay, homophobia okay, etc." is run.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

About me: I graduated 4 years ago. I debated Public Forum for 4 years. Studied Econ and Political Science.

About the round: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. If you're unable to explain your cards that looks very bad and will be very easy to refute. I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework, I like that, but you need to tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Don't be afraid to concede on smaller arguments in the round to give yourself a strategic advantage on bigger arguments. This is crucial in many rounds.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

Overall, do whatever you want, just do it well.

If you have any further questions please ask.

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

My paradigm for Lincoln Douglas is very traditional. I am looking for a straight debate over the resolution from both the Aff and Neg side. I do not entertain plans and counter plans, rather I am looking for a value and criteria followed by contentions supporting the argument. As to spreading, I am not a fan as I think it detracts from the quality of the debate.

My paradigm for Public Forum is that this is Public Forum and there should be no paradigm. Keep to the resolution, with supporting contentions and evidence. You can offer frameworks, but I will not require your opponents to accept the framework, nor will I give it much consideration in the final analysis.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

I debated local circuit LD for three years in high school. I will vote based on the flow/how you tell me to evaluate the round. I often end up voting on big picture and weighing arguments.

You can run progressive arguments but keep in mind that I'm not a circuit judge and I didn't do circuit debate so I may not have the same norms/make the same assumptions.

Email is alia_memon@outlook.com

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

Bio:

Attended Seattle Academy (2010-14) and Lewis & Clark College (2014-18). Coached Lincoln HS (Portland), The Bear Creek School, Seattle Academy, Lewis & Clark, Lafayette College, Concordia University-Irvine. Mostly did speech stuff but I've been around a lot of debate(rs). Currently a law student at Seattle University (class of 2026).

Paradigm Proper:

I think I'll be judging some LD and PF in and around Seattle this year. Here are a few adaptations to make in front of me.

1. I prefer that we minimize nonsense during our time together. Examples include: wasting time, stealing prep, linking everything to extinction, frivolous procedurals, unnecessary rudeness. A good litmus test is if your coach, school principal, parents, and the authors of your arguments would approve of your conduct, I'll be fine with it.
2. I am a big picture judge. I want to be able to tell the losing team a coherent, several-sentence story of what I am endorsing and why I am endorsing that instead of what they want me to endorse. This means I value judge instruction! Tell me why I'm voting for you, why your arguments are more important than your opponents', what the central question of the round is and how I should go about evaluating it. You are unlikely to win on a bunch of dropped blips. You are more likely to win because one or two well-developed arguments convinced me that voting for your side is preferable.
3. I will flow the debate and determine a winner using my flow. Please signpost, stay organized, and respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Well-developed dropped arguments are true, but you still have to explain why they matter. I will only vote on arguments that you introduce in the first half of the round and appear in all of your speeches in the second half of the round.
4. I'm decently well-read. I majored in Econ, I'm in law school, and I read the news regularly. Assume I know about the world and topic but maybe not the specifics of your argument (especially acronyms).

Speaker points:

I totally give 30s. Be the kind of person I would recommend novice debaters go watch in elimination rounds. You start at a 26 and can gain (or lose) up to one point in each of the following areas:

1. High-quality research, and high-quality understanding of your (and your opponent's) research
2. Smart choices, critical thinking, and in-round strategy
3. Strong delivery, word economy, and rhetorical skills
4. Kindness, good attitude, vibes, and a sense of humor

Closing thoughts:

If I look or sound grumpy, it's been a long day. I promise I care a lot and I'm excited to watch your debate. I have enormous respect for the hard work and research you put in, and I can't wait to listen to what you have to say and try to give some helpful feedback. If you have any requests or need any accommodations, feel free to ask. I am also happy to answer any questions you have before or after the round.

I'm looking forward to being your judge!

My name is Sidney and I use they/them and she/her pronouns. I participated in high school debate between 2016 and 2019 and competed in Policy, LD, and Public Forum. I appreciate all debate styles, so feel free to hit me with some speed as long as your taglines are clear.

Here are a few things you can do to win me over as a judge:

1. Tell me how to judge the round. I like a good framework debate.
2. I'll judge off the flow. Be explicit if your point is a direct clash with your opponents so I can flow it in the right place.
3. Give me voting issues at the end, and tie them into your criterion and/or value. I won't consider voting issues if the argument was dropped in an earlier rebuttal.
4. Please don't shake my hand. I don't like germs.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it and both teams consent.

See you soon!

Sidney

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Hi Friends,

I am Nagu, a parent judge from Interlake High school, WA. I am very passionate about public speaking. From my elementary school to all the way till my Masters, I participated in competitive Oratorical events in India.

I judge Speech events and enjoy the experience of judging students' speech performance for the two reasons 1) it is a reliving moment of my speech event days, and 2)an opportunity to learn from and share constructive feedback.

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know debate or topic terminologies. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision. To win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis.

Prepare, Present and Persuade!

nraju@uw.edu

My competitive background is in PF, and while I have limited judging experience with LD I'm generally unfamiliar with the minutiae of the event. A couple of general tips:

Clarity is essential. If I can't understand what you're saying or you're jumping between points too rapidly, I can't put them on the flow. If nothing else, make sure to be clear on taglines and source citations.

I generally enjoy philosophical framing within LD rounds, just make sure you tie your value and value criterion to your main points consistently.

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough with LD to tell you what to run or what not to run. Anything offensive or discriminatory is obviously a nonstarter. Beyond that, run what you like to run, make sure to show me the clash between your and your opponents' points, and have fun! I will judge off the flow, so again CLARITY is a must.

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I debated public forum for 4 years at Gonzaga Prep. I currently coach Public Forum and have judged Public Forum and LD.

Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.

Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will yell at you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.

I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.

Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.

Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.

Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.

Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!

Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.

Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

I would like to see debaters to speak clearly and explain the links and impacts.

I’m fine with speed, and just make it an interesting debate, don’t drop contentions, and have fun during cross !!

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

Hey there friend,

My experience in debate consists of three years of PF and a few LD tournaments, just for the lolz.

I have been judging largely open LD since 2016.

My PF background means that:

1. Impacts are #1 to me and always will be. Impacts need to be maintained throughout the round. I will buy any impact that is well-warranted and weighed.

2. Contentional debate is very important to me

My LD background means that:

1. I can handle speed but would advice against spreading. Slow DOWN on tags and vital info

2. I love theoretical and critical arguments and will attempt to follow any (well-run) argument that is thrown at me. My limited experience in LD, however, means that I may need further explanation than more experienced LD debaters. I am open to ANY arguments, PF brain just means progressive arguments don't come as easily to me.

Additionally:

I am and will be til death a flow judge- this means that dropped arguments flow through and become conceded in the round. Please don't drop your arguments and try to pick them up later. Please don't assume I will flow an argument through until you tell me to and IMPACT that argument as well! If both sides drop an argument its dead to me :-)

Over all, I value polite and professional debates with lots of clash and thats about it. Ask me in round !!

know your case.

I prefer rounds where I can clearly understand and track contentions: please do not speak too rapidly that I do not understand what you are saying. Also, although this should go without saying, please stay civil during crossfires; failure to do so is unlikely to win you the round.

Be organized: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me understand the overall approach. Prefer a few well-connected arguments over a bag of assorted arguments.

Be novel: The more original a point, the harder it is to put together a solid refutation for it. Try to find unexpected riffs on the main argument.

Fast but not too fast: I can listen at 1.5x-2.0x for most conversations but if you're making a key point, especially if it's subtle, slow down a bit to make sure I catch it. I'll signal you with a slow-down motion if I can't keep up.

Keep track of the board: Often a key point from one side just gets missed by the other side. Finding new arguments is great, but make sure you refute the arguments on the table.

Don't be lazy: Be respectful. Avoid fallacies, including ad hominems and emotional appeals.

I am primarily a communications judge and vote based on the debater's overall argumentation and persuasiveness. Be aware that I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to understand speech that is significantly faster than conversational speed. If requested, I am happy to let the speaker know when they are going too fast through a hand gesture.

I've competed in and taught speech and debate for 25 years in a number of formats, so feel free to run whatever you'd like. I enjoy old school case arguments as much as Ks, performance, and theory, but expect strong link and impact work regardless of the argument. I am very high flow, so shouldn't have an issue with speed or tech, but will try and get your attention if I'm having trouble following you. Specificity through good research wins positions, generally. Comparative weighing is a must. Feel free to ask before the round if there's anything specific you'd like to know about and have fun.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.

1. I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc. 
2. I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
3. I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
4. If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing.  You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
5. If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.