I did LD for 3 years at Gig Harbor HS. I am the British parliamentary team captain at PLU.

- Run any case in any form or style of argumentation you are comfortable with and I will try my best to fairly adjudicate the round

- It is the debaters’ jobs to determine conditionality and order of offs if that is applicable to the round

Role of the adjudicator/burden structure - Debaters can provide new adjudication models or burden structures in the debate, but if this does not happen I will default to the model described below

I tend to view “ought”s and “should”s as operative terms in LD resolutions. In this sense it usually the aff’s burden to explain when something ought to be done and then show that the resolution is such an instance. The neg burden is to disprove this, not just to provide competing offense.

Of course, this is not the way that every resolution is structured, but with any resolution I will default to a similar truth-testing model. But please don’t make me do this and just tell me how to adjudicate the round

Framework - I place high value on the functionality of frameworks. Each contention level argument is only acceptable insofar as it works in cohesion with the framework, otherwise it has no place within the round and I have no way to evaluate it. It is therefore crucial that you recognize the purpose of your framework and make that as distinct as possible throughout your speeches.

Theory - I’ll evaluate/vote off of theory args.

Topicality - Similar to theory. I’ll evaluate/vote off of T args.

Speed - Speed is fine, i’ll say “clear” if clarity is a problem. Slowing down for tags or otherwise important or easy to miss arguments is advisable.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round or the debate space more accessible to you.
Before each round I will provide time for debaters to share their pronouns, if they would like to.

Email: ashsj@plu.edu

TL;DR

Please run cases that took more effort to make than simply copy-pasting from the most recent briefs, ugh.

Stuff I like

Kritiks, Plans, Performance, Narratives (find me on Goodreads!), Creativity, Friendship.

Stuff I dont like

Spikes, theory (Run theory only if theres an actual reason to)

Misc

I give speaker points based on how organized you are; creativity is a plus, so is a sense of humor.

About me

My favorite stuff to run included Anarchy, irony, Biblical narration, space warfare, and poetry. Psychoanalysis is fun. Not familiar with postmodernism lol

Contact

Feel free to email me at Ld4DavidB@gmail.com

Speed / Style: I'm a former LD debater (2010 - 2013). I can handle moderately high speaking speed and am skeptically open to more progressive / experimental cases. But I've been out of the game for a while and some of the cases you kids are running make my old cases look like cave scrawlings. So if you run kritiks and other creative case structures you'll need to lay things out clearly and really do the legwork to explain why you're breaking the mold of a traditional debate. Define and explain the lingo.

Sporstmanship: Funny is good. Confident and incisive is great. Mean is bad. Make sure you know the difference. I frown upon unsportsmanlike behavior. If you run absolutely caustic / bigoted / etc. arguments, I'm not afraid to stop the round. I've never had to do this and hopefully that won't ever change. Please tell me or someone running the tournament if you have concerns over something that happens in the round. Remember, this is all just a sport. We're here to have fun and compete.

I would prefer you keep your own time just in case my phone bugs out.

I'll say "clear" if I don't understand you. Your opponent may do the same.

Flex prep is fine if both sides agree to it.

Please ask me for anything else you want clarified.

Keep your offtime roadmaps short and to the point. You shouldn't need more than 7 seconds to tell me what you're about to talk about.

I do vote based on performance in CX.

Most importantly: Provide me a roadmap, speak concisely, respond directly to what your opponent is laying out, and provide a clear crystallization of what matters in the round and why your case succeeded. An argument you won, or that your opponent dropped, will not do much good if you don't reconnect it in the end as part of your voters.

Name

Andrew Burden. Most folks just refer to me by my last name.

Pronouns

He/Him/His

Background

I competed in Speech & Debate for Puyallup High School. Performing Program Oral Interp, Oratory, and debating in the Lincoln-Douglas format.

Email for inquiries:

af_burden@icloud.com

General Judging Paradigms

1. Framework

Framework is of utmost importance to me in a Lincoln-Douglas round. The Value and Criterion are fundamental to the LD style of debate and I will expect that your arguments (however progressive they may be) will have clear links to your framework and topically adhere to the Value and Criterion by which the round will ultimately be judged. If framework is conceded or neglected, give me a good reason why.

2. Impacts

I want to hear clear and comprehensible impacts on which I can measure the ultimate decision to vote for you. What will happen as the result of me voting for you? These impacts can be pre-fiat or post-fiat.

3. Kritiks/Theory/Other Progressive Strategies

Progressive debate does not mean you can neglect the framework (Value & Criterion). I have seen this happen all too often in Lincoln-Douglas by students who are not as adept at progressive debate as they think. If you intend to get into kritiks, theory, etc., I want you to clearly explain the ideas you are presenting in a way that is equitable and accessible to all in the round. This is the ultimate test of your understanding of the ideas and concepts you are attempting to communicate in the round.

Personal Preferences

The following are matters of personal preference and while may not necessarily affect the manner in which I evaluate the round, it may affect my ability to comprehend and understand you and your arguments.

1. Spreading/Speed

I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear and enunciate. I also consider it a courtesy to share your case with your opponent should you choose to spread.

2. Standing vs. Sitting

Whatever you're comfortable with, but standing does offer a good position to speak clearly, effectively, and with the dexterity necessary to be an outstanding speaker.

3. Signposting/Road-mapping

Please signpost and road-map. Let me know what points you're speaking on and the order in which you intend to do so. I will not flow if I do not know where to put your arguments on the paper. E.g. - "I will first go over the AC (Affirmative Constructive) and then the NC (Negative Constructive)." and "Starting on Contention 1.... now onto Subpoint A.... next on Contention 2."

4. Timing

Please feel free to keep time yourselves.

5. Bonus Speaker Points

Bonus points for Star Trek references

Ethics/Civility/Accessibility & Other Considerations

1. Gendered Language

I want the debate space to be equitable, and the discourse and language we use to engage in it ought to be inclusive. Please avoid the use of gendered language in your speeches and don't be afraid to correct for any gendered language in the text of your cards. Such examples of gendered language would include "the Common Man", "mankind", or simply the use of "man" to refer to the general individual.

2. Pronouns

I will encourage debaters to share their pronouns if they are comfortable doing so. I will as well. If a debater does not share their pronouns, default to they/them or simply refer to them by their position (Aff or Neg), or simply 'my opponent'. No debater should be required to share their pronouns if they do not wish to do so.

3. Accommodations

If there are any accommodations that I can make for you to help ensure the debate space is equitable and accessible, please let me know.

Parent Judge

Speak slowly and clearly

I value argumentation rather than speaking style, and part of argumentation is organization and solid strategy.

Assuming that I'm not given another way to evaluate the round, I will vote based on the winning framework and then evaluate whose contentions win under that framework.

If you run theory, please be clear about how you want me to evaluate it and the reasons it allows you to win.

No speeding, please.

I am lay parent judge. I judged LD last year but still can't handle spreading or progressive arguments. I enjoy good speakers with well-articulated and constructed points. Please be nice when debating.

Competed in LD for four years in high school, did parli for four years in college (plus a handful of policy tournaments), so I am generally familiar with most arguments you are interested in running. I am generally of the view that the debate is yours and am open to hearing whatever it is that you want to make the debate.

If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Hello my name is Hallie Jones, pronouns are she/her/hers. I did 1 year of high school LD and then 3 years of high school policy for Gig Harbor. Currently a freshman at the University of Washington.

Put me on the email chain pls: halliejj101@gmail.com

-I really am okay with anything you want to read, I am well read on a lot of feminist and settler colonialist literature so if you read that in front of me, go you, but don't read it if you don't really know what it's about. I also went for DA, CP and T for most of my high school debate times so whatever feels good to you is good with me. Just be smart.

-You can be sassy, witty, and petty all you want but I DO NOT tolerate laughing at or mocking other opponents/ any discriminatory behavior. Other than that, be as passionate as you want, I have no problem with it.

- speed is fine but keep in mind that I need to get used to your voice first so don't go 100% right away

- I literally have no knowledge of the topic so don't assume I know what you mean when you say topic-esc words

K Affs- I love a unique K aff because I don't think that the aff has to affirm the topic.

aff- for me you need to have some sort of way to interact with the debate or else the neg can easily win on clash. If that means some sort of advocacy statement or performance then go for it. The aff also probably has to do a lot more work on the impact calc against the neg FW as that's where I find I lean neg against a K aff most often. DO NOT LOSE YOUR AFF IN FW!!! Yes the framework matters but don't forget what you are really trying to say, use your aff to outweigh certain parts of fw, I buy that.

neg- you can run whatever you would like, fw is pretty important and as I tend to think that K affs circumvent a lot of the neg burden you can make the game just as hard for them. 4 topicality shells, 3 cps, all fine with me. I will also gladly vote for a well ran theory argument.

Topicality- I am a huge fan of T. If there is a good T debate I am all about judging it. That being said, T can get really annoying if it's a 10 second blipy argument only talked about for a few minutes in the round. I have a high threshold for T because I really want to see it done right, but I will vote on it. I think reasonability is a convincing argument, but it has to be extensively explained.

Kritiks- this is the fun part of debate

neg- pls have a very specific link to the aff, the only thing I hate more than a really bad alt is a really general link chain, go cut a card. If you can't explain your alt, you really shouldn't run it. Especially if you're going 1 off K, I need some overviews because the K can get really confusing throughout the long round if you don't, I also think it makes you prove to me you know the story of your K.

aff- I buy a well established perm argument, I think that in the case of a really bad link, the perm really solves. That being said you should be using theory against the alt along with other good arguments. Make the K team do more work than they want to.

Disads- I kind of hate generic disads, I think a lot of people do. Whatever, I will vote on them, if you are really good at telling the story and good on impact calc, go for it. That being said, I LOVE a super well researched ptx disads, if you do the work it will be worth it.

CP- honestly cps have become really abusive in debate, if the neg steals your aff, pls run theory, I will buy it. Regardless, if the neg proves to be any better than the aff, you have my ballot.

Theory- Debate is a game, so you can argue about the rules. Condo is legit for me, just have good in round abuse to point to. Most other theory is arguable, but do not use this as a last ditch effort to win, it should be established.

Case- I really don't like that the case debate has seemed to go away in favor of another off case position. The neg should really have on case arguments and the aff should be using their 8 minutes of 1AC offense to respond to off case positions.

I am a lay judge. I can deal with somewhat fast speed but not too fast. I am an engineer by training and profession so I tend veer towards a more logical bent.

I tend to find framework debate tedious but I can see how that could be useful. If you are going to debate framework, that framework difference should have a large impact on the vote between your case and your opponent's case. For example, if one party wants to use justice and another wants to use util, please have a vigorous debate also on impact vis-a-vis the two frameworks (not just on framework).

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

I debated local circuit LD for three years in high school. I will vote based on the flow/how you tell me to evaluate the round. I often end up voting on big picture and weighing arguments.

You can run progressive arguments but keep in mind that I'm not a circuit judge and I didn't do circuit debate so I may not have the same norms/make the same assumptions.

Email is alia_memon@outlook.com

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

I debated LD for two years in high school and judged some while I was in undergrad. I'm in dental school now so I'm a little out of the game. This means that I will be a little rusty on things like speed and jargon but I still get what's going on.

I will vote on any well explained and impacted argument. I will base my decision on the argumentation and on my flow, not on your speaking style, but being clear in your organization will make my life easier. Some things to keep in mind.

Speed: I will base my decision on my flow. It has been a while since I have debated, so it would be in your best interest to not go at full speed so I get everything down. I will say "slow" or "clear" as many times as needed. I would appreciate slowing down especially on voters/summary points. I would rather have a slower round that collapses into really good argumentation than a super fast round where you address everything.

If you just rely on jargon and expect me to interpret it based on my own understanding of terms, you may not be happy. If you run theory or a K or whatever, please just be clear about how you want me to evaluate it, the reasons it allows you to win, etc.

Barring being given an alternative method of evaluation, I will decide the winning framework, then evaluate who wins under that framework.

Things that will make me happy:

• good framework debate
• having fun in round... being sassy without being rude
• clarity in extensions and voters and collapsing well through the round
• good strategy (I don't like arguments that rely on "This one sentence in my case was totally dropped and that means I win")
• explaining things without relying on jargon
• unique arguments

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Ways to MY heart:

1. Make me cry

2. Make your case funky

3. Be different

Show me:

- Framework clash/debate

- why I care

- if i cant understand you then it wont be flowed

Doug Weinmaster is a parent judge with prior experience in PF, LD, and IE events.

I do not need off time road maps, and I do not appreciate spreading. I prefer that you weigh your impacts. Please speak at a slow enough pace that I can understand. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing.

Contentious but respectful debaters will earn the highest speaker points.

I award "bonus" speaker points for:

a) Reference to a specific type of aircraft or spacecraft;

b) Use of a line from any classic "80's" movie . . . i.e. "I feel the need . . . the need for speed!"; or

c) Reference to, or use of a line from a John Grisham novel or movie about lawyers.

Congratulations - because your participation in Speech & Debate means you have already "won" by developing your skills, knowledge, and confidence!