I am a new parent judge, but I am really excited to see the debaters show me how it's done.

I will appreciate framework consistency, clearly structured and logical arguments, and most of all respectful debating.

Good luck and thanks for your patience!

This is Venkat Chennareddy. I received Masters in Computer Science from IIT. I work as an engineer in AIML at Apple!.

For LD:

Here are top 5 things i values the most.

1. Clear, Concise arguments with logical links and impacts
2. Strong framework along with good arguments to decide who wins or loose.(Winning framework usually means you win the round)
3. Understand the material - should be able to explain it to someone
4. Be nice- we are here to learn and have a fun
5. I am parent judge so please don't spread. Try to convince me why you should win.

For Speech:

1. Talk clearly

2. Be engaging

3. Be nice

Provide summary at the end of the speech.

Pronouns: they/them

*for novices*
Current LD debater of 3 years, debate style tends towards Ks and K frameworks. Familiar with a variety of lit bases up to and including high theory and will evaluate any argument (barring the obviously harmful ones). That being said, I have a high threshold for theory arguments in novice rounds, along with highly technical stuff. I will evaluate it and vote according to the technical level of the debate but I may judge you personally and give opponents some grace on RVI-esque arguments. Go as fast as you’re comfortable going. Be engaging, have fun, try not to be a jerk.

I am a new parent judge and am still learning about LD. Please be as clear as possible. Thank you

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

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.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I am a parent judge. And this is my first time judging a debate.

However, as a college English professor, I am not new to evaluating arguments.

Here is my email: coho44@gmail.com

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Hello.

I am Avery Horton, and I use she/they pronouns.

I did LD for 3 years and policy for 1. I'm a Freshman at Willamette University, and I'm part of the debate union doing parli.

put me on the email chain: ashorton@willamette.edu

I promise I'm not a K hack, despite how this paradigm reads.

Pref (this is just over what I like to see in round, I'll vote off anything):

K - 1

Performance/K affs - 1

Theory - 1/2

LARP - 1/2

Phil - 1/2

Tricks - 3

tech > truth

I'll vote on basically anything, just run what you're best at.

General:

Just run whatever case is strategic against your opponent as long as the strategy isn't JUST outspreading them.

Please put your framework at the top of your case -- I won't dock you for having it at the bottom, but its pointless and it bugs me.

Ks

I love K's but I don't hack for them, especially since a lot of (TOC) debaters don't know what they're doing and don't actually understand the arguments they're making.

Theory

I'll vote on basically any theory if its not directly violent

LARP

Be interesting. I'll vote for larp, just debate well and know your case well.

Tricks

I'm most likely to vote off arguments that are really towing the line between tricks and friv theory, like make sure you have actual warrants that can be contested. I'm most prone to buying moral a prioris (especially when in the framework and not an underview).

I hate tricks walls and think they're abusive. Don't run more than like 5 tricks args in a speech, and even then its iffy.

Good luck.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

Hello everyone,

I would consider followings in my judge,

1) Speak clearly 2) Respect each other - don't want you to bother your opponent's speaking

3) Make questions/answers precisely

4) Keep time strictly

Good Luck!

Email Address : damonrang79@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

Hi, y'all!

I'm currently a junior at Mount Vernon High School in Washington state! I've competed very frequently in speech & debate since middle school, and my mom is the coach of our team. My pronouns are he/they and my email is taitekirkpatrick@gmail.com ! Feel free to reach out if you need help or have any questions at all, debate is my favorite thing to do, my favorite thing to talk about, and probably my favorite thing ever! (Therefore, debaters are my favorite people!!)

Debate-wise, I've been competitive in policy, lincoln douglas, and congressional debate. I also do Worlds Schools debate and am a member of the 2023/2024 USA Debate team. I'm also a member of the NSDA's Student Leadership Council! For IEs, I typically compete in impromptu and extemp-- this year, I also did oratory! I was State Champion in Washington in LD and Impromptu in 2024, and I'll be in Des Moines for Nationals in World Schools representing the Puget Sound!

If I'm judging you, you're definitely a younger debater (because I am 17) so here are just 3 things I hope to see in any round (of speech or debate!) --

1. Creativity! I love it when debaters do their own research, go with arguments they believe in, and take risks! If you're passionate about something, you'll probably be infinitely more persuasive and I'll love that! Don't run things just because somebody else handed you a file... try to write your own cases and develop your own understanding! It's harder, but worth it, I promise.
2. Refutation! Nothing makes a debate round less debate-y than when the debaters are 'two ships passing in the night'- try to engage with what your opponents are saying! Believe me, saying something, even if it's not the best argument or going to win you the debate, is almost always better than saying nothing! You have to start somewhere, and I'll give you higher speaker points when I can tell you heard/understood an opponents argument (even if you struggle on answering it).
3. Have fun! I've talked to SO many younger debaters (from my team and others!) who always feel so bad after rounds and are SO harsh on themselves. I promise- everybody's had a bad round before and no single round is reflective of you as a competitor, and no single round will influence your future as a welcomed member of the community! So many of you are smarter than you think, and I've never watched a single speech where I haven't been astonished by the potential I've seen! Frankly... the worst rounds are those were people are so nervous they slip up. We have a motto on my team for this: "Fake it 'til you make it!"

* I have also learned I love organization <3 ! Numbering your arguments, signposting (saying when you're moving from one point to another), etc. ! I like having neat and clean flows at the end of the day! *

I am a parent judge. Please go slow as english is not my first language. I value good speaking, communication, and questioning during cross examination. In arguments I like to see good evidence. I will try to be tab when weighing the majority of arguments but do keep in mind I may not be as likely to vote for certain arguments unless you explain them very very well (friv theory for instance - I'm tab when it makes sense to me).

If you are sharing documents, please only use email. Please send to: liying9371@gmail.com

Hello. I am a lay judge.

Please go slower and explain your arguments

be respectful to your opponent and judges

do not run progressive arguments (T,K,etc.)

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

My name is Robin Monteith and I am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my 7th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture, but with enough specifics to understand the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

I'm a 30+ year broadcast journalist who transitioned to teaching in the 2019-2020 school year. I teach video production and broadcasting and advise our school's student TV news team. This is my first year as a speech and debate coach and judge.

I appreciate and respect the work our students put into each debate and applaud their poise and maturity. I score based on my ability to understand the argument laid out by a student competitor, as well as their ability to think on their feet during cross.

Notes to students:

1. Speak at a pace that works for you. I can follow along. If you feel as though you're speeding up or losing your place, take a breath, pause, collect yourself, then continue. I will not take points away for that.
2. Use the allotted prep time you have. Even if you think you're 100% ready, take some of that prep time to center yourself.
3. Remember to always be respetful of your opponent. Judges can tell if you're not.
4. Most important - have fun. I can tell if you're having fun - your words will flow and you will have natural confidence.

I’m a freshmen in college and I did 3 years of LD debate.

During rounds I prefer clear speaking, don't speak too fast where I cant flow what you say. I also vote on standard value/criterion and enjoy when the round is weighed. Make me believe that your value is the best for the round.

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.