Background / Top-Level stuff

tl;dr My pronouns are he/him. Do whatever you want. I’ll probably be down with it. More information found below. For people who want some experience, here’s the lowdown for me: four years HS LD for Gig Harbor. I was in a lot of bid rounds my senior year but I never won any. I was pretty successful on my local circuit. I was assistant coach at Gig Harbor for a year. We qualled a debater to the TOC. I spent three years competing in NPTE/NPDA Parli for Western Washington University debating on the national circuit where I was pretty successful. I also spent a year doing NDT/CEDA policy where I qualified to the NDT during my first (and only) year.

The Big Picture

Do whatever you want. I know pretty much every judge who wants to be preffed high says that, but that’s probably because every judge thinks they’re super chill and down for anything, and I'm not any different. I can’t tell you with absolute certainty if I’ll vote on your arguments when you read them because I think the idea of a syncretic judging philosophy that’s internally coherent is nonsensical. We all have biases or understandings of the way that certain arguments work, so instead of trying to tell you something like “I’m a flex judge” or “I’m a policy judge” or “I’m a clash of civs judge” or another equally meaningless turn of phrase, I’ll just tell you about how I think debate is/should work and you can decide whether or not you want me in the back of the room based on how much that conforms to your expectations/beliefs about the activity, or your strategic preferences. To clarify; almost everything in my philosophy is subject to change based on the stuff that you do/say in your rounds (i might think that presumption flips neg, but if you can explain to me why it flips aff i'll still vote on it), but I’ve found as a competitor that confronting arbitrary biases or argumentative tendencies in a judge philosophy tend to be helpful in navigating in-round conduct, so here’s the quick hits. Most of these won’t matter because these are defaults that can easily change every round based on the arguments that you tell me matter.

- I'm not paradigmatically opposed to speed, but I think online debate should usually a bit slower than IRL policy, so you might want to start at like 75% of your max speed and work your way up to like 85% to give me time to adjust. Slowing down for tags / repeating texts and interps is also good, especially if you're not flashing or emailing.

- Condo is good

- Competing interps is the best way to evaluate theory

- Kritiks are great, but I strongly prefer durable, aff-specific links ("you use the state" or "you are the usfg" are not super compelling to me)

- Theory for strategic purposes is fine. I don’t need to see proven abuse.

- I like it when the aff is topical, but it doesn't have to be for me to vote aff

- Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

- PICs probably aren’t cheating

- Spec is usually bad for debate (but that's never stopped me from reading it, so it shouldn't stop you either)

That’s not to say you can’t read arguments contrary to my beliefs but just know that it’ll be more of an uphill battle than it might be for other stuff. If you make arguments, I’ll vote on them as best I can. There are a few things that I paradigmatically believe in.

- Transphobia/ableism/racism/misogny is bad. Don’t do any of those or I’ll drop you.

- 2AR/2NR theory is a silly silly argument, and I will not evaluate it unless given a VERY compelling reason to (usually it has to do with one of the above things).

- I won’t dock you speaks for clarity but I will yell clear if you’re being unclear.

- Don’t use speed as a tool to exclude your opponents; we've all been the novice who gets six off read against them. If they ask you to slow down a little bit, please accommodate or your speaks will probably tank.

Other than that, go nuts.

Topic Debate / Policy stuff

I was never much of a policy-type debater in high school. Since I did LD, I would mostly defend whole res and read a big framework and like two cards that functioned as framework links to the topic. I’ve defended specific plan texts a lot more in my last two years of parli competition which have turned me into a big fan of more technical policy-oriented debate. The biggest place I think I depart from most judges is insofar as I have a pretty high threshold for try-or-die as a legitimate argument in the face of terminal defense absent winning some framing questions for why your impacts come first. In those sorts of situations, I’m willing to vote negative on presumption (but only if the argument is made). Since I haven’t really prepped any teams this last year, I’m not super up-to-date on the topic lit in high school policy or whatever the current LD topic is, so my threshold for link and uniqueness explanation is probably a little bit higher than the judges you see at every other tournament, but I’ll try to evaluate things fairly.

As far as negative strategy goes, I think counterplans are very strategically underutilized tool. I don’t necessarily think you need to be textually competitive or unconditional or whatever norms exist right now, and am very amenable to CP solves case + net benefit / disad strategy. I don’t get to see these arguments very often in NPDA/NPTE since there’s a very noticeable skew towards the K at the highest level in those circuits, so a good deployment of these sorts of arguments will probably net you high speaks because I like to see novel things.

The K

The K was my go-to negative strategy in high school, but I would mostly read stuff like Nietzsche, Derrida, or Heidegger, not stuff that’s super popular nowadays. As far as stuff I’ve been doing more recently in NPDA/NPTE, and later in NDT/CEDA, it’s mostly Fanon, Agamben, Marx, Black Marx, Semiocap, and D&G. I only have some passing familiarity with things like Baudrillard and Wilderson, but that shouldn’t stop you from reading those arguments in front of me if you want to. Just know that with the K more than with something like a topical policy aff you run the risk of me just being confused and voting on bad arguments your opponents make which misrepresent your position. Don’t assume that I know your authors or whatever -ologies you’re using to justify the framework of the K.

Since I’ve been out of the circuit for a minute, I’m not super up-to-date on the most popular trends in terms of arguments read, so slow down a bit when you read tags and try to maintain clarity when you’re reading super dense evidence about whatever undergirding philosophy your authors are talking about

As far as structural stuff goes, I think that a lot of debaters get by on really lazy link scenarios – I don’t love seeing stuff like “you use the state” on a biopolitics kritik and am usually willing to look other places on the flow if I can do so without intervening. On the same note, links of omission suck and you all can do better than that. Talk about why the aff is bad. Most affs are going to do or say something bad. It’s not that much to ask.

As far as the permutation goes, I default to the perm being a test of competition, and absent some specific framing argumentation, I don’t think that there is sticky offense that can be generated on the perm since it isn’t an advocacy.

On the K v K debate – I tend to believe in my heart of hearts that non-topical affs shouldn't get access to a perm. I think that you get a perm to hedge against counterplans that solve the aff plus other stuff that are not competitive on their own – things like Plan Plus or Alt Actor CPs. You’re constrained to the topic, and absent a permutation, the negative would always win by saying “Do the aff plus give everyone a puppy with a net benefit of cuteness”. If you elect to reject the topic, it doesn’t make sense to me to also give you access to a permutation since you could have read the negative strategy on the affirmative without the constraints of the topic. This is not to say I’ll drop you if you go for the perm in a K v K, or that I think you should not read a perm in a KvK debate (you should! the perm is a good argument!), but I’ll be sympathetic to arguments that say you don’t get access to one, and that's a bias that you should be aware of if you're going to be explicitly non-topical.

On a similar note, I’ve found that teams often do a poor job of explaining or generating competition between K affs and K alts and want to especially stress what I mentioned above about making clear and specific link scenarios between your alt and the affirmative in the K v K debate. Try not to make it messy.

Theory and Procedurals

Everybody’s favorite. I default to no RVIs, drop the debater, competing interps, and fairness and education mattering. I'can't recall ever hearing a super compelling argument for why fairness should be a terminal impact instead of just a side-constraint on education, but won't ignore you if you say fairness is the only terminal impact. These defaults usually don’t matter because debaters tend to make arguments that would either confirm or override these defaults. I also err heavily towards using the interp that I have flowed when deciding the round unless a text of the interp has been flashed/emailed/passed to me by the team who read it which has also been made available to the other team. If I wasn’t able to flow your interp, and your specific wording matters, then your opponent probably couldn’t either, and were at a competitive disadvantage as a result. Not much more to say here.

If you have any questions, feel free to fire away. You can message me on facebook or just ask me before the round starts. I'm an open book.

MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

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.

I have been debating and judging for 8 years mostly in Washington state and the occasional national circuit tournament. For the most part there isn't much in LD and PF that can be done to surprise me. That being said I try not to hold any debaters to real specifics I want to see in the round. I will try my best to adapt to you and flow whatever arguments that you give. There are few key things I do believe though:

1. I don't inherently take issue with the more progressive and performative arguments that have become a part of LD, but I will be honest in saying they tend to be a tough sell for me. I find that the farther a debater strays from the resolution, the harder I find it to give you the ballot.

2. Speed is fine, I don't really care how fast you talk as long as you have clear tags to flow. If it's just jumbled garbage buried in speed then I probably won't flow it and it probably won't help you.

3. If you have abusive framework and your opponent makes any real effort to call you on it, I will side with them. That being said, if you want to run theory arguments to answer your opponent's framework, you need to really focus on it to win on it. I won't give you the ballot if you just by briefly calling abuse and then moving on.

4. Definitions debates are boring to watch, and I'd much rather see you debate the resolution not specific wording in the resolution. If you do it I'll understand, but just be super disappointed.

5. LD can become frustrating to judge when very little time is spent arguing your contentions, and you all in on the value/resolution debate. I'm a big fan of seeing contentions used to support your value/criterion. Don't just leave it all behind.

6. Make sure your impacts in your contentions have actual magnitude or I won't actually have something to vote on.

7. I usually give speaker points between 26-29, and be civil during CX. Being the angriest person in the room doesn't make you the smartest.

8. Flashing, prep, technology, etc... Honestly watching rounds run long because of flashing, or because your computer isn't working how you anticipate it, is quite frustrating. It's what makes tournaments fall behind. I believe if you want take advantage of the convenience of having a laptop in round, you are responsible to understand that you need to be prepared for things like internet filters and keeping your battery charged. That being said, as long as you handle things efficiently that is fine, but I won't hesitate to run time on you if I think things are becoming problematic. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've lost my patience over laptop shenanigans over the years.

My background:
I debate policy for three years in High School. I debated policy for a semester in College. I haven't debated in two years, but I have been judging when I can.

Paradigm for Policy:
I am tabula-rasa. Any argument you want to run, I will listen to, I will flow, and I will evaluate. I try to do as little work as I feel I need to which means the more work you do the better it is for you. I will not ask to see a card unless the credibility of the author or its contents is contested in the debate. As for specific arguments, here is that:

The K: I was a K debater in the sense that my partner loved to run the K and I could understand it well enough. I have read some basic literature on some standard K's, but not much beyond that. This means that I have a fairly high threshold for voting on the K. You should articulate a coherent story in context of the aff(or whatever you are kritiking) and fully explain the mechanism for your solvency. That being said, I love the K as an argument and strategy. I hold its argumentation to a higher standard than others due to its complexity.

CP/DA/T : Run it. I love offense-defense.

Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglass:

I was a policy debater and my only experience in Lincoln-Douglass comes from conversations I've had with LD Debaters/judges and from the rounds I've judged. I am tabula-rasa and love offense defense.

I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition.

As I noted above, the intent of debate is to facilitate communication. Speakers need to remember, and this is extremely important, that communication is not only about speaking, but it is also about listening. I have seen it happen more times than I can count, that your opponent will give you information to flip against them in the round, and that flip is not utilized. The tough part is identifying that information. Do not be constrained by what is obvious, meaning do not be afraid to ask "what if". Lateral thinking therefore, is incredibly important to consider.

Further, I consider myself a pragmatist. Originally, Lincoln-Douglas debate was designed as a values-oriented platform. This has evolved into a policy-values hybrid so while I will look at a round from a purely values perspective, the values and values criteria have become more of a means/end assertion. The use of real world links and impacts should support your decision. If you are able to demonstrate why your real world analysis/evidence supports your values/values criteria and you set that parameter up front, I will strongly consider that as a voter. I would however note the following:: the links to your impacts are absolutely critical to establish in the round. Off time roadmaps are also important. Organization is absolutely critical. It is your responsibility to tell me where you are on the flow.

Impact calculus is one of the major concepts I will weigh in your round. That is an incredibly huge point to remember where I am concerned as a judge. However, it is important to consider the nature of the impact. This is where the aforementioned links come into play. Of further note, since LD has become a hybrid, I buy off on solvency being an issue as a means to justify the resolution. Those of you who have had me before as a judge know why that statement alone can determine an entire round. In short, back to the point on the "what if" issue I broached earlier, that would be a very good place to start.

I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, Rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link.

I started my involvement in LD in 1982, I also debated policy from 1980 to 1982, competed in speech from 1980 to 1984, and competed at the college level in the CEDA format in 1985 and from 1988 to 1990, and have been judging since 2014 in the Spokane, WA area. I also judged policy in the Chicago, IL area in the early 1990"s.

In terms of the January/February 2024 LD topic on reducing military presence in the West Asia/North Africa region, I have very unique experience and perspective. I am retired military, retiring in 2014 and having served 4 years active duty in the Navy and 16 years in the Washington Army National Guard including a one year deployment to Iraq from 2005 to 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I saw first hand the effect of what many of you may try to argue. I also attended many briefings from subject matter experts prior to going in country, including geopolitical/economic briefings, etc. I do consider myself a bit more well versed than many judges in this field based on my personal experience. In short, examine your argumentation and analysis carefully. The bigger picture is a major area of focus and as the semester progresses, you will begin to see adjustments based on the feedback you are getting.

A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. One of my biggest pet peeves is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you. I also do not have a problem with you timing yourself or sharing evidence, provided it does not detract from the overall use of time in the round.

Finally, it is extremely important to remember....this activity can be fun and it will help you in ways you can't even imagine later down the road. Everyone at this tournament, whether they are coaches, judges, your peers, etc...started as a novice. Bad rounds happen. They are a part of the landscape that is debate. This teaches an important life lesson. How do you bounce back from adversity? How do you apply what you have learned to make things better next time?

Remember that the case/argumentation you start off with at the beginning of the semester, will not be what you end up with at the end, provided you do a self assessment at the end of each round. Ask yourself what was supposed to happen. What did happen? What three things went well for you. What three things happened to you that are opportunities for improvement. If you are consistently applying these criteria, and using your coaches/opponents/peers as resources, by default your weaknesses will get shored up. Incidentally, this is a really good life skill as well and can be applied in the real world. Good luck to you going forward!

I have done policy debate for 4 years in high school and coached policy debate for the last 5-6 years. I am now an attorney with my own private law practice but still love coming back and helping the community. I am fine with speed just make sure you are clear and I like when teams go *slightly* (doesnt have to be much) slower on the tags so I can make sure I get everything down on the flow.

Argument preference honestly none but I am always a sucker for a good framework debate. I guess in all honesty I tend to lean more policy maker. Not by preference since I am fine with Kritiks but I want to know what my ballot actually does. The role of the ballot should be more than a 10 second blurb.

I am not as well versed in philosophy as I should be. So don't assume I know what the terminology is BUT I am willing to learn.

T is fine but potential abuse is hard for me to vote on. I usually see T as a gateway issue.

Generic Link DA's: Honestly in the 1NC is fine because I know teams have strats and I get that but I really like a good specific link story to come out in the block or be able to explain it to me.

Impacts: Obviously I am all about impact calc at the end for policy debates and roll of the ballot arguments in K debates.

Email Chain: lukegordon57@gmail.com

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

editing for new tournaments

I will listen to anything you want to try and sell me on. The weirder you go, the stronger your link chains need to be. Tell me exactly where to flow things when we get into the weeds so that I can find them when you want me to. Don't run a ton of stuff you plan to kick later, it just wastes everyone's time. I would rather listen to the things you actually find relevant to your case. I will listen to T arguments, but there need to be super clear criteria for why the team does not meet your T definitions. Impacts, impacts, impacts! I need to know why the things you say are going to happen matter. Re specifics on speeches: Give your own. I won 't flow anything that is verbally given by your partner or anything the non-speaking partner says to the judge. There is a reason speeches are split, and they should stay that way. I'm fine with speed, but if you are really unclear, I probably won't tell you, I will just not get everything you want me to get. Only spread if you are able to do so with clarity. AMA else in round.

I focus on the particular Values being presented, applied and defended.  I expect all arguments to be responded to.  I'm interested in the clash of ideas on cross-ex and rebuttal.  Clear and effective communication is appreciated.

I debated for Central Valley High School and Gonzaga University. I've done many forms of debate, but I primarily have experience with LD, PB, and policy. Generally, I'm familiar with philosophical, critical, and policy style arguments. Debate is an important place for educational autonomy, so you can run the arguments you prefer and I'll do my best to adapt. I will not vote for debaters who intentionally try to exclude their opponent from genuine participation in the round. Additionally, I don't like frivolous theory arguments, so you need to make strong impact arguments if you decide to make them. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask.

The most important thing is clarity and communication skills. I look for strong evidence with a strong link to your contentions. I like analytical analysis to go with your evidence. I do not like critical arguments or any jargon. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. 

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the 2015 Tournament of Champions and at several NFL Nationals tournaments. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments.

Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.

My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision.

Let’s use Theory RVIs as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory position from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one.

Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech.

Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold (competing interps). I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues.

Additional Items to Consider:

1. Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow.

 2. Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how.

 3. Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.

Conner Sabin – Judge Philosophy

A little background about me, I debated for 4 years in college, one year at Willamette University, and 3 at University of Puget Sound, and this is my first year coaching at Lewis and Clark, as well as my first year judging college Parli.  To paraphrase the words of the immortal Jame Stevenson, I wish to judge as well as Tom Schally, but in roughly half as much time.

General Themes Regarding my Judging Philosophy:

1.     This round is yours, and as cliché as it may be, I am willing to hear any type of argument, and willing to use my ballot as told by the debaters in the round. All of my favorite judges in Parli were ones that were flexible and willing to listen to anything with an open mind, be it an aff that sparked it with China, or the Cap K. I strive to be that sort of a critic, and I will do everything I can to limit my biases and be receptive to anything y’all want to do.

2.     While I developed a reputation as sort of a K hack debater near the end of my career, the first few years of it I cut my teeth on the CP/DA debate. This is to say, please don’t attempt to cater to me and read the K if that really isn’t your game. I would much rather see a good T debate where the block knows what is going on than a shallow and confusing K debate that only happened because I was in the back. I will listen to any arg you want to read, as long as it isn’t morally reprehensible.

3.     Preferred Gender Pronouns are important, and you should either ask your opponents what their preferred pronouns are, or refer to your opponents as y’all or similar.

4.     Please repeat every important text (Plan, CP, T interp, K alt, etc) twice, just to make sure I have the correct wording, or give me a copy. This may seem old school or whatever, but I want to make sure that I have the details of your advocacy or whatever you want to go for at the end of the debate.

Specifics:
T:I'm a big fan of the T debate. I think that this is one of the most strategic positions in debate, and it is often underutilized. I think that the focus on this sheet of paper should be on how your interp/counter-interp gains better internal links to your standards, and how those should be evaluated in the lens of the Topicality debate. RVI's are ridiculous, don't go for them.

CP:I love a good CP debate. Analysis as to why you capture specific Advantages or turn others will be very convincing in my book. Generally, I will err neg on CP theory, unless there is an outrageous amount of abuse, in which case, go for Condo/whatever. I see most issues of theory, like process and consult CP's as a reason to generally reject the argument rather than the team, unless there's warranted and detailed analysis on why me allowing that to happen is bad for debate. I'm also probably more friendly to text comp as well, if that's your thing. I also think that the Advantage CP is something that has recently been lost in Parli debate, and if you read a crafty one in a debate, I will reward you with higher speaker points.

DA: Impact calculus on this debate is crucial to me, and can make or break the debate for you depending on the articulation of the internal links to the impacts. I'm very skeptical of assigning zero risk to a DA. I also think that Overviews on the DA can be round-winning, and should be utilized well.

K: Love the K, probably where I felt most comfortable as a debater. That being said, this is also where I have a higher threshold for what is needed to make this argument tick.  Make sure that you can clearly articulate the links to the K, and do topical overviews or an overview that crystallizes the thesis of the K. I think that FW on the K is frequently just telling me what the role of the ballot is, or how I should evaluate the debate, and as such I am open to the Neg just reading a Role of the Ballot arg. I think you should be very clear as to what the mechanism of the K is/does, how it solves the links, and how it solves/impact turns the aff. This should be the bread and butter for a K debater, but leaving me with questions at the end of the debate just leaves the door open for slippery PMRs.

Performance/Identity: I went for some forms of performative args as a competitor, and as such I am relatively comfortable with them. I think you should have a justification for why your performance links to your impacts, and what the 1AC has performed that solves those impacts. I think absent a performance, there needs to be an advocacy statement by which competition can be generated. As far as identity args are concerned, I have ran versions of some of them (Anti-blackness, Settler Colonialism), and while I am open to them, I generally feel uncomfortable with arguments that boil down to solely personal experience, because I don’t think the other team should be forced to negate your very existence, and I think that invites the debate to become more violent that it inherently is. That being said, I am open to any aff, and am willing to vote in a way that makes me uncomfortable if that’s what I’m told to do.

Any other questions, feel free to ask in round. I will do my best to answer them, and also intervene as little as possible in the debate. Make sure y'all have fun, that's what this is all about.

Experience: 3 years of Policy Debate at Centennial (ID)
Contact info: alex.welker7@gmail.com
Pronouns: He/Him or They/Them

Policy Paradigm

Information about me
During my time in debate I was a pretty flexible debater on the negative but strictly read topical affirmatives. I flow on paper so give me pen time when you go between flows that would be very appreciated. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before round I swear that i do not bite.

Short Version
- Do what you do best
-I am one of those awful people that love framework and T debates if they are done well
-I prefer topical affirmatives and/or a k aff that relates to the topic but the negative can do what they want
-Please debate case you will win a lot more rounds if you do in front of me

Long Version

Kritiks – For the most part i was pretty boring in my kritik experience in high school, i went for legalism almost every 2nr. My biggest pet peeve with people that run K's is that the alt explanation is exceedingly lacking, if I don't know what the alt does there is no way that i am going to vote for the K. i am also not well versed in critical literature so if you get up in front of me and start reading things like Lacan, Nietzsche, Preciado or any other really weird author don't expect me to know your literature base. I also am a fan of contextualized links to the aff beyond the generic "the state is bad", having these will make voting for the k a lot easier if i can see a clear link to the affirmative.

Framework – First and foremost framework is a VOTING ISSUE. Now since this is my favorite argument if you run this badly i will not be very happy. For the most part i am more persuaded by substantive as opposed to theoretical framework but will still vote for either. As with topicality to win you are going to have to get deeper into the impact debate than your generic fairness and education claims, only if you get to the upper level implications of framework will it be easy for me to vote on framework.I will see these debates through the offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise by the debaters in the round.

Kritikal Affs – I really would like to see topical affirmatives, but I will still evaluate critical affirmative positions. If your aff does not relate to the topic in any way, shape, or form there is very little chance that i will be voting aff. Also if your affirmative has no advocacy that will not do well in front of me either i would like to know what i am endorsing when i am voting aff. In these rounds affirmative framework is going to very important in context of the role of the ballot or the judge in the round because unless otherwise stated i view rounds through a policy maker paradigm.

Topicality (Not Framework) – I will only vote for Topicality if you can go beyond the education and fairness claims made in the standards debate and expand on the bigger impacts such as research burden, loss of advocacy, destroys debate if the aff always wins, ect. if you do not get to the upper level impact claims of T i will not vote for you. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise

Disads – They are a great strategic option if there is good link evidence and better impact explanation than "econ collapse leads to nuclear war". Case specific strategies will go very far in front of me

Counterplans – I have no real problems with cp's. I go by the philosophy that you can run the most abusive and cheating counter plan ever as long as the aff doesn't call you out.

Theory – I default to reject the argument not the team unless you are reading Condo bad.

Case – Any good negative strategy should include case debate, a lot of the time affirmative teams like to make grandiose claims about all the impacts that they apparently solve when in reality it doesn't make a lot of sense so please call them out. I am also a fan of embedding offcase on case to make those 2A's have to do actual case work.

Miscellaneous Feelings about Debate I have compiled a list of thoughts I have about debate that seem to be in the minority (this will grow as I start actually judging) -

1. Fiat is not real arguments: If you go for the antonio 95 or the Schlag 03 cards in front me you will not win many rounds. I already presume that fiat isn't real and vote on whether or not the aff is a good idea or not and fiat does not preclude that. I see this argument more as a cool FYI as opposed to an actual round winning argument.


2. Judge Intervention: I will not read your cards for you and make arguments for either side of the debate, i find it deeply troubling that many rounds that i have lost and won have been because the judge has read either teams evidence and made the connections for them. I will vote based on what YOU SAY!

3. Speaking for others: I find these arguments more persuasive than most people. For example if you are two white people running wilderson you better know the literature base through and through. If you run an identity politics k that you don't identity with and are not well versed in the literature do so at your own risk.


Speaking TIps - Clarity > Speed always

-SLOW DOWN ON TAG LINES, PLEASE AND THANK YOU
- If you want extra speaker points, be funny.
- But if you try to be funny and fail, you will lose speaker points
- im a big fan of calm sass in CX

LD Paradigm

General Overview: I usually do not judge LD but since i am entered to judge this event at Central Valley this is how i will view the debates i will watch. Overall the way i view debates is not much different than policy but i feel that affirmative theory is much more justified in this activity as opposed to policy debate.

Value/Criterion: While i do evaluate the v/c debate i do not really think it is round winning unless you can prove that either the aff or neg does not meet their own value or criterion or that they are contradictory.

Theory: although I am not very versed in LD theory as long as you have an interpretation and standards for why i should prefer your interpretation i can usually figure out what is going on. Although i find that affs that are entirely theory pretty abusive but with most things will only vote on that argument if it is forwarded effectively by the negative.

Progressive LD: I am all for doing policy-esque arguments and think that reading a plan on the aff or reading a cp and da on the negative isn't bad for either debater to do, although i will still be fine if you want read traditional arguments. If you want my views on things like K's, CP's and such look in the policy paradigm section

Framework: I really like framework debates and much like in policy i am looking for more than just your typical limits and education arguments as reasons to prefer your framework. I am most persuaded by substantive framework but with the caveat being i am not very versed in things like kant or rawls so it would be best to have more explanation of what their philosophy is if you are going for things like epistemic skepticism.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed just so long as you are clear