UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. 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.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. 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, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

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. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I am a parent judge. If you are going to talk fast, please enunciate and speak coherently so I can best understand. Be respectful and do not interrupt each other, debate is a learning experience and I do not want things to become heated in the round.

Things I look for:

good evidence, impacts, carrying your arguments throughout the round, being respectful, making best use of crossfire while being respectful, and a case around quantitative data and analysis tends to work best.

Please note: Your speaker scores will reflect your speech skills, in the sense of respect, voice enunciation, and quality of argument.

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.

Background

he/him

uw'23

add me to the chain if u want @ fageeriomar@gmail.com

Be Kind :)

First and foremost, debate is an activity where at the end of the day, you are debating topics that influence real living people so understanding the weight of what you're saying is something that should go without saying. This activity is meant to be a safe environment where you can grow as a debater but also be inclusive to those who do this activity with you. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates, offends, or is abusive to their opponent regardless of whether it was to "prove a point". Anyone who does this will drop instantly with very very low speaks ❤️

Each and every one of you has something valuable to contribute and no one should have the opportunity to minimize those contributions :)

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

TLDR:

take risks, have fun, and try your best!

all events //

larp >> th >> k & lit >>

weighing mech

impact calc

cp // remind me what the status of the cp is throughout the round

condo good

very high speaks if you make me laugh

signpost! :)

tricks are fine --> your burden to get it on my flow

theory --> reasonability > competing interps

drop arg > drop debater

preferences:

LD PARADIGM

speed// slow down on tags but be realistic with speed. I am not going to tell you to slow down, you should be able to assume that you need to if I am not flowing what you are saying. Also, online debate means dealing with mics so let's acknowledge that. Also, acknowledge who is in your judge panel. When you have parents, volunteer judges, and people with no experience judging and you decide to default to prog, that is horrible. Adjust to lay and win that way. This activity should be accessible to all judge ballots not just the ones you think are more experienced.

roadmap// off-times are dope after constructives if you are gonna collapse to any t's , da's, etc. —otherwise no need—. Usually I can navigate fine without em so they wont matter on my ballot but people with them can expect high speaks for organization :P Dont run what you think I want to hear because I dont really care as long as you make it digestible (again online means i need it to be understandable. Run whatever you are most comfortable with.

K// do it if you want but structure is pretty important here (ie. on my end your goal should be to concretely outline for me what is epistemologically / ont. wrong bad/violent/evil/idc about their case or how they are presenting their case / addressing the resolution) I guess this is usually done in peoples link and impact but I think the K's I vote on or find value are the ones that 1. clearly frame the round under their K (ie. what should the ROB be given the impact behind what your opp did that you see as inherently bad) and 2. outline for me the extent to which the ballot is an alt how it addresses some of your impacts there. Also, your tags best be very slow when introducing all of that (link,imp, alt, rob) lol.

TLDR: I don't resonate too much with K's because I feel like most people deviate from the actual abuse they are arguing on but if you do, just be really clear with what I said earlier I guess ( practical args on case will make it easier to sway me nevertheless!)

T// These annoy me sometimes bc they get messy at least where I have seen them. Similar standard as above, give me a comprehensive interp of the resolution, the stand. they violated I guess and in voters why I should care. Especially with everything being online, imma need this to be digestible when you're reading it as well! I usually default to reasonability unless opp offers a c.i in which case I will default to competing interps

another note: rvi's are cool and on t debate, 1ar's that collapse to them will more often than not pick up. i buy that winning a c.i is enough to win the round and rvi's are the only drop the debater arg i will probs ever buy.

tech > truth.

dont deviate entirely from case debate. if you read the tldr, you know i like larp debaters largely because thats what most people can do well and more comprehensively in a way that I can evaluate. Impact calc is still vital and the side that does the best job of winning on case flow will more often than not be the side that picks up a ballot (all of this include exceptions those being obv what I have talked about earlier).

voters!!!

CX

Respect your opponent!! You don't have to pretend to love them but respect everything they have to say :) You can be aggressive but don't be abusive (... they are different!). Concessions in cross should be on top case in the 1NC and 1AR

PF PARADIGM

*first time judging this topic (12/11-12/12)

fw in pf is dope imo. otherwise just weigh and we'll be chillin

I will vote purely off the flow. stop trying to extend deadweight args and just collapse to the ones your winning on and weigh. that tends to be the best strat to get my ballot bc it saves you time and makes the debate a lot less messy on the flow. I rarely call for evidence because defaulting to cards on an rfd is wack but if it ends up being something thats carrying you on the flow prepare for that.

summary // make it clear what arguments still matter in this round, which ones you're winning, and which they're losing. i would much rather see you collapse to the ones your winning here as opposed to spend hella time defending the ones you know you're losing.

ff// spend these few minutes with an overview, why you solve for any weighing mech / fw, and which arguments I need to vote on to make my ballot.

I dont want to hear cards in your ff, at this pt you should be focusing on what links, straight / solv turns, etc you have already made and telling me what you're winning and why those are my cleanest voting issues in the round.

I feel like a lot of the time in PF, teams are really hung up on empirics with like zero internal links--> so have those.

Voters are really important here! (Only args fully extended through ff and summary will be considered)

^this doesnt mean you necessarily need defense on every arg to extend every arg to win a round. I vote on collapsed args a lot!

Give me a standard to vote on. This should be clearly established on top case in your first constructives and ff and tell me why you solve :)

I rarely see prog in PF but surprise me if you want!

CONGRESS PARADIGM

tldr: content 3/4 speaking 1/4 , rehash is dis cos tan, i hold authorships to a higher burden because they dont have an opportunity to refute (authorship cx is the most important cx on my ballot usually for every bill)

solid impact turns in congress are like an automatic top 3 for me

crystalization speeches are dope (overview --> flow --> weigh :))

Jokes are great!! if you make me laugh that makes it more tolerable for me and you will stand out :) Keep in mind we do have to sit there for 3 hours+

**This event is called congressional debate. As often as it appears that people who do get ranked are great speakers, I will weigh content more regardless of how pretty you sound. Clarity is obviously important, but it is more beneficial to have clarity AND a comprehensive case

po's // generally will get ranked top 6 unless you make tons of errors. best po's are the one's that make me as a parli feel as if I could leave the room and never come back and everything would still feel the same. own the room. cross check what rules (nsda , wsfa, etc.) you're using and make sure the statutes actually exist (ie. the "no three aff speeches in a row" is a tradition more than it is actually documented in any rule book).

rehash // will automatically place you in the bottom half of my ranks at best (w/ exception to crystalizing)

If you repeat an argument that was just run in the speech before you, I will flow everything you say under that speaker and assume you did not give that point. The reason congress is rarely seen as the debate is that a lot of competitors try to go the easy route without contributing to the debate. If you do not have a new point, crystalize, tell me the most important args, give me missing links, weigh, and clear up any messiness in the debate. That in my opinion can actually end up being a better speech than most constructive ones.

Unique arguments are preferable but don't give me bad efficacy arguments w/ no int. links. (in other words, I am not gonna believe your card if u dont have a warrant).

evidence //

This is your opportunity to pretend like your source is doper than it actually is. Look up who wrote it and how they came to their conclusion (that adds to your warrant and makes your case more substantive) . I should be able to fact check you with the citation I hear even though I probably will not lol. I don't just want to hear what your evidence is but also why it is important i hear it. If there is an area in your argument that can be quantified, I want to see empirics.

impact calc//

Just mentioning what someone says and reading a card after is not a refutation. If you cant explain why their argument is uniquely bad, that is not a refutation. Reference other senators in the room but also make sure you are giving me material reasons

cx//

WA circuit doesn't do direct cross but I still weigh it in my rankings. Also, tbh it seems like people suddenly lose their hearing when the round starts

ie. "I did not understand/hear your question"

I can tell when someone is trying to avoid the question and that doesn't reflect positively in your ranks. If you do not know the answer to the question, I would much rather see you try to explain why that question is irrelevant or how regardless of the answer your case wins bc ____. Also please don't answer with " I do not see how that is relevant to my speech". You are debating on the bill either in support / against, just because you didn't directly mention it in your speech does not mean you are not capable of answering the question (After-all you only get 3 minutes).

Those who know their cards well in questioning and can respond with comprehensive answers are those who will get ranked high regardless of speeches. The #1 pref is making cx valuable. If your question doesn't move clash forward.. dont ask it :)

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.

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

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

PF: Empirical evidence, specific data, and numbers are excellent for reinforcing and supporting your evidence and claim in addition to general logic and reasoning. The connection between your contentions and evidence to affirming or negating the policy is especially important and is a great way to develop argument for a successful crystallisation

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

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

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm primarily a flow judge. I value argumentation and weighing those arguments during crystalization in rebuttals. While I generally do not have an issue with speed, don't go there if you can't do it with clarity. It may be the best argument you've given in your life, but if I don't get it on my flow, it doesn't matter. I'm generally regarded as pretty expressive so look up every once in a while. Finally, I want you to write the ballot for me in the final rebuttals; give clear voting issues and tell me why you win each point.