Gig Harbor Invitational

2019 — Gig Harbor, WA/US

Eza Agoes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannan Ajmal Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matthew Artz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brenner Barclay Paradigm

8 rounds

I was a four year policy debater and now debate parli in college. The debate is about what you make it about so just be clear in the story of the aff or neg.

Other thing - extend by argument "Royal 10" isn't as good for my flowing as "econ collapse causes war"


I can probably handle your speed but if I can't I'll say clear and I don't have an issue with open cross, just so long as you aren't talking over your partner. If you're being rude to your partner I'll take it out of your speaks, I have no problem with you clarifying what they said but cutting them off or not letting them speak isn't cool.

If you have an intricate interpretation or plan that's really tricky you'll want to slow down and maybe read it twice.

If I call for evidence it means that I'm comparing the truth claims you're asserting versus your warrants which means that I don't what your theory or analytics, if I don't hear those arguments in the speech I feel uncomfortable evaluating them.

T and theory in general:

I did a lot of theory debate in highschool and now in college so I really appreciate theory debate that clashes and understands the model of debate it wants to create. Theory is also the most game-y part of debate in my mind so try not to dance around the thesis of your shell, if you're saying negative fiat is bad or the negative shouldn't get condo or whatever just say it, those can be made into arguments that I'll vote on regardless of what I believe is good or healthy for debate. In that same vein if you're going against the theory I'm open to you questioning why things like fairness or education are good.

One quirk: while I'm totally cool arguments that condo or multi-actor fiat or whatever aren't voters just on face I do believe that topicality is a voter. This is not to say that you have to be topical but you should have reasons as to why topicality is bad, basically what I'm saying is that policing disads on the T shell are cool but "lol T is dumb" isn't.

Pet peeve: please do not refer to theory arguments that are not topicality as "T" I won't dock speaker points or anything, it just bothers me.


Ks are cool, I like them, don't assume I've read your lit. That's the biggest thing, because of that you should spend time explaining the alt, "embracing x consciousness" is going to be hard for me to vote on because I have no idea what the means in a vacuum, and especially what the world looks like post alt. This is doubly true if you know that I do know your lit because how it changes the status quo is what gives you uniqueness and frames your links. I have no issue with K debates so long as you tell me what's going on.


Great and beautiful. Process counterplans are awesome, that said "process counterplans are abusive" is totally an argument you can win in front of me. Same with the alt however if it's something very nuanced I need to know how it's functionally different than the plan, if it's 9-0 and you win that normal means is 5-4 that's fine but I do need to see that functional difference.


Amazing. There aren't enough nuanced disad debates I think, and I'm a sucker for getting into the nuance of your uniqueness evidence.


Please try to tie your off case positions to the case. If it's extending a link to an advantage for explanation or analysis of how the DA turns an advantage that's great, in the same way extending your case onto their off case to show how you control the internal link to their impact scenario, great.

Jeanne Blair Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Blynov Paradigm


Please run cases that took more effort to make than simply copy-pasting from the most recent briefs, ugh.

Stuff I like

Kritiks, Plans, Performance, Narratives (find me on Goodreads!), Creativity, Friendship.

Stuff I dont like

Spikes, theory (Run theory only if theres an actual reason to)


I give speaker points based on how organized you are; creativity is a plus, so is a sense of humor.

About me

My favorite stuff to run included Anarchy, irony, Biblical narration, space warfare, and poetry. Psychoanalysis is fun. Not familiar with postmodernism lol


Feel free to email me at

Grace Burchett Paradigm

I recently graduated high school and am now a freshman at the University of Washington. I debated public forum for three years in high school, at both the local and national level. Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but make sure that your speed is purposeful and that you’re filling your time well.

As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. Impact calculus needs to be clearly addressed in the summary and final focus, and voters are always helpful in the final focus as well. Carry your relevant cards through the entire round, and be able to clearly explain the logic behind them. When there is clash, I want more than just a claim that I should look at your evidence. You need to tell me WHY I should vote for you, not just that I should do so. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.

Brian Coyle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Margret Dallas Paradigm

Please speak clearly and concisely, using fact-based evidence to support your claims.

Kaveh Dilmaghani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nathan Edgar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Ellsworth Paradigm

Not Submitted

Omar Fageeri Paradigm

8 rounds


newport '19 / uw'23 ❤️

feel free to contact me @

I competed for Newport HS in Congressional Debate and a few IE's over the years (IMP, OO, EXT)

Be Kind :)

First and foremost, debate is an activity where at the end of the day, you want to leave having used your meaningful knowledge to share what is important to you. This activity is meant to be a safe environment where you can grow, elevate, and inspire others. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates, offends, or is abusive to their opponent regardless of whether it was to "prove a point". Too often, debaters try to use unuseful rhetoric to get high speaks, ranks, etc. and that is not the point of this activity.

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




speed// slow down on taglines but be realistic with speed. I am not going to tell you to slow down, you should be able to assume that you need to if I am not flowing what you are saying. Clarity is really important. The competitors with the best speaks are often the ones who don't need to spread their entire case.

Do not run what you think I want to hear. Run whatever you are most comfortable with. I am fairly traditional which tends to look like that I do lean towards topicality. Run a K if you want but I want it to be associated with the resolution in some manner otherwise I find that most of the time there is not really a standard for me to vote off. I am not familiar with Kritik arguments so be really clear as to what you are running if you decide to do so.

Theory; Idk ill probs prioritize practicality regardless.

As a general pref, in a lot of debates, I have seen people assume that they can use tech > truth to sometimes avoid any substance to their case. Impact calc is still really important and the side that does the best job of weighing their arg will be the side I pick up. Tech arguments are fine if I can see some links to the res.

Voters are p important (applies to every type of deb8 ig)


This goes back to what I mentioned earlier. Respect your opponent!! You do not have to pretend to love them but respect everything they have to say :) You can be aggressive but don't be abusive (... they are different!). If you concede to something in cross and its dropped, I will ignore it unless brought up later (btw no one is ever really is 100% tab even if they like to say they are. We all come in with predetermined notions regarding the resolution but I like anyone else will try my best to be nOnInTeRvEnTiOniSt)

Public Forum

If I am feeling extra, I will ask for your card and if I find you misconstrued it, I will drop that entire point.

I feel like a lot of the time in PF, teams are really hung on the empirics and completely forget to tell me why their impacts outweigh. Also, don't generalize evidence without telling me why it's applicable in the long run. I don't care if Iran is going to wage cyberwar on the U.S if you can't tell me why that is a reasonable outcome in the AFF world.

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

---> gimme a standard to vote on (these should be clearly established in the round) and tell me why you think you won!

I have yet to see tech in PF but surprise me if you want.


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

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

1) Rehash is not welcome

If you repeat an argument that was just run in the speech before you, I will flow everything you say under that speaker and assume you did not give that point. The reason congress is rarely seen as the debate is that a lot of competitors try to go the easy route without contributing to the debate. If you do not have a new point, crystalize, and weigh impacts as of the end of the session.

Unique arguments are preferable but do not overstretch your impacts. (in other words, I can tell when you are trying to just sound smart vs actually giving a comprehensive viable argument)

2) Evidence

Warrant all your cards w/ proper citations. I should be able to fact check you with the citation I hear even though I probably will not. I do not just want to hear what your evidence is but also why it is important i hear it. If there is an area in your argument that can be quantified, I want to see empirics.

2) Impact Calc / Refutation / Clash /

Just mentioning what someone says and reading a card after is not a refutation. If you cannot explain why their argument is uniquely unimportant, that is not a refutation. Reference other senators in the room but also make sure you are weighing the impacts of your argument over theirs.

3) "CX"

WA circuit does not do direct cross but I still weigh it in my rankings. Tbh it seems like people suddenly lose their hearing when the round starts

" I did not understand/hear your question"

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

Those who know their cards well in questioning and can respond with comprehensive answers are those who will get ranked high regardless of speeches. The #1 pref is adding to the debate. If your question does not move clash forward, don't ask it.

Jeetendra Falodia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Finnsson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sadie Frady Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kameron Franklin Paradigm

I consider myself a classical/traditional LD judge, though I do flow arguments as part of my evaluation of the round in order to minimize intervention.

When judging public forum, I look for how well a team weighs the arguments to help make my decision.

Alyssa Gaston Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julianne Ha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ruth Haiduc Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suzanne Hall Paradigm

I do not find spreading useful in making a strong case; I prefer traditional LD debate. Framework arguments must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution. Courtesy to your opponent matters. Cases with plans are fine — provided the resolution is fully addressed and you can engage your opponent on the nuances of the resolution.

Rosie Huang Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi everyone!

Good on you for being so proactive about checking paradigms. I like speakers to be very clear and succinct. Please spoon feed me (which means I would like a roadmap)

Here are some things I don't like (some of these are exclusively congress):

- having evidence that doesn't reallllly prove what you're saying

- skirting answers or ones that don't really answer the question

- monotony

- rehash

- name dropping senators and not actually refuting them. stop it :(

You're going to do great!! This is just my personal opinion. Remember that ballots do not determine your value or worth as a person and have fun!!!!!

Rosie :)

Nick Julian Paradigm

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

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot.

Tyler Julian Paradigm

I am just doing this so that I won't get fined.

Danielle Klenak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Meera Krishna Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Raymond Lappin Paradigm

About me: I am a recent high school graduate and current student at UW. I debated Public forum for 3 years.

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


overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

side note: 30 speaker points for a south park reference

Tony Lasley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chandra Le Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zhongdong Lei Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shaunessy Lewis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Olivia Lopez Paradigm

About me: I debated Public Forum for 3 years on both the local and national circuit. I am now a freshman and an intended business major at the University of Washington.

-Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you.

-Don't just tell me what your card says, make sure to explain to me why it matters.

-Please sign post, if I can't follow where you are on the flow, I won't be able to get it down and it may affect the outcome of the round

-Weigh your arguments for me, if I'm left to do it on my own, you may not like what I decide.

-Please narrow down the round to voters in Final Focus, to me this speech is where you really need to sell me and tell me clear reasons as to why you won the round.

Martyn Mallick Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amy McCormick Paradigm

George Means Paradigm

Not Submitted

Noelle Merclich Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Newberg Paradigm

8 rounds

If you make outrageous claims, prove them

Tell me why I should vote you

lets keep the the debate PG

and as always, pop off

Jay Novelo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chris Price Paradigm

It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what I hear so watch your speed and clarity. Communicate ideas in an organized and professional manner. You WILL NOT win by trying to confuse your opponents.

Looking for solid evidence-based logic, reasoning, and depth of analysis.

Clearly state contentions, your own and your opponents, both in constructive and rebuttal

Christine Pyle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Piper Ragland Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nagarajan Raju Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vatchala Renganathan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hank Roark Paradigm

I'm good with speed and technical language.

Voters - Tell me the most important things in the round, and why you won on them

Cross fire - I do like when teams use this time to get into the details and nuance of each other's cases.

Impact - give me impacts, don't just throw out evidence. If you don't give me impacts, I will might fill them and you might not like how I fill them in.

If you are speaking too fast or incoherently, I will stop flowing.

Frameworks - if you give a framework, you have the burden of justifying why your framework is the thing I should fit all contentions within. The bar for justifying a framework is high with me.

David Schons Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paul Sealey Paradigm

Background: I competed for a couple years with no particular accolades. I judge Congress a lot. If you see me as a judge in a debate event other than Congress, consider me a smart lay judge with little to no understanding of conventions of your event.

Frankly, Congress is not as complicated as other debate events. You only get three minutes, and there aren't a ton of different ways to argue compared to other debate events. That said, this is how I will judge you in Congress:


-Content matters a lot to me. Lots of judges say they don't like rehash, but I really mean it. If you are the 5th speaker you should probably reference what other speakers are saying. If you are the 15th speaker, please don't pretend your points are new. Flow the round, weigh the values of both sides and argue why the values of your side are the most important of the round. If you have evidence that suggests that your side should win a value that the other side has tried to claim, explain why your side should get that claim over the other, rather than just stating that you do and expecting that to be undisputed. If your speech would work as an authorship and you are not the author, you're not debating. You're giving a 3-minute oratory. If you don't understand how to do that, go watch any PF round and you'll probably see a higher amount of debating than I see in Congress.

-How good of a speaker you are will matter. I probably value your speaking ability less than most Congress judges in Washington, but it still will play a factor in how high you score and rank. Even though we are (supposedly) debating legislation, you're doing it in the form of a persuasive speech, and so all speech conventions apply here.

-Ask good questions. It's by far the easiest way to recognize who is paying attention and understands what's going on in the room. Any question that will be really obviously answered with either a yes or no answer is probably not contributing much to the debate. Ask lots of why questions, especially when speakers should be answering them in their speeches and failed to do so.

-Don't just read off a piece of paper. At least try to make eye contact. I understand why novices do this. I don't understand why open competitors do. It doesn't really feel like you're paying attention if your "contribution" to the round is reading a prepared statement. If speaking from bullet points makes you stutter or lose your train of thought a lot, practice your speeches until it doesn't. I would rather you be a little less polished but be more adaptive and open to your chamber, as long as I can still understand what you're arguing.

-Don't try to be too smart. I see lots of debaters try to be smarter than everyone with their "unique" points that have minimal impacts and/or don't make any sense at all. There's plenty of room for imagination in Congress, especially considering how interesting flaws in legislation can be, but run your point by someone smarter than you before you give it in round.

-Don't be a jerk. I'm a pretty informal judge because that's who I am as a person. I think there's value in making your participation in this event reflect who you are and what you believe. But don't be so loose that you insult people, make racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/any kind of hateful or derogatory comments. I do believe there is room for debate to be fun and also to not be insulting. Don't attack people, attack arguments.

Jeff Sharp Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thadeus Smith Paradigm

If you kick open the door and yell “how’s my favorite branch doing?” when you walk in the room, you'll get a speaks boost.

Go here and create a room so that I don't have to call for evidence after the round.


As a judge, it isn't my job to tell y'all how to debate, it's my job to vote the way you tell me to. I want you to tell me what matters most in the round and why you defend or solve for that better. You can run literally anything you want if it's going to get you there. If you have time, read all of my paradigm: Some stuff in LD will be applicable anywhere, and some stuff in PF will be applicable anywhere.


I did debate all through middle and high school(PF, WS, & OO) and saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I'm now a Political Science/Women's & Gender Studies student at Pacific Lutheran University. I work as a debate coach and judge, write for a couple different brief companies, and work at summer camps for Capitol Debate. Because I'm so active in the community, I'm probably really familiar with the literature.


See the source image

Congress Philosophy

i hate congress

Public Forum Philosophy

I know when your time starts, please don't tell me, thanks.

Crystallization is extremely important. I really couldn't care less about flowing every single argument through past the rebuttal speech. I'd rather you explain the points of clash and voters and WHY they matter. Just saying "Hendrickson 16 solves" means nothing if you don't tell me why.

Because I put such a high emphasis on crystallization, I REALLY don't want to see the Summary and Final Focus be line-by-line rebuttals. It's totally fine to bring up a new argument or a new response in Summary, but only if you're crystallizing as well.

Fiat is a thing. Y'all aren't debating "will this thing happen," you're debating "should this thing happen." I will be a very hard sell for any anti-fiat arguments.

If I really truly don't know who's won, I'll first call for evidence. If it isn't structured like a card, or you don't show me the specific paragraph you cite, I won't consider it. If that doesn't make my decision, I'll presume for the team that defends the status quo.

Oh, and I don't flow cross-ex, so if they make a key concession, bring it up next speech.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy

For the love of God don't spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I can barely understand philosophy when it's written on paper, I'm not going to know what you're saying if you're going 500 words a minute. For theory, if it's a legitimate voting issue, you shouldn't need to get through it as quickly as possible.

I'll prefer tech over truth in most cases, unless it comes down to something that's blatantly false (if that's the case, it's probably an ethics violation and you'd lose anyway).

I don't have (or don't think I have) any biases on what types of arguments you should run except for the standard disagreements (don't bring up new arguments last speech, etc.). I love a good K debate but I'll admit that I'm not the most familiar with a lot of the lit, so try and explain the K and don't just rely on reading the card.

I think theory debates are good and should be promoted, but you shouldn't be running theory just to win the round - Only run it if there's a legitimate violation. I, as the judge, am the ultimate arbiter of what entails a "legitimate violation." That means if there's something like disclosure theory, only run it if you asked them to disclose and they didn't. Meta-theory is fine too.

Framework debates are awesome and I would prefer it if y'all hone in on that throughout the round. One of the best parts of LD is seeing how different philosophies engage with each other.

Condo's good, CP's are good (especially States CP), fiat's good

Paraphrasing's bad, rehighlighting's bad


PLEASE ask me questions about my RFD - Debate's an educational activity, and you don't learn if you don't ask questions.


I'll always disclose and give a spoken RFD. If you have questions either walk with me after round or ask me to email you.


Jennifer Strachan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mickie Tenney Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Holly Thomas Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Laila Tobias Paradigm

Show me:

- Framework clash/debate

- why I care

- if i cant understand you then it wont be flowed

Allison Townsend Paradigm

know your case.

Renee Van Arsdale Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alice Wang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janelle Williams Paradigm

Judging for over fifty years in CX LD and Pufo I am strictly a tabula rasa judge. Dont mind speed. If debater is too fast, I put down my pen.

Liang Gang Yu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Zeng Paradigm

Not Submitted

Effie Zheng Paradigm

Not Submitted

mandi wickline Paradigm

Not Submitted