I don't mind if you talk fast, but make sure it is understandable (rapid/conversational)

I don't flow during cross, if you want me to take something from there into consideration, bring it back into your argument.

Avoid using general/open wording such as "stuff" and "things", be specific in your argument and evidence, I will not try to assume and build it for you. Specific, concrete evidence and data is something that I look strongly at.

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

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.

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.

I have a background in Policy (CX), StuCo, and limited prep IE. I am primarily a stock issues judge though I like to jokingly refer to myself as a "flay" judge. If it flows through and makes sense, it works for me. Keep in mind that I don't flow question period/cross, so if you want a piece of information that was brought up in cross to flow then please mention it in your speech.

I look for a well developed speech/argument with a claim, data, warrant that is clearly connected and has been well researched. Disclosure theory is lazy, so please don't use it.

Especially for Student Congress, I expect a well polished and respectful presentation that includes engaging with the room/audience and presenting yourself well as a speaker (i.e. posture, eye contact, less fidgeting, etc).

At the end of the day, we're all here to have fun. Please be conscientious and respectful to other people and we're in good shape.

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.

2023-2024: Engage me with your thoughts, arguments, questions, and personality. I want you to leave an impression, to know you're passionate about the topic at hand. Although I'm judging, remember you have the floor, it is your space...OWN IT.

Be respecful to your competitor during this process. Speed doesn't bother me as long as you can articulate your points well.

A great debater is like a skilled artisan, meticulously crafting compelling arguments and presenting them with eloquence and finesse. They possess a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Great debaters are not just assertive; they are active listeners, attuned to the nuances of their opponents' arguments, ready to counter with the precision. Their words carry weight, like a seasoned poet who weaves verses that resonate with both reason and emotion.

Flexibility is their forte, adapting to the shifting tides of discourse with the agility of a seasoned dancer. They navigate the complexities of the debate floor with the strategic acumen of a grandmaster playing a chess match, always thinking several moves ahead.

What sets a great debater apart is not just their ability to argue persuasively but their commitment to intellectual integrity with confidence.

In essence, a great debater is a multifaceted performer. They elevate the debate from a mere exchange of words to a captivating performance, leaving a lasting impression on both the audience and their intellectual adversaries.

Experience - 2 years coaching/judging, debate in high school, Civics/government/history teacher (law and government classes/debate in college)

Look Fors - In-depth understanding of evidence being presented and of topic, respectful and scholarly approach to debate tactics and ability to explain yourself throughly without having too much repetition. Also - limited to no historical inaccuracies.

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

On rebuttals. appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

I am a traditional flow judge. That being said, if your opponent drops an argument and you don’t mention it, I may not flow you through.

My experience is in the Western Washington, Washington State, and national circuits. I have collaborated with the NYU and Hofstra University debate teams as part of Gig Harbor High School and Hofstra University speech and debate.

I have debated NSDA Lincoln-Douglas and IPDA parliament.

Framework

I will want to see some good framework clash. Do not disappoint me with a 1v1 public forum debate.

A strong framework win could win you the round if you’re careful.

If you are running a K or ROTB make sure it’s at least vaguely topical/applicable.

I don’t care about the subjective morality bias that’s tangible to the judge. If you won, you won. If you somehow manage to win by saying we should all die then good on you. You probably won’t and I wouldn’t try that. But it’s theoretically not impossible.

(I know some judges will just write you off if you make a ‘death good’ argument. You would need a really, REALLY strong framework debate to make this happen and really, really dumb opponent; but I won’t write you off for trying.)

Debate

If you are going to try and spread please make sure you are good at. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow. If you think this will be an issue, consider sharing documents.

Humor and witty remarks will not win you this round. Weigh your impacts, watch out for non-unique and off topic arguments, watch your semantics. etc.

It’s not that I don’t love theory, let’s just not spend the entire round on it. That would be lame and not what theory is for.

Speaker Points And Timing
If you do not say something like “does the judge stand ready/does the opponent stand ready” then start speaking while I’m still writing your name on the flow I will not only snatch your speaker points but dislike you as well. You should at the very, very, very least say “my time start now.” If your opponent isn’t ready, that’s their problem. If your judge isn’t ready, that’s your problem.

I will be timing you on first word and if you need me to give time signals I’ll accommodate. You should have a timer but it’s ok, my phone has died too.

If you start shouting I will take off 1-2 speaker points. You don’t need to get angry in here, save that for outside the round.

Back in my day, it was against NSDA rules to directly address your opponent (exc. cross) or refer to them in any gendered manner. Their name was ‘the opponent’ and their pronouns were either aff or neg.

Times have changed so I will not take off speaker points but if you adhere to Ye Olde LD Procedure I will consider 30 points for professionalism’s sake.

If you run something other than the basic util/deont/structural violence/etc I might give you one (1) extra speaker point for creativity.

Basic Obvious Rules
If you want to accuse your opponent of some heinous crime against NSDA rules I will make both of you share cases. I have the jurisdiction to that.

Theory is not the same thing as NSDA rules. Why would you look me in the eye and say ‘drop the debater, they didn’t share in the case wiki’.

No one is getting dropped unless it’s proven they broke an actual hard written rule.

That being said, I think it’s a little funny when you say stuff like that. ‘Drop the debater, they used a google doc!!’ That’s insane but I appreciate your bravado.

In my judging paradigm, the emphasis is on creating a debate environment that values clarity, fairness, and innovative thinking. The guidelines are as follows:

1. **No Spreading:**
- Avoid rapid-fire delivery or excessive speed. Prioritize clear and deliberate communication over speed.

2. **No New Arguments in the 3rd/Reply Worlds:**
- Maintain fairness by refraining from introducing new arguments in the final speeches or replies. Focus on developing existing points and responding to opponent positions... You will automatically lose.

4. **No Debate Jargon: In WORLDS!**
- Communicate in a manner accessible to everyone. Minimize the use of specialized debate terminology to ensure clarity for all participants and judges.

5. **Lower Speaks for Lack of Clarity:**
- Clear and articulate communication is paramount. If a speech lacks clarity or is difficult to understand, it may result in lower speaker points.

6. **Talk Clearly, Enunciate:**
- Emphasize the importance of clear and articulate speech. Enunciate your words to enhance comprehension and ensure that your arguments are conveyed effectively.

7. **Do Not Call for Cards:**
- Avoid explicitly requesting evidence cards during the debate. Focus on the substance of arguments and analysis without relying on external sources.

8. Tired of Ism's as Arguments (Uniqueness Gets You Points): Yes racism is bad, we all agree, these arguments are no longer unique. they are dull and boring and you will lose me.
- Move beyond generic ism arguments. Emphasize uniqueness and provide nuanced analysis to strengthen your case.

9. **New Ideas:**
- Encourage participants to bring innovative and unique ideas to the debate. Foster creativity and originality in argumentation to enrich the discussion.

10. **No Political/Religious Polarization:**
- Maintain a balanced and respectful discussion. Refrain from engaging in extreme political or religious polarization, and focus on presenting well-reasoned and moderate perspectives.

By adhering to these guidelines, I aim to create a debate space that values clarity, fairness, and the exploration of fresh and unique ideas while discouraging practices such as spreading, excessive use of debate jargon, and political or religious polarization.

Hi my name is Calvin Pittser . He/She/They

My background: I competed for three years in Congress and Impromptu and I coach various styles including Public Forum and most speech events.

Basic Paradigm for all styles: I am most likely not actively researching your topic. I am happy to hear arguments about fine details and complex arguments, but before you do so please keep in mind that I don’t understand all the same topical jargon or complexities that you do. So if your intent is to include that, please explain jargon at least the first time you use it or for complex arguments take it a little slow don’t jump straight into it. I am a tabula rasa (Blank Slate) judge meaning that in round I am going to eliminate any opinion I already have of your topic. I want to be convinced by what I see in the round. I will be flowing rounds but I don’t flow Cross, that said a good cross should demonstrate your knowledge of your case and your understanding of the round. For any event of debate or speech, any kind of homophobic, transphobic, sexist, misogynistic, racist, classist arguments, insults, etc. is not okay. This is an activity where we should all be welcome and safe. For arguments like Ks, Counterplans, DAs etc. I am happy to hear them, but I advise you to go slow and pay attention to see if I’m completely lost. If I can’t understand your speed or for any other reason I cannot understand your argument, I can’t flow. And if I don’t have it flowed, I can’t vote on it. As for speed, on a 1-10 scale 1 being a causal conversation and 10 being a policy debater letting loose, I can handle about a 4-6 depending on how good of a speaker you are. But if you can’t handle speed without sacrificing clarity, then I would advise you to speak slower.

Framework! I love framework. It makes my job so much easier. I like seeing how debaters make the topic apply to different lenses. That said Please don't stray too far from your actual topic. If you'd like to present FW then make sure that you have clear logic and links to justify how your FW works and why we are using it. If you don't refute your opponents framework I am probably going to accept it assuming that they can justify it. If you have a Framework, be careful to make sure that your case wins your framework. I've seen a number of rounds where a debater thinks that they have won a round simply because they won the framework but the other team has linked to the framework better.

Congress: For congress, I like to see argumentation and I want you to specifically clash with other speakers. I don’t like seeing rehash, if someone has made your point and you say it again with different words, then it's rehash. I also appreciate eye contact, if you can deliver your speech without reading off a page it will elevate your speech greatly. All the above points about respect apply. I appreciate the decorum that comes in congress rounds. It is totally fine to be firm especially as a presiding officer, or to have aggressive/passionate refutations, but at all times you should be treating each other as respected colleagues, and be careful to attack arguments and not opponents.

Please make sure that if you speak multiple times you demonstrate different skills in your speeches, IE if you give 3 speeches all on the first neg or first aff this is fine, or if you exclusively have late round speeches I am happy to hear them, but you'll score better if you have speech diversity. This also applies to the arguments within your speech. eg. please don't say the same argument about different organizations each time.- "the oversight group listed in section 3 is managed poorly and thus we cannot put faith in them" This argument is alright to have in a speech, especially as a backup to other points, but please include diversity in your argumentation.

If you are debating a resolution, please avoid the "resolutions don't do anything" argument unless you have a compelling reason why it CAN'T be a res. I want debate on the topic itself and not on whether resolutions work. Similarly with counterplans, I’d prefer debate on the topic itself and not a counterplan.

Good luck everyone.

Hi, my name is Christine Pyle

I am a coach and participated in debate in school many years ago.

Fast talking(spreading) is fine, however clarity is key.

Signposting is preferred - organization helps not only me but you

If you are utilizing impacts to enhance your case, follow through with those impacts in your case to the end of the debate.

I'm looking for good case structure, compelling arguments, good use of crossfire, and that arguments with weight are flowing through to the end.

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.

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.