Tabroom.com

Washington State IE Tournament

2019 — Tacoma, WA/US

Individual Event Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

New Advisor Roosevelt High School

Maribel Alcantara-Solano Davis High School None

Marisa Anderle Todd Beamer High School None

Erin Annis Skyview HS

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM EDT

General: I have been judging and coaching speech and debate since 2013. I expect competitors who ask about paradigms to be able to keep them in mind during the round. If you are unable to change your approach for my paradigm, then don't ask about it. I generally don't like spreading, but if you can't change your case to prevent spreading then, again, don't ask me whether I'm ok with it. Just do your thing while trying to speak as clearly as possible.

LD: First of all, I love LD and I'm pretty open to most debate styles even though I definitely have old-school preferences. I'm here for the values clash and the philosophy, so please make it fun and bring all of your knowledge and resources to the table. I privilege both the strength of the framework and forward movement on the offense. Warrants are important to me, and I will prioritize clear, persuasive, and quality warrants over the quantity of cards or examples that you have. Despite this fairly traditional paradigm, I really am fine with more progressive styles. You just need to be very clear about how your strategy relates back to the resolution and why it should or should not be upheld.

PuFo: I am a reasonably educated adult voter in the US who follows current events. Please keep in mind that many of the issues you debate in PuFo rounds have a direct effect on my life, therefore, I prefer ethical arguments that speak to how the resolution will have a real impact on individuals. Likewise, I always prefer a PuFo debate that upholds the original intent of this style rather than a debate that turns into "policy lite". You might still win a round if you bring a “policy lite” case, but that just depends on having a much weaker opponent. I will not flow in PuFo debates, so, again, if your argument isn't comprehensible to “a person off the street” or is riddled with fallacies in order to appeal to a “mom judge”, then you will probably not earn my ballot.

Congress: It’s weird to do a paradigm for Congress, but I have definite opinions, so I'll include it anyway. I vote based on who best controls the room and the conversation/debate. I know that many competitors tend to assume that if they speak a lot, they will accumulate enough points to win the round. However, with me, you will instantly lose ranking/points by making a speech that is too similar to the previous aff/neg speech. I would rather see competitors use extemporaneous speaking skills and debate skills to respond to someone else’s speech rather than have them waste their recency for a prepared speech that has essentially already been given. What I prefer to see are: A) engagement with the bill/resolution in light of the US’s current domestic, diplomatic, and economic situation; B) competitors who respond to what’s being discussed/debated in the round; C) competitors who have research-based evidence and can discuss impacts on their “constituents”; D) higher ranking and/or speaks if you can interpret or embody a persona/character depending on the tone of your speech.

Pam Barber Saint George's None

April Barnum Mount Vernon High School

Sunny Behl White Swan High School None

Morgia Belcher Gig Harbor None

Hillary Bernhardt Hire 8 rounds None

Vann Berryman Wenatchee High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:43 AM PDT

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

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. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

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. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

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 any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

Nicole Bishop Mt. Spokane High School None

Jeanne Blair South Kitsap Speech and Debate Team None

Todd Bohannon Eastlake High School

Samantha Branch Auburn Riverside HS None

Patricia Brown Bishop Blanchet High School None

Michael Brusuelas Mountain View HS None

Delani Buchanan W F West HS None

Eileen Burdick Glacier Peak HS

Sam Burdick Glacier Peak HS None

Aidan Burgeson Hire 8 rounds None

Jim Burwell Olympic

Jay Busch Newport HS None

Danielle Canfield Olympia

Dave Carlson Wenatchee High School

Grace Carruth Bear Creek None

Victoria Caswell University HS None

Andrew Chadwell Gig Harbor

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:04 PM PDT

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.

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.

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.

Brandon Charbonnel D D Eisenhower HS 8 rounds None

Kimberly Chastagner D D Eisenhower HS None

Katie Cimino Ridgefield High School None

Chris Coovert Gig Harbor

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:54 AM PDT

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.

Brian Coyle Kingston HS None

Robert Cozzi Mountain View HS None

Chance Crawford W F West HS None

Mark Davis Auburn Riverside HS None

Chet Dawson Hire None

Brent DeCracker Snohomish None

Annalise Dillon Sedro Woolley HS

Kaveh Dilmaghani Tahoma Senior HS None

Caitlin Donnelly Capital HS None

Kate Drake-Wilkes D D Eisenhower HS 8 rounds None

Daniel Duty TAF@Saghalie None

Jasmine Dyes Pasco Sr HS None

Kristen East Gig Harbor

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:09 AM PDT

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.

Nathan Edgar Gig Harbor None

Jenny Ee Interlake HS

Christopher Eller Hire 8 rounds None

Chris Emig South Kitsap Speech and Debate Team

Jamie Fairbanks Tahoma Senior HS None

Matthew Fedrizzi Hire 8 rounds

Jessica Finnsson Thomas Jefferson High School 8 rounds None

Michael Fitzgerald Kamiak High School

Last changed on Fri March 19, 2021 at 12:53 AM PDT

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.

---

Ryan Flieder Pasco Sr HS None

Marissa Florio Ferris High School

Dylan Freeman Mt. Spokane High School None

Kaley Fry Bear Creek None

Ramesh Ganesh The Overlake School

Don Garnand Rain Chr HS

Erin Gibson Anacortes High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:22 PM PDT

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

Mudit Goel Eastlake High School None

Bob Gomulkiewicz Bear Creek None

Kate Gomulkiewicz Bear Creek None

Zackery Gostisha Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 1:01 AM PDT

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.

Luke Greenway Seattle Academy Of Arts and Science None

Julianne Ha Federal Way None

Katie Hadley North Central High School None

Carrie Hallquist Delta High School None

Melissa Halverson Kingston HS None

Paul Hamann Ridgefield High School

Last changed on Wed March 15, 2023 at 3:56 AM PDT

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

I have coached LD since the last century. While I am capable of change, I do hold fast to a few philosophies that you will want to know about if I'm your judge.

First, do go ahead and have a value and a criterion for the debate. Hit those arguments (on your own and theirs) hard: I will look for a weighing mechanism that leads me to some large good.

Second, QUALITY OF ARGUMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY. Just because your opponent drops your Contention 5 Subpoint F doesn't mean that you've automatically won anything worth winning (least of all the whole debate), because if you have a Contention 5 Subpoint F, none of your arguments are probably at all developed or worthwhile. Doing claim-data-warrant well requires some time, and I'd rather have a few arguments developed beautifully than a bunch of arguments that are underdeveloped.

Kritiks: not a fan, but willing to listen. I tend to view them as an excuse not to debate the resolution, so go with caution, but if you're bold enough to go past this warning and try, I'll listen. You might not want to put all of your eggs in this basket if I'm your judge.

Speed: Ick. I'd like to hear debaters demonstrate communication skills that will be valuable outside of debate rounds, and speed is not that. I find it offensive to me as an English teacher.

I do distinguish between offensive speed and defensive speed. That is to say that if you're just spewing out a billion arguments in hopes that one or two will stick, I will actually resent what you're doing with my time and this event I love. But if you need to speed up a little (for example in the 1AR) to hit some things, I can live with that. Nonetheless, if I can't understand you, I can't flow, and if I don't flow it, you didn't say it.

To put it another way (and not just with speed): it is not my job to understand you. It is your job to be understandable.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something: feel free to ask me in the round if anything is missing here.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I'm old enough that I remember when Public Forum was founded (did you know it was originally called Controversy? Then Ted Turner Debate?). Originally, it was founded as a lay judge debate: something that your smart uncle who has never seen a debate round could judge intelligently. Solid argumentation, thoughtful evidence, but no "card wars" and no debate-head jargon. The idea was that LD was too specialized, too jargony, too aimed at a tiny debate-head population rather than to the general public.

While I love LD (still), I hold to this original purpose for Public Forum Debate. I will listen to anything, but let's stay focused on the topic at hand. I won't flow (though I do take notes to refer to for my RFD).

In other words, when judging Public Forum, I take off my debate-coach hat and put on my citizen hat. Treat me like a citizen hasn't decided on an issue who shows up to hear you debate that issue. When I watch a political debate on TV--let's pretend for a second like these are more than shouting matches--I don't flow those, nor do I want to hear epistemological jargon. I just listen for the best evidence, logic, and (yes) coherent presentation. Wow me with those and you'll be on my good side.

Kimberly Han North Central High School None

Derek Hanson Glacier Peak HS

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 4:17 AM PDT

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.

Katie Haynes Toppenish High School None

Donald Hendrixson Ephrata HS None

Nicholas Higgins Chiawana High School None

Breanne Hill Toppenish High School None

Lauren Hillard Gig Harbor

Wen Yu Ho Eastside Preparatory School

Jaime Holguin Gig Harbor

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:02 PM PDT

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Kaelyn Holguin Gig Harbor

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT

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.

Heather Hoppe Delta High School None

Sara Hyde Chiawana High School

Vicky Hyde Chiawana High School None

Josh Jablon King's Schools

Robyn Johnson Toppenish High School None

Jennifer Jones Davis High School None

Jennifer Judge Gonzaga Prep HS None

John Julian Newport HS None

Nick Julian Newport HS

Tyler Julian Newport HS

Maura Jurenka Mount Vernon High School

Paul Jurenka Mount Vernon High School None

Kyle Kendall Peninsula High School None

Alyssa Kim Thomas Jefferson High School 8 rounds None

Kelley Kirkpatrick Mount Vernon High School

Last changed on Sun March 24, 2024 at 7:12 AM PDT

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.

Dylan Koch Hire 8 rounds None

Anil Kumar Interlake HS 8 rounds None

Troy Labriola Mt. Spokane High School

Andrea Lairson Bear Creek None

Riel LaPlant Raisbeck Aviation High School

Dawna Levang Hire None

Shaunessy Lewis Auburn Mountainview HS None

Mike Ma Ferris High School None

Luke Maghirang Puyallup High School 8 rounds

Payten Marshall Kingston HS None

Alex Marth The Overlake School None

Steve McCartt Sedro Woolley HS

Heather McClellan Hire 8 rounds None

Amy McCormick Bellevue HS

Jane McCoy Eastside Catholic High School None

Cassie McCully Union High School

Glory McKenna Cascade High School None

George Means Olympia None

Josie Meats Prairie High School None

Mala Mehta Redmond HS None

Angelika Mein Eastside Preparatory School None

Scott Mercer Tahoma Senior HS None

Anthony Milan Thomas Jefferson High School None

Darrell Miller Auburn Riverside HS None

Meykia Mittag Thomas Jefferson High School None

Robin Monteith The Overlake School

Dave Moore Auburn Riverside HS

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:37 AM PDT

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

Matthew Mossman Mead High School

Mia Munoz Prairie High School None

Marcos Naves D D Eisenhower HS

Michelle Neal Heritage High School None

Ethan Nesselrode Lewis and Clark High School None

Sam Normington Mead High School None

Leslie Ojeaburu Thomas Jefferson High School 8 rounds None

Peyton Olson Mt. Spokane High School

Mary Orlosky Snohomish

Victor Palanciuc Interlake HS None

Isaiah Parker Thomas Jefferson High School None

Calvin Payne North Central High School None

James Pearson Lewis and Clark High School None

Rama Krishna Perugupalli Interlake HS 8 rounds

Chris Price Tahoma Senior HS

Nate Pringle Hire 8 rounds None

Christine Pyle Decatur HS

Piper Ragland Kingston HS None

Stephen Reed Ferris High School None

Zachary Reshovsky Interlake HS

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM EDT

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing ð˜¾ð™¡ð™šð™–ð™§ weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Connor Rice Seattle Academy Of Arts and Science None

Braden Ridgewell Lewis and Clark High School

Carey Rockey Auburn Mountainview HS 8 rounds None

NIco Roshau Puyallup High School

Steve Rowe Interlake HS

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 7:00 AM PDT

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.

Tim Runge Thomas Jefferson High School

Keegan Ryan Hazen High School None

Claudia Santana Thomas Jefferson High School 8 rounds None

Austin Schlosser Mead High School

Jacob Schneider W F West HS None

Paul Sealey Federal Way

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:37 AM PDT

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.

Ermina Sedy Mt. Spokane High School

jessica shattuck Hire 8 rounds None

Sarah Sherry Puyallup High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:31 AM PDT

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.

Andrew Shimer King's Schools None

David Smith University HS None

Willow Smith Lewis and Clark High School

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM PDT

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.

Avery Sonner W F West HS 8 rounds None

Rob Sorensen Bear Creek

Mike Sorenson Thomas Jefferson High School 8 rounds None

Michael Souza Othello HS None

Luke Staben Gonzaga Prep HS

Last changed on Sat January 11, 2020 at 2:40 AM PDT

I debated public forum for 4 years at Gonzaga Prep. I currently coach Public Forum and have judged Public Forum and LD.

Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.

Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will yell at you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.

I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.

Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.

Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.

Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.

Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!

Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.

Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

Greg Stevens Puyallup High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 8:09 AM PDT

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Michael Stovern Mead High School

Karthik Swaminathan Eastlake High School None

Keith Swanson Walla Walla High School

Brad Thew Mead High School None

Stephen Thornsberry Redmond HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:20 AM PDT

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

Jessica Todd Central Valley High School

Michael Trask Seattle Academy Of Arts and Science

Megan Troutman King's Schools None

Joel Underwood Seattle Academy Of Arts and Science None

Carrie Walker Kamiak High School None

Mary Walker Chiawana High School None

Bella Walls Prairie High School None

Chris Ward Lewis and Clark High School

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 6:31 PM EDT

Hi, I’m Chris! I debated 4 years of high school in the North Idaho, Spokane area for Coeur d’Alene High School and have been judging since. Below are some of my general preferences followed by argument specifics.

General Stuff: TL;DR

· ABOVE ALL ELSE do what you think is the best strategical option for you to win the round. This has obvious limits, but you should already know that. I would much rather see a debate where everyone is confident and having fun rather than 4 people struggling to fit perfectly to my paradigm.

· Yes, please put me in the email chain if you are using one: chrisward135@live.com

· Please be able to tell the story of whatever it is you are arguing. My job is not to connect the dots for you.

· Ultimately, I will vote on just about anything provided it is properly impacted, has good warrants, etc. I like to think I’m a pretty easy going person so as long as you win the argument, I’ll vote for you. It’s that simple.

· Organization is something extremely important to me. Please make it clear to me which piece of paper your argument is going on or when you are moving on to a different piece of paper. If you don’t, it might get put on the wrong piece of paper which could determine the outcome of the round.

· If you give me a great line-by-line, you have a substantially greater chance of picking up my ballot.

· Tech and truth both matter to me. You should not be sacrificing one for the other.

· Speed is fine, but please please please do not sacrifice quality for speed. This means I want you to slow down on things like tags, overviews, and rebuttals.

· Please be considerate of one another during the round. This saves us from having uncomfortable conversations and from you losing speaker points during the round.

· I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have about decorum specific arguments, etc. before the round begins.

Case Debate:

I love case debate, please tell me why the impacts of the aff outweigh whatever the negative team has to say. I think case debate has become something less utilized by teams because the aff can sometimes get too “in the weeds” with the 10 off the 1nc reads to get to their own arguments. But yeah, please tell me how awesome the 1ac you probably spent hours creating is.

Disads:

Love these too. I’m totally fine with disads of every topic (the more specific/contextual to the aff, the better). The politics disad was one of my personal favorites to go for, so I encourage you to go for these arguments. One good piece of evidence will go much further with me than the 1nc reading 6 generic link cards.

Counter Plans:

CP’s are fantastic! I am of the belief that the negative should be able to use CP’s and/or kritiks as methods of testing the aff from multiple angles. Like disads, the more specific/contextual the argument is to the aff, the better. That isn’t meant to say that I’ll object to a well-argued states or courts CP as long as you tell me why the CP is a good test of competiveness to the aff, along with proving why the inevitable perm is not mutually exclusive.

Additionally, I need the aff to do more work than just saying “perm do both” and moving on. Actually answer the argument and explain things to me. I too often just have those three words or whatever the verbiage the perm is on my flow with nothing else so please don’t do this.

Kritiks: What you’re probably here for

If I’m keeping it 100 with you, I was not a big K debater, however I did tend to run them the more I debated. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I DON’T WANT YOU TO RUN THESE IN FRONT OF ME! Many rounds I have judged have had excellent and nuanced K debating so if that’s your jam, then go for it. I consider myself fairly competent in some of the literature out there however, this is not a free pass to use a bunch of big philosophy words in hopes of winning my ballot. Spoiler Alert: this decreases your chances of doing that

Like everyone else, please do not assume I know who your author is or what their philosophy entails, because I’m telling you right now I don’t. I teach high school government and I don't have as much time to up to date on every hip new author out there, so please put in the work if you are going to make the argument.

You will pick up my ballot if you have: specific links to the aff, don’t read a lazy generic alt, extend the impact to the K, and actually explain your argument in a digestible way. You should give me an idea what the world of the K looks like and/or what happens post round if you choose to make that argument.

DO NOT just tell me that your answers to the aff were “in the overview”. This is not an actual argument and I generally do not flow overviews to the same extent I flow other arguments. It is not to your advantage to read an extremely long overview with me in the back of the room. I will become generally more disinterested the longer the overview is so make it quick (1-1.5 min maybe). You’re better off just responding to the other team via a line-by-line anyway. Additionally, single card K’s in the 1nc are not arguments. Do not waste my time with these.

K’s I am competent in: Capitalism, Security, Neoliberalism, Colonialism, Set Col, Fem IR, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc.

K’s that will need more explanation: D&G, Batille, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, Agamben, etc.

Floating PIK’s are a conflicting area for me. I will tell you after the round that it may not have been the best strategic choice because my aff threshold isn’t all that high for it, but if the aff says nothing then there’s nothing I can do. That being said, this really isn’t that difficult to flesh out so this should not happen too often I hope.

Topicality/Framework:

T debates are fun! My threshold for T however is pretty high so if this is your endgame, I better hear more than a simple extension of voting issues and violations in rebuttals. As a result, I need you to impact T if you’re going for it and you feel the aff are being a bunch of dirty cheaters. I generally default to competing interpretations but have been persuaded otherwise during the round.

Theory:

Theory was another of my favorites to go for in rounds. As many others have likely told you, I prefer that you slow down during theory debates. Your argument becomes 1000% less persuasive when you vomit it out at 300 wpm. My threshold for this is similar to topicality so you will need to do the work and tell me why the ballot matters for your side and/or how this will effect behavior in future rounds. I really need you to sell me this argument if you want me to vote on it.

K Affs/Performance:

I don't have much experience with performance-based arguments however, I will still do my best to evaluate the arguments to the best of my ability. I have had increasing experience with K Affs though (I'm pretty comfortable with these). I don't really have any predispositions to any of these arguments so run them. I enjoy listening and learning.

Couple things to keep in mind with me in the back of the room: I still like hearing some form of advocacy statement in a K Aff even if it means making it up in cx or something. If I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. You should also slow down when it comes to tag lines. Your paragraph-long tag doesn't mean anything to me if I can't understand what you're saying.

Most importantly, have fun! At the end of the day, we do this because we enjoy it. Even when judging, I learn something new at every tournament I go to, and you should too. That's what debate is all about win or lose. At the end of the day, it is all part of the game we play :]

Martin Wheeler Central Valley High School

Bob Wickline Cascade High School None

Mandi Wickline Cascade High School

Brannan Widdis Seattle Academy Of Arts and Science None

Laura Wilson Bear Creek None

Ben Witmer Ferris High School

Edward Wolcher Ridgefield High School

Faye Wu Newport HS None

Liang Yu Interlake HS None

Jacob Zerby Edmonds Woodway High School

Vivian Zhou Bellevue HS None

Megan Zika Prairie High School None

Login to Tabroom

Washington State IE Tournament

2019 — Tacoma, WA/US

Individual Event Judges Paradigm List

Judges