I was a four year policy debater in high school and then debated 2 years of college parli and 1 year of college policy. The debate is about what you make it about so just be clear in the story of the aff or neg.

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

I listen to, but do not flow CX, you will have a hard time convincing me of links to things said in cross (obviously this is a sliding scale, if it's a link to the performance of the speech act the threshold is lower than "they admitted that I was right on everything in CX so default to me")

You will have a hard time convincing me of arguments that rely on "real world" framing, policy debate is not like the real world in basically every way, instead you should spend that time talking about the skills that your model of debate emphasizes and why those skills are important, if that means debaters are better at real world arguments say that but lets not pretend that policy is anything close to a simulation of real world arguments

Formalities:

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

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

If I call for evidence it means that I'm comparing the truth claims you're asserting versus your warrants which means that I don't what your theory or analytics, if I don't hear those arguments in the speech I feel uncomfortable evaluating them which is another reason why slowing down in the theory debate on important arguments is good for you in front of me.

T and theory in general:

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

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

Pet peeve: please do not refer to theory arguments that are not topicality as "T" I won't dock speaker points or anything it just makes transitioning between flows easier for me.

K:

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

CP:

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

DA:

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

Case:

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

LD Paradigm:

I would say that I tend to prefer "traditional" LD debate, so I really enjoy rounds with good framework debate. However, I am also okay with running Kritiks or more "progressive" cases.

I cannot stress enough how important signposting is for me. This makes it SO much easier for the judge to flow your case well, so PLEASE do this. Additionally, off-time roadmaps are great, as it gives me some direction with my flow.

I look to framework debate, my flow, and contention-level debate when deciding the round.

I'm okay with some speed, but please do not spread. If you're going to spread anyway, please know that if I can't hear it or understand it, I won't be able to flow it. You must speak clearly and slowly over all of your contentions and cards so I can get them down.

Voters are great, I like for you to tell me why you think you've won the round.

Ask me any questions if you need to!

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

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

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

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

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

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

Things that hurt you:

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

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

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 cordial debate, and I weigh the content slightly more than the framework, but they're fairly close. Proper analysis matters and every contention should be thoroughly analyzed – not just stated, and then you move on, (a surprising number of competitors do this, so don't just count yourself out like, "that's not me"). Make sure that analysis is backed up by good evidence. I try my best to weigh each round with only the information you give me (table rasa) but you know no judge is truly a blank slate.

Pragmatic over Philosophical.

Debate coach at Sedro Woolley, 3 years.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

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.

---

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

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

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 usually judge both IEs and Congress. If you see me judging a different debate event, assume that I am a reasonably intelligent layperson. Below I've provided my Congress Paradigm first and then a bit about IEs later. I know it’s really long so hopefully the headings help! You can refer to me with the pronouns He, Him, and His.

Congress Paradigm:

1. Most important: Weigh your points. Tell me why the point you just made is more important than any of the points other people made. Why should I rank you higher than others? Why are your arguments better? Tell me!

2. Be original. I know every judge says "don't rehash," but that's because of how important it is. If you give the same points as someone else you need to tell me what your new contribution to those arguments are, or I can't rank you well. I am willing to count it as new if you give me a legitimately new take on that argument, or talk about why that argument is important, but if you don't do that, it's rehash. On that same note, I know it's important to have unique arguments, but please make sure your unique arguments are, well, right. If you make a point that no one else has thought of but it doesn't make any sense, I can't lend you much credit.

3. Interact with what other people say. If you give a speech with 2 points that were both just refuted by the last speaker on the other side, I'm not going to be very inclined to believe your arguments. Tell me why they didn't successfully refute your points, and why your points matter. Also, if your points go against what someone else said, say so! Name the person, quickly go over what they said, and tell me why you are proving them wrong. If two speakers have arguments that are mutually exclusive/refute each other, but neither one of them told me which one to believe and why, it's hard for me to choose who to rank better, which leads me to my next thing:

4. In Congress, you're debating bills and resolutions. I'm perfectly happy to listen to a moral debate about whether a bill is right or wrong, but if that potentially-tricky process isn't something you have a lot of experience with, I think it makes more sense to make arguments that directly talk about what the bill would do. Because of the complexity of more legal arguments about how a bill would be implemented or what it means to government agencies, It’s a good idea to research those points and run them by someone else too. That said, I tend to prioritize a well-done argument based on the text of the bill over a well-done argument based on the general idea behind the bill so if you can make a good bill-based argument, please do.

5. Speaking. I like to think that that speaking isn't as important to me as content, but sadly like all people it does affect me and it will factor into my rankings if I think that content between multiple speakers is about the same (which happens!). I also don't mind much if you read a lot, but make sure you look up every so often and don't only read off a paper, especially in open.

IE Paradigm:

It's important to me that folks hold to genre or break it intentionally. Each particular type of speech has its own customs and standard types of speaking, and for those who are just starting out it's extremely important to learn those customs. This is not to say that we should be dictated by the old customs of genre; instead, we should understand that norms exist in each event and write our speeches with the idea of following those norms which we find useful while intentionally breaking the others that we don't find useful. To do that, one first needs to know what the norms of the genre are. Think of your speech as though it is in a dialogue with all the other speeches given in the same event beforehand, and how you structure it will be recognized in relation to how the genre has been used in the past. If your structure and content is extremely different from the structure and content of virtually every other speech ever given in the same event I will wonder why. I usually rank speeches that fit neatly into the conventions of an event higher than those where it seems that the speaker is unfamiliar with those conventions, but if it seems like you are familiar with conventions and intentionally breaking them for a clear purpose, I like that even more than following them. All writing is revisionist writing, but you have to know and recognize what it is that you're revising!

Because each event has different norms for its respective genre this part of my paradigm will mean different things depending on which event I am judging at the moment. Since I don't think it would be easier to spell out a paragraphs-long paradigm for each IE--not to mention that few of you may ever read this--I will have to ask that you talk to coaches or established peers about how to fit within and/or push against the conventions of each particular event. I also try to leave more specific comments on each ballot. I'm pretty familiar with the conventions of all IEs besides interps and can judge them accordingly. If you see me judging an interp, I have to apologize because I know less but will try my best!

Important Notes:

1) I'm ok if you're passionate or even accusatory, and both can excellent rhetorically, but don't be racist/sexist/classist/homophobic/transphobic or in any other way exclusive. It's important to remember that exclusion takes place across multiple levels of interaction--from our word choices, our tone, our body language towards different people, and, critical in this context, the underlying meaning we're trying to convey when we speak. Please do everything you can to avoid being exclusionary. If you are, I will almost certainly give you a very poor ranking and low speaker points.

2) I don't care all that much about the formal minutiae of decorum, because the whole point of this is to make you better at speaking and debating (and thinking!), not mindless conformists. That being said--and this is similar to the last note--don't do anything rude or egregiously outside reasonable expectations of decorum.

3) I like humor. If you can make me laugh, you will probably rank better. And you don’t have to be mean to make me laugh.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years. 

I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.

Other aspects to keep in mind:

I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework. 

I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework. 

Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed. 

I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.

I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.

Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.

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

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Real world application

Public Forum

Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the tournament!

But..

Since it is an online tournament, please try to talk slower than you normally would do at in-person tournaments. I flow on paper and listen to cross-fires as well.

Some things I look for:

• make sure your cases are well structured and easy to follow
• if you have a framework, make sure you link it to your contentions
• contentions should have either logic or evidence to support your claims
• please include impacts in your case
• if you are refuting to opponent's case, make sure you let me know which contention/argument you are refuting to and explain your logic or include evidence to support it
• try to weigh your impacts and clearly explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's
• please refrain from adding new contention at summary speech
• I should hear voters at final focus. Tell me why your team won!

Traditional Judge.

Prefer no spreading.

Sign-posting appreciated

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

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.

Subscribe to PewDiePie

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

Note: This is a paradigm for my local circuit. For nationals, i still judge similarly.

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

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

BACKGROUND: From 1988-1992 I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at a reasonably successful level. I LOVED it and still do personally prefer it to other types of debate. That said, I respect all forms of debate and try to honor the essence of the form when judging any debate. I have been out of the Debate world since 1992 until now, as new coach in 2016-2017. During my two years as coach, I have been judging Policy often. I think I'm really starting to get it. The plus side of me being somewhat new to Policy is I don't come with the usual biases/preferences as a more experienced judge who competed in Policy might. I have taught Literature and Writing for 17 years as of this moment, and I write and edit fiction.

GENERAL PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa. I won't do the thinking for you, for the most part. I like depth of knowledge on the topic. You should be reading up on your topic, not just finding evidence cards. I want plenty of clash. I want solid reasoning and analysis. Explain your arguments.

STYLISTIC PREFERENCES: You don’t have to be nice, but you should always be respectful. I’m not terribly fond of the overuse of debate jargon and I find that it can supplant reason. I always prefer reason in that case. And by that I do mean overuse. One should be able to call things what they are. Label and articulate the labels of the parts of your case. Use those labels in your following speeches. I like a good debate where you take on the resolution and defend that position and am less impressed with trying to side-step or avoid clash.

SPEED: Not personally a fan because I love good rhetorical style and believe that words matter, but I can follow you if you articulate and slow down on the important points. I find I’m less hindered in understanding by speed than I am by poor articulation and enunciation.

KRITIKS: Sure, if well-argued and not frivolous.

KRITIKAL AFFS: Sure, but same as above.

THEORY: Yep. Also same as above.

TOPICALITY: Also same as above.

COUNTERPLANS: And again. I’m open to different kinds of arguments, except solvency arguments in LD (that annoys me unless you argue why it’s appropriate--it’s not a given). It’s not so much the type of argument that matters, it’s HOW YOU CONVINCE ME IT MATTERS. You have to do that work.

SPEAKER POINTS: Yes, I give 30s. Good rhetorical and style and attitude matter.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: I don’t flow CX, so you need to bring it up in your speech if you want me to flow it and I’m not a fan of “flex” CX.

FLASHING/SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Arrive prepared with paper copies or be seamless with your technology. I am annoyed when time is lost because lost because of technology glitches.

UNDERVIEWS/OVERVIEWS/OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS: Sure, but be quick about it.

DISCLOSURES: I will not disclose unless I am instructed by the tournament to. I think mystery about how you’re doing is a good thing.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

Dylan Thomas

If there is an email chain feel free to include me. - dtdylanthomas10@gmail.com

4 years NDT-CEDA Debate (legalization through NHI), and an additional 4 of HS policy debate. One appearance in each the NDT, and outrounds at CEDA.

I am probably OK with whatever you plan on doing in front of me. At various points in time I have occupied the position of the nontopical debater, the topical kritik debater, and plan-focused policy analysis in my arguments. I've occupied a similar range of positions in my negative debates. I'm going to judge the debate in more or less the same fashion each time: I'm going to ascertain whether the aff has won any advantages, then I'm going to determine whether the neg has won any disadvantages, and then I'm going to compare.

The biggest thing you can do in front of me is clash. Stand up and tell me why your opponents' arguments are wrong. Too often recently I've watched debates that featured an attempted end-run around the debate - either their opponents just didn't get the case, or people are trying to execute some sneaky clever strategy, or something else entirely. In the right circumstances, and executed well these rounds are a lot of fun to watch. Unfortunately this is difficult to pull off, and its rare that the circumstances are correct. Most of the time the correct call is to just out-debate your opponents. (this is distinct from squirrelly, small affs with little link ground. Do those to your hearts content.)

Argumentative preferences

Almost all theory args aren't reasons to reject the team.

Fiat is illusory but so is the alt.

It is easier for me to vote for an argument that I agree with than ones I don't - which means it is very hard for me to vote arguments like death good etc. I straight up will not vote for things I fundamentally believe are bad. Positions such as death good might not be the best read in front of me.

It would behoove you to explain your alt.

I really like case debate. Debate the case. Extend the case. Outweigh with the case.

I generally prefer debaters to ask and answer their own questions - some interplay is inevitable and good (Even if you are not in CX you should not let our partner irredeemably screw up the round, for example), but be careful not to overdo it.

I am a parent judge from Interlake High School. I have judged at multiple tournaments before and have been trained in flowing. I do not disclose my decision after the round. To best adapt to me, you don't need to slow down specifically, but speaking clearly will be helpful. I value making logically compelling arguments and convincingly refuting opponents' weak contentions and points. Have a great debate!

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

--Leonardo DaVinci