Debate:

I am looking for style: how well do you deliver your speech?

how is your pacing?

are you emphasizing your points?

are you adjusting your tone and speed?

are you making eye contact?

are you delivering your speech to your audience, or are you just reading your speech?

did you practice your delivery?

Do you have a claim and a solid line of reasoning?

are you incorporating your stats/facts or relying on them?

Facts/stats should enhance your argument, not be the center of it.

Are you brining in something new/unique or are you just repeating previous points?

Is your speech well researched?

Rebuttals

are you able to effectively challenge and counter opposing arguments?

are your rebuttals grounded in facts, or anecdotal in nature?

Understanding of legislation and how our political system works

did you do your research?

I'm a traditional Public Forum judge. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with well-developed contentions and significant depth of argumentation. I'd encourage you to state your points concisely, and without significant undue repetition. I do not tolerate spreading; I expect you to have developed reasonable skills of word economy by this point in the season, and would hope that you can concisely develop your case to fit within the required time. I reward the use of reasonably clear enunciation at a comprehensible pace. While I do encourage you to weigh your arguments, be mindful of the tone you use to do so. "Speakersplaining" to me, attempting to tell me which way I am going to decide in the round rather than a courteous appeal for my vote, comes off as arrogant and will not do you any favors in my evaluation of the round. For any clarification, feel free to ask me in-round.

I have been a coach since 1993. I have coached & judged Cross-X; L-D; and Public Forum. I have also worked with all of the individual events and Congress.

Here is the basic philosophy by which I judge the debate events:

For all debate events - you think about this information a lot, I don't. I'm an educator with over 25 years in schools. I like reasonable arguments and understanding your arguments and evidence.

C-X: I weigh the round based on the evidence given and explained. To simply read a card(s) with an author and expect that I know all about him/her, is not reasonable. You must explain why this is important and why this author has a superior analysis. Also, I won't intervene unless you give me no options. I flow - speed is not a problem. If I stop writing, you may want to slow down a little. Flashing is irritating, so keep it quick and clean. Technology problems are yours and I won't stop the round/prep/speech time if you are having tech problems.

L-D: I am old school. I look for a great value/criterion debate and a reason why your interpretation of the resolution and the evidence you provide is superior to your opponents.

P-F: I just want each team to explain why they have the superior position on the resolution. Be nice to each other, as I will deduct speaker points if you seem aggressive. I will only judge on a framework if and only if both teams agree to the framework. There is no room for rudeness.

Congress: I like to see the debate advanced. I don't want a lot of evidence, just a few pieces explained well. Civility - this is huge. I've found Congress in the 2019-20 season to be rude and unkind. This will play in my speech scores and rankings. You can be passionate, just don't be mean/rude/harsh in your tone. Be clear in your questions.

I am a lay, parent judge.

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

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

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

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

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot. I don't believe in civility politics (It's not taboo in my book, for instance, to call your opponent out as racist if they say something racist), but I do believe in basic common courtesy and dignity. Treat your opponent respectfully like a human being and we'll have no issues.

I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled claims and warrants.

My paradigm for Lincoln Douglas is very traditional. I am looking for a straight debate over the resolution from both the Aff and Neg side. I do not entertain plans and counter plans, rather I am looking for a value and criteria followed by contentions supporting the argument. As to spreading, I am not a fan as I think it detracts from the quality of the debate.

My paradigm for Public Forum is that this is Public Forum and there should be no paradigm. Keep to the resolution, with supporting contentions and evidence. You can offer frameworks, but I will not require your opponents to accept the framework, nor will I give it much consideration in the final analysis.

Hi! I'm Jen (she/her)

Kamiak '21

UW '25

Please add me to the email chain: jenniferx2021[at]gmail[dot]com

tldr - tech over truth, clarity first, best for policy rounds, err on overexplaining, cx is binding, my prefs can always be persuaded otherwise, write my ballot for me in the last speeches, be nice & have fun!

ask me if you need clarification on my paradigm!

top level:

an arg has a claim, warrant & impact - all three parts need to be present in order for me to vote on it. I won't cross apply args or do work for you and I try not to read evidence post-round because of judge intervention. I'm pretty flexible with 2ar extrapolations BUT should be able to draw a line between the 1ar and 2ar despite the 2ar pivot. theory args are usually more of a reason to reject the arg than the team and I don't like voting on it, but am willing to if need be. case debates are often under utilized and I wish more neg teams would spend time on the case flow to contest the i/l and solvency of the aff. I'm very flow oriented so if you're reading off a bunch of k tricks at 100 miles an hour, likelihood is I'll miss a couple but slow down a bit and I'll be fine. if an arg or comment made by a team is violent and / or offensive (ie psychologically violent, racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or similarly violent and / or offensive in nature) the round will be stopped, the team will be dropped and tab and their coach will be contacted

online debating:

fine with speed but start at 50% speed then work your way up to 85% max speed. SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS or send them in the doc - you're only spreading as fast as I can flow. sending docs isn't prep until it becomes an issue and if my cam is off, I am not there / ready for the speech

cp:

neg needs to win cp + net benefit and should have a solvency advocate but not a deal breaker unless persuaded otherwise. won't judge kick unless explicitly asked & given a justification. not sure yet how I feel about cheat-y cps; sometimes I find them fun, sometimes I don't - but debate it well and I'll vote for it either way. aff perms need to be explained especially if this is what you're counting on in the 2ar

da:

tell a clear story with impact weighing, turns analysis & evidence comparison. I'm a big fan of das that are specific & contextualized to the aff and will reward good research through speaks. will vote on solid aff defense but have a high threshold - 0% risk is very unlikely BUT 1% risk doesn't necessarily mean I auto vote neg. love love love a good da+cp or da+case debate :)

t:

a full shell has an interp, violation & standards - I need all three in order to vote on t. I default competing interps and am unlikely to vote on reasonability unless it's mishandled or I'm provided a standard on how to determine reasonability. if you're going to go for t, please please please spend a good chunk of time in the neg block developing all your args ie the entire 1nr or at the very least, 3-4 minutes. explain what your model of debate looks like and why it's better - I find myself more persuaded by limits than ground args but debate well and I will pull the trigger on either.

ks on neg:

even if I know the k you're running, assume I'm unfamiliar with the lit and clearly explain the k so both teams can better engage in the debate. if it's a new k I've never seen and I don't understand it by the 2nr, I'm unlikely to vote for it unless massively mishandled by the aff. for both teams: try not to be generic & vague ie k links should be specific to the aff and aff answers should be contextualized to the round. a lot of times, framework ends up being a wash - that said, I'll probably end up weighing the aff in some way. similarly, framing also ends up very messy in most rounds but it doesn't really matter through turns case args. I'm not a big fan of long k overviews and would rather you spend that time on line-by-line. the neg needs to win alt solvency and aff perms need to be explained instead of just remaining as three word phrases like "perm do both".

ks on aff:

same thing as ks on neg - I won't vote for it if I don't get it & assume I'm unfamiliar with the lit. I'm not the best judge for rounds with k affs, but be ready to justify your model of debate and answer impact turns and framework args. I think the aff should still have some tie to the topic but can be convinced otherwise. I find tvas persuasive but the aff should already have a built in reason for why tvas don't resolve their impacts.

misc:

speaks (are weird and arbitrary lol) start at 28.6 for me, then I go up or down from there. tag-team cx is fine, but the person who is supposed to be cx-ed or cx-ing should still be part of the convo. I'm ok with flex prep but encourage you to use all the cx time to ask questions and set up the debate. try not to talk over each other during cx, it gets really messy and no one wins. please don't steal prep, it's really obvious and your ethos & speaks will take a hit.

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that are relatively easy to follow. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. This includes noting verbally when your opponent has not successfully responded to your arguments. Thank you.