I don't have many "must do _____" or "don't do _____" when it comes to judging debate. For the most part I believe debaters have the right to frame the parameters of their debate and focus on the issues which they believe are most impactful or important. But here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Don´t spread. It´s a scourge on debate in general and policy debate in particular. Communication experts recommend approximately 150-160 words per minute as the optimal rate of delivery. If I can´t flow an argument, I won´t weigh it at the end of the debate. A few strongly developed and well-impacted arguments tend to prevail over a larger quantity of weaker ones. I expect good clash on the key points introduced by both sides!

2. Debate is still an oral communication/persuasion discipline. DO NOT offer to flash your speech to me; I won't take it. Your job is to persuade me with the power of your spoken argumentation, not how well you write. If you are offering to flash me your speech, you´re signaling that you doubt your ability to persuade with your speaking.

3. Aggressiveness is fine, but avoid personal attacks and unprofessional snark.

4. Don't distort your evidence ... period. If your opponent does so, point it out!

5. Arguments need to make sense and have strong/clear links to merit consideration. Conjectural arguments with weak links won´t merit much weight if the opponent points out these flaws.

6. Source credibility and biases matter ... don't neglect them when they are relevant!

Otherwise ... bring it!

Speech Judging: As the parent of a speech participant I've been judging speech and debate events for a year now. I have found that you guys know what you are doing and do it exceptionally well. I am here to judge, not critique but more to judge how much I have been moved and persuaded, or impressed with the depth of thought that has gone into a piece and how well it has been expressed. I've seen very great performances from confident polished performers and have rated them lower than other performers who, quite frankly struggled but, did better in what appeared to be their ability in providing a more thoughtful piece. So I judge based on the criteria for each event and making sure you follow the rules you are given and after that its all about the beauty depth and thoughtfulness that is in the piece and the performance. In the end it I weigh it up like this.

Rules: Did you follow the rules (20%).

Speaking Skills: Enunciation, speed and pauses, volume (20% +).

Content: Subject and connectivity, can I follow you, does it tie together. Not the quality of the subject but how well it was pieced together, simple points if done right are remarkable (20% +)

Believable: Was there heart and conviction? Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham", actors (not in film) on Broadway, my college Chemisty prof. History prof. Writing prof, and of course my high school lit teacher. All transcended enthusiasm and were what they were speaking. That will get (40%) weight as long as the other 3 were in check or better.

Public Forum Judging: I am the "Public" in Public Forum. I am a parent of a speech(er) and have never done debate myself. I have judged PuFo. since last year and seen the best in the nationals tournament, so I know what is good. That being said I do not know the technical aspect of the "sport" but rather enjoy a good well fought game. I like clear points that are backed by evidence and some common sense. I expect every point or argument to be addressed, if not it flows to the side that brought it up. Of course I won't consider any new argument in the last round that will not be able to be addressed. I go in these with an attitude of "I know nothing". Cross can be a game changer if you are able to show flaw in the others argument and/or it can be just a ho hum time where nothing is gained or lost. Civility counts. I don't mind if you talk fast I can speed listen but make your points clear if you want them to stick.

Speaker points are based on the first round I see of the day. They are usually 27 if they are good, great gets 28. by the end of the 6th round the 27 may be the lowest score of the day or the 28 may have been the best. Again I come in with a clean slate and do my best to compare quality of speaking with the talent of the day. I also look at capability. I have seen debates when the debaters could hardly pick their eyes off their shoes but they spoke so clear and with thought they received high points.

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.

Background:

Howdy to whoever is reading this! I did PF debate in high school from 2016-2019 and have been judging on-and-off since then. I have experience judging all types of debate, but my specialty is definitely in PF.

PF:

Above all, be respectful and be clear. Make things super easy for me to understand and make sure you annunciate well. I'm pretty flexible, but not a fan of more policy-esque cases. I'm fine with speed, but make sure your main points are clear. If I don't flow it, it didn't happen, so keep that in mind too. Big fan of roadmaps and over/underviews.

LD:

Similar points to what I've written above for PF. I'm open to pretty much anything you throw at me, but make sure that you make it clear to me. I'll judge heavily on framework and values, fine with decent speed but make sure you're easy to understand.

If you have any specific questions, just let me know before the round starts.

I'm a flow judge. You should signpost well, but speed is fine. Tell me beyond just evidence why you've won the debate. Give clear voters.

And don't be rude(:

About me: I am a college Communication instructor and occasionally judge on the college circuit. I also have experience as a High School S & D coach.

Paradigm: My judging paradigm is best categorized as a Policymaker. I will vote for the better case (or, status quo). I would also categorize my judging as 'comms.'

Presentation: I do not mind spreading if your tag is clear and well-spoken. If I can’t understand you or keep up, I will not flow your argument. Please roadmap and signpost. This does a couple of things- (1) helps me flow and (2) shows me that you understand the structure of your case and your opponent's arguments as well. I like formality and respect at all times.

Argumentation: I want to hear a well thought-out case that demonstrates understanding of the topic at hand. I want to hear clash and clear rebuttals. I have no set criteria for number of arguments presented, but if you introduce something, be prepared to defend your position to the end of the debate. I do not mind tag-team for Policy as long as it is agreed upon before commencement of the round by both teams.

Do not introduce theoretical or kritical arguments unless you understand them and can demonstrate linkage to the round. Generic arguments do little to advance the intent of the round.

My name is David Shin. I debated in CX for 4 years at Coeur d' Alene High School. This is my first year out judging, but I still have decent experience in policy. Currently, I'm at a student at the University of Washington in Seattle. If you have any questions about your rounds or would like to add me to an email chain.. you can reach me at shinsomang28@gmail.com

FAQ:

- Yes, I allow tag-team cross-x as long as the person who is supposed to be answering/asking the questions is reasonably a part of the questioning.

- I do not have any disposition against any specific authors or arguments.. I'll listen to any arguments you read.

- Speed is fine.. go as fast as you want, with one caveat- PLEASE be CLEAR. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, but if you can handle maintaining both, go for it!

- Organization is really nice.. If you can let me know when you're swapping flows it would help me flow better! (Which of course, is better for you). If not I'll still be able to keep up and put args where I think they are relevant (which may or may not be in your favor).

- I don't count flashing as prep time unless you take an unreasonable amount of time. If there is an email chain, please add me at: shinsomang28@gmail.com

- I LOVE LINE BY LINE

- Be generally nice to each other.. *this won't influence my decision, this is just one of the considerations I take into speaker points.

- I have a pretty average threshold for topicality, as long as the aff is reasonably topical, I'll probably default on reasonability if you tell me to (unless the neg does a good enough job explaining why it is bad).

- K's are chill, but explain them. I'm not just gonna vote for you because you out-jargon some other team.

- Ultimately, I'll vote on anything as long as you make it apparent to me why it is important in the context of the round. Impact it out.

Specifics:

[T]

- I explained my stance on T in the FAQ above. Essentially, if an Aff is reasonably topical- I'll buy it. But if you present to me a compelling reason as to why I cannot default to reasonability, then I won't.

- If you go for T, I want you to explain to me why you think the aff is being abusive. If you can't tell me, then I might have to weigh your T a little less than I normally would.

- Competing interps is fine, I will look at both if you tell me to. Don't just have reasons to pref based on the author though! I like precision arguments, contextual ev, etc. Tell me why I should care about your interp more.

[CASE]

- Impact this out please. Explain to me why the impacts of the aff outweigh whatever the neg has pit up against you.

[DAs]

- This was my jam. I love them. Explain and impact out your scenarios. Weigh them against the aff. I appreciate specific links, though you can get away with generics if the aff lets you.

[CPs]

- These are nice with the DA. Compare the effects of the CP to the world of the Aff. Permutation debate is very important to me. You cannot expect to get away with a perm do both, without explaining how the perm functions and how it is better than the cp alone. That being said, the negative must also explain why the perm does not function.. otherwise I'll let the aff get away with a sketchy perm.

[Theory]

- These are perfectly okay. If there's a incorrect application of the theory, I'll still look at it.. This means both teams need to respond to the theory arguments or there is a decent chance a team could get away with a squirrel-y theory arg.

- ALSO these become much more persuasive when you SLOW DOWN. I'm not exactly sure how much I can buy abuse when you spit it out at 300wpm.

- Impact out your theory arguments. Tell me why it matters.

[Ks]

- These are cool. I like hearing them. I'm not a philosophy major so don't expect me to know your author. Explain exactly how the kritik functions and what happens as a result of the alt. Framework debates are also pretty important... I appreciate specific alts, but you can get away with the generic one if the aff lets you.

- K's I have run/ have experience with: Capitalism/Neolib, Security, Colonialism, any of the IR K's, D&G, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, and Orientalism.

- Take the list with a grain of salt, please explain to me what you think your K means in the specific round of debate. I am not going to make applications of the K to the aff for you. This is not a space for you to out-jargon your opponents and expect to win.

[K Affs & Performance Affs]

- I like hearing these, just as much as I enjoy K's. However, since you are on the aff.. I kinda want to hear SOME sort of an advocacy statement even if it is utter BS.

- If you could, please slow down a bit on the tags.. this would be appreciated.

My pronouns are they/them.
I'm a lay judge. (I did cx in high school, but have been judging pf, ld, and congo since 2018)

I don't like speed for online tournements, and I really like it if you give me voters and impacts

Be respectful and argue well.

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

I've done both PF and LD at the state and local levels respectively to address questions/fears about my competence or debate experience. Unfortunately did it for 4 years in high school. Tried it in college. Have gone to nationals many times.

Now that that's over, anything flys. I'm cool with speed if you enunciate clearly. Whether or not the debate is allowed to be progressive or traditional lies in how both debaters frame the round, but I do appreciate at least attempting to recognize the value and value criterion in your arguments. I don't care about what happens in cross x. Don't drop arguments, make sure there is lots of clash, and prioritize voters. Emphasize arguments/points important to the round (don't say it just once) or I might not write it down. I won't make arguments for either debater so make sure to fill in the gaps. Let me know how you want time signals and prep. Otherwise, I keep official time with time signals at 1 min remaining, 30, 15, etc, and prep will be given with verbal prompts in 30 second intervals. Have fun.