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.

I spend most of my time in tab rooms these days, but when I do judge I am a traditional one who values clear and concise arguments that are backed up by solid evidence and delivered at a reasonable pace.

The fundamental goal of the debaters in round is to convince me, the judge, that their side should win, and they cannot do it if they don't speak at a conversationally persuasive pace, don't clearly articulate their positions, and don't extend their arguments and reasoning using logic and evidence.

I have been a coach since 1993. I have coached & judged Cross-X; L-D; and Public Forum. I have also worked with all of the individual events and Congress.

Here is the basic philosophy by which I judge the debate events:

For all debate events - you think about this information a lot, I don't. I'm an educator with over 25 years in schools. I like reasonable arguments and understanding your arguments and evidence.

C-X: I weigh the round based on the evidence given and explained. To simply read a card(s) with an author and expect that I know all about him/her, is not reasonable. You must explain why this is important and why this author has a superior analysis. Also, I won't intervene unless you give me no options. I flow - speed is not a problem. If I stop writing, you may want to slow down a little. Flashing is irritating, so keep it quick and clean. Technology problems are yours and I won't stop the round/prep/speech time if you are having tech problems.

L-D: I am old school. I look for a great value/criterion debate and a reason why your interpretation of the resolution and the evidence you provide is superior to your opponents.

P-F: I just want each team to explain why they have the superior position on the resolution. Be nice to each other, as I will deduct speaker points if you seem aggressive. I will only judge on a framework if and only if both teams agree to the framework. There is no room for rudeness.

Congress: I like to see the debate advanced. I don't want a lot of evidence, just a few pieces explained well. Civility - this is huge. I've found Congress in the 2019-20 season to be rude and unkind. This will play in my speech scores and rankings. You can be passionate, just don't be mean/rude/harsh in your tone. Be clear in your questions.

Regardless of what debate event I am judging, my paradigm is the same: I'm looking for a good back and forth debate where both sides engage with their opponent's case. That's about it. I'm not a Lay judge but I am a laid back judge, as long as there's substance behind any claims you make I will accept it. If you want to be snarky in round that's fine, but keep it to the cases and evidence. If you become rude to your opponents, your ballot will reflect that.

For those who ask about Theory and Speed:

1) Argue it well. I'm more a traditional judge but I do enjoy seeing theory if it's run and explained well. If you want to unload a barrage of buzzwords at me, make sure you explicitly state why/how they relate to the round

2) I can handle speed, but I can't handle sloppy speed. If you want to go fast that's fine as long as it's intelligible. If you don't enunciate well enough or start to go too fast, I will offer one warning total. If you continue, I will be unable to flow your case and therefore unable to judge it.

For those who really want to butter me up, here are some of my (debate) pet peeves:

1) Not looking up at the judge at all while reading your case and/or burying your head in your laptop while reading your case.

2) NOTICING THE SLOW DOWN WARNING BUT NOT HEEDING IT! It's my pet peeve, but it's your ballot.

3) Spending the majority of Cross-Ex looking at your opponent. Yes, it's natural to look at the person you are talking to, but you are still trying to convince me of your case, not your opponent.

4) Asking a very specific question about paradigms after I've stated the general paradigm. I like to consider myself laid back, and I want to see your own personal style, but a barrage of questions about "do you flow x" or "do you allow y" irks me. If you argue it well and respectfully, I will accept/flow/allow whatever.

5) Not holding a semi-professional stature in round. Even if you're bored out of your mind or tired, at least pretend you want to be there. Cases read when body language and vocal tone indicate apathy drive me up the ------- wall.

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.

Hello, I have been a PUFO judge since 2018 when our son was at Eastlake high school. I would like to see courtesy-respect . Good luck :)

I am a flow judge that votes off of the arguments made, and how the participants weigh those arguments. I will not vote on arguments dropped in the final speech. I am open to any type of argument as long as there is sufficient evidence to back it up and/or the opponent fails to refute it.

Debate coach at Eastside Prep in WA since 2018

Speed is okay, but I much prefer well-explained arguments and claims that are delivered with eloquence and conviction. Too often, debaters seem to forget that debate involves giving a speech, so use elements like tone and pauses to get your points across. I have a particular distaste for spreading; if I cannot capture what you say in the flow, it does not register.

I teach political science, political philosophy, history and economics, and I have a degree in International Relations, so chances are, I have a greater than average starting understanding of nearly all PF topics. Therefore, use complex concepts and theory with caution - make sure you fully understand what it means, otherwise do not use it.

Background: I competed in speech at the high school level and performed in dramatic and musical theater productions throughout high school and university. I studied physics, and now work as a machine learning researcher.

Speed: I am a native English speaker, and can handle faster than conversational speech well. That said, I do not appreciate speaking for the sake of making noise; debaters should endeavor to deliver their argument effectively, not to speak until they've used every second of available time.

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.

Cohesion, logic, organization, politeness... These are the traits I prefer to see in the debate.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

My name is Robin Monteith and i am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my second year judging at speech and debate competitions. Both years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach this year, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

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.

Bio:

Attended Seattle Academy (2010-14) and Lewis & Clark College (2014-18). Coached Lincoln HS (Portland), The Bear Creek School, Seattle Academy, Lewis & Clark, Lafayette College, Concordia University-Irvine. Mostly did speech stuff but I've been around a lot of debate(rs). Currently a law student at Seattle University (class of 2026).

Paradigm Proper:

I think I'll be judging some LD and PF in and around Seattle this year. Here are a few adaptations to make in front of me.

1. I prefer that we minimize nonsense during our time together. Examples include: wasting time, stealing prep, linking everything to extinction, frivolous procedurals, unnecessary rudeness. A good litmus test is if your coach, school principal, parents, and the authors of your arguments would approve of your conduct, I'll be fine with it.
2. I am a big picture judge. I want to be able to tell the losing team a coherent, several-sentence story of what I am endorsing and why I am endorsing that instead of what they want me to endorse. This means I value judge instruction! Tell me why I'm voting for you, why your arguments are more important than your opponents', what the central question of the round is and how I should go about evaluating it. You are unlikely to win on a bunch of dropped blips. You are more likely to win because one or two well-developed arguments convinced me that voting for your side is preferable.
3. I will flow the debate and determine a winner using my flow. Please signpost, stay organized, and respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Well-developed dropped arguments are true, but you still have to explain why they matter. I will only vote on arguments that you introduce in the first half of the round and appear in all of your speeches in the second half of the round.
4. I'm decently well-read. I majored in Econ, I'm in law school, and I read the news regularly. Assume I know about the world and topic but maybe not the specifics of your argument (especially acronyms).

Speaker points:

I totally give 30s. Be the kind of person I would recommend novice debaters go watch in elimination rounds. You start at a 26 and can gain (or lose) up to one point in each of the following areas:

1. High-quality research, and high-quality understanding of your (and your opponent's) research
2. Smart choices, critical thinking, and in-round strategy
3. Strong delivery, word economy, and rhetorical skills
4. Kindness, good attitude, vibes, and a sense of humor

Closing thoughts:

If I look or sound grumpy, it's been a long day. I promise I care a lot and I'm excited to watch your debate. I have enormous respect for the hard work and research you put in, and I can't wait to listen to what you have to say and try to give some helpful feedback. If you have any requests or need any accommodations, feel free to ask. I am also happy to answer any questions you have before or after the round.

Hi Friends,

I am Nagu, a parent judge from Interlake High school, WA. I am very passionate about public speaking. From my elementary school to all the way till my Masters, I participated in competitive Oratorical events in India.

I judge Speech events and enjoy the experience of judging students' speech performance for the two reasons 1) it is a reliving moment of my speech event days, and 2)an opportunity to learn from and share constructive feedback.

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know debate or topic terminologies. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision. To win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis.

Prepare, Present and Persuade!

nraju@uw.edu

My competitive background is in PF, and while I have limited judging experience with LD I'm generally unfamiliar with the minutiae of the event. A couple of general tips:

Clarity is essential. If I can't understand what you're saying or you're jumping between points too rapidly, I can't put them on the flow. If nothing else, make sure to be clear on taglines and source citations.

I generally enjoy philosophical framing within LD rounds, just make sure you tie your value and value criterion to your main points consistently.

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough with LD to tell you what to run or what not to run. Anything offensive or discriminatory is obviously a nonstarter. Beyond that, run what you like to run, make sure to show me the clash between your and your opponents' points, and have fun! I will judge off the flow, so again CLARITY is a must.

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.

Email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

TL;DR: Be kind to each other.

If I am your parliamentarian: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore those things at your peril.

Presiding officers: I expect you to use preset recency. If the tournament does not have preset recency, I expect you to create your own with a randomizer. This is an equity issue and has the potential to impact your ranks. I pay attention to pre-session, in-session, and post-session politics and expect to see the presiding officer as a leader in those discussions. Remember that your job is to run things quickly while adhering to parliamentary procedure - Exercise your power if necessary but don't skip necessary processes. An easy example of this is calling for motions - 90% of the time instead of calling for motions you can just do

Congress competitors: I will not shake your hand. There is nothing I hate more than inauthentic "thank yous," especially when they're made loud enough for everyone to hear. The narrative arc of the round is extremely important - The first few speeches should be constructive, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate. Keep in mind that Congress is a debate event, so every speech past the author/sponsor needs engagement. That also means I expect people to flip - Past two bills on the same side of debate I will start penalizing speakers for not flipping.I have a laundry list of pet peeves that, while they won't impact your rank, will irritate me. Those include unnecessary and unfunny preamble before you speak, a refusal to flip for speeches, making motions that aren't real, and using the phrase "first affirmative."

Public Forum: I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln Douglas: I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

World Schools: The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Evidence ethics:

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Theory: I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Death Good/Oppression Good: "Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering."Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

At this point in the year, I would like to see eye contact made with either myself or the opposing team member(s). Speak slowly and succinctly. Get your ideas across thoughtfully. It is more important to get two points made well, then 5 points made in a run-on speech.

Most important, of course, is to respond to the opposing team's points.

I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.

I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.

As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 25 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.

Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.

I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.

I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.

I am humanity-centered. I know you will be running theories, hypotheticals, and extrapolating a significant amount, but remember, these topics affect real people. If you run cases that dismiss the humanity of the topic or dismiss the humanity of any specific group of people, your score will reflect omission.

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

I am primarily a communications judge and vote based on the debater's overall argumentation and persuasiveness. Be aware that I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to understand speech that is significantly faster than conversational speed. If requested, I am happy to let the speaker know when they are going too fast through a hand gesture.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, 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 apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which 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.

Progressive Debates: 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

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.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. 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 like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I 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.