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.

I will be looking for a well constructed argument based on logic and ethics with enough evidence to support your argument. Speak at a pace that can be understood, if you cannot be understood, the point will be considered mute. 

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 like a traditional, value-centric debate. The clash of value / criterion is critical, and supporting contentions should be clearly linked. I do not mind unique approaches to the topics, but I prefer the focus to reaming on the value clash and ability to show its influence on the contentions and evidence chosen. Extended analysis can include social impact, both pro and con.

Tabula rasa

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!

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

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

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

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

Summary of my paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

The longer version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Debate Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

I am a traditional/flow LD judge. Progressive debate is fine (plans/counter-plans, K cases, framework) but must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution -- and must engage with the opponent (i.e. resolutional Ks tend to fail with me because that leaves no room for the opponent's case). Courtesy to your opponent matters. No spreading.

I have been a coach for 18 years, and in that time I've become a little bit of an old dog. That said, I'm not afraid of some new tricks. I am instantly leery of whatever dance step you've been taught at camp, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to listen. I might be willing to buy a kritik, but it needs to be backed up with solid claim-data-warrant (just like any argument).

DEFENSIVE speed (in order to make sure you cover everything) is okay. OFFENSIVE speed (to spew out 356 arguments, all of which are probably thinner than heck) is, well, offensive to me. Communication matters: if you deliver arguments in a way that my mom can't understand, that offends me as an educator (because you're utilizing a skill that has no use outside of an extremely esoteric audience of debate-heads).

Quality of arguments will always beat quantity. Just because your opponent drops your contention 10 subpoint Q doesn't mean you win. (Doubly so because a case that has that many contentions probably argued none of them well.)

Let's argue the resolution. Ks are fine, but that's in addition to, not instead of, actually arguing the substance of the resolution.

Be respectful. You can win--and win handily--while respecting your opponent, even if he/she is overmatched.

EXPERIENCE

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

POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

WORLDS DEBATE

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

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

I am not into “progressive” debating.

-

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.

If you are in a rush please skim the bolded text for what is relevant to you, the not-bold text that follow is just the longer clarifying explanation for those that might want more details.

wasmith7899@gmail.com is my contact email for any other questions or if you need to add me to a potential link chain

Competed and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NFL(now known as NSDA) Nationals in Congressional Speaking.

Was a high school assistant coach for 3 years. (Currently an unaffiliated judge)
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Communication, Early Childhood Development, and Psychology.

I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are noted on paper for my decision of the winner. I do listen though so, if you want a notable answer marked in my decision bring it up in your speech so it is on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').

Speed - is no problem. If online I need camera on while spreading though- I have a much harder time keeping up with a case if I cannot read your lips while you're talking if you cannot have your camera on for any reason please slow down your speaking slightly and make sure to emphasize your tags. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
I strongly encourage you time yourself. I keep silent Official Time unless told otherwise- but I am not very good at providing time signals while I am also flowing. . If you run out of time I allow approx 4 second grace periods to finish your sentence before I'll have to cut you off. If I am verbally cutting you off you have already gone over time and I will only flow 2-3 more words after the cut off. No new thoughts after time has elapsed. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a brief answer, but allow the debater to decline and move onto prep for the next speech if they so wish.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.)

I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.

Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that I will need less supporting evidence for your claims.

In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
I love Voters at the end please- it helps show what you as debaters believe to be most important in that round.
If no RA, framework, or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolution question and demand, but student defined frameworks(within reason obviously) are my first preference weighing mechanism for the round.

In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as my first tool of weighing the round. I would really like to see how the value and value-criterion are supported by the rest of the following points of your cause. Ideally an LD debate does not devolve to just stating one side has a better value than their opponents, and should just win Becuase that value is "better." Instead I like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions. Tell me how your value is achieved in your world through what you have presented in your case and how you are doing that better or the values you are achieving will have more impact than the evidence and values the opposite side presents. If you get near the end of the debate and aren't sure how to conclude, impact calculus is one of my favorite formats for finishing out a speakers speech to get my onto the same page of what you think was most important in the round today.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.

In Congress I am a seasoned Parlimentarian, I've held Parli as multiple state level tournaments in both Idaho and Washington, I look to Roberts rules and NSDA standards. I prefer that POs use audible time signals such as knocking or make a timer accessible and easy to see for the speaker. The more you can effectively manage the room and keep things in order without me having to interfere the more successful I will perceive the PO job you did.

In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style debate much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a lot of jargon specific to this debate types will lose me.

2nd time judging, I am a communications judge.

No spreading, if I can not understand what you say, I can not flow it, therefore it has not been said.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross Examination

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

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

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

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

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

I like direct clash.

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

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

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

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

I pretty much just follow my heart...

But... I`m sure both sides have some very compelling reasons for why I should decide in their favor. However, the most important factors are the WORDING of the resolution and the INTENTION of the resolution. The WORDING of the resolution is static and doesn`t leave much room for strategic interpretation. The INTENTION of the resolution can be freely explored by either side to their advantage. The only reasons that will be weighed for the decision will be those that are consistent with the WORDING of the resolution and it's INTENTION (... whatever that is.)

I’m a lay judge, probably the lay-est judge you’ll ever get. It’s pretty sad. I did very traditional and slightly horrifyingly poor LD in high school and I’ve since been the judge sitting between the two legitimate and experienced judges on panels for the past 4 years. I have a tendency to look at the big picture. Walk me through the round, explain to me where you’re winning, why you’re winning, and why you winning on whatever issue it is that you are winning on matters in the big picture. Please do not confuse my statement about being a big picture person as one who will accept you skipping over the details. Details are very important, but they need to be connected to the larger point. I’ll be flowing, so if you are referring to a previous point, card or argument, make sure you tell me about it so that I can put it on my flow. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, and I’ll follow you. Most importantly, don’t overestimate my intelligence.