I'm a traditional Public Forum judge. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with well-developed contentions and significant depth of argumentation. I'd encourage you to state your points concisely, and without significant undue repetition. I do not tolerate spreading; I expect you to have developed reasonable skills of word economy by this point in the season, and would hope that you can concisely develop your case to fit within the required time. I reward the use of reasonably clear enunciation at a comprehensible pace. While I do encourage you to weigh your arguments, be mindful of the tone you use to do so. "Speakersplaining" to me, attempting to tell me which way I am going to decide in the round rather than a courteous appeal for my vote, comes off as arrogant and will not do you any favors in my evaluation of the round. For any clarification, feel free to ask me in-round.

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.

I like a cordial debate, and I weigh the content slightly more than the framework, but they're fairly close. Proper analysis matters and every contention should be thoroughly analyzed – not just stated, and then you move on, (a surprising number of competitors do this, so don't just count yourself out like, "that's not me"). Make sure that analysis is backed up by good evidence. I try my best to weigh each round with only the information you give me (table rasa) but you know no judge is truly a blank slate.

Pragmatic over Philosophical.

Debate coach at Sedro Woolley, 3 years.

From the 2020-1 school year:

tl;dr:

LD: flow judge, but you can argue that stuff like CP's, neg fiat are illegit and that durable fiat is not realistic if there are too many actors. You'd need to tell me why of course and convince me. The val/crit debate determines how I evaluate the rest of the debate, and winning that debate just means I evaluate stuff as specified in the victorious val/crit. Also even though I'm a flow judge, that doesn't mean you're locked into line-by-line for every argument-- you can group stuff and some of the best LDers in my judgement are closer to the PF realm than the Policy realm in style.

PF: public forum is like a TV show, like the McLaughlin Group or CNN's Crossfire. The best PF judge is someone who doesn't understand debate, yet these days you have speed and framework in PF. If I saw speed or framework on the TV, I'd change the channel. When I see a PF debate without these things, my heart soars. But if your opponent makes a lot of points, how do you not get pulled into the speed and the mire? Although you should not neglect to answer the opponent's important points, when you get spread, the magic words from a persuasion perspective seem to me to be, "here's what's really important in this debate," or some variation thereof. As with many speech events, in Pufo fluency is also key to persuasion.

longer:

LD — flow judge. Two debates occur in parallel in every LD round: the value/criterion and the contention debate. Usually the winner is the debater who does the better job telling me why their contentions line up with the prevalent value/criterion in the round. I want to see this weighing underway by the NC and a tad in the 1AR so that both sides have time to rebut each other’s assertions.

One debater may attempt to spread the other in LD. When this happens, the other debater can agree to this kind of line-by-line debate by participating in it. The other debater may instead group arguments and bring the round back to a more ‘common-sense’ manner of argumentation. Most times this year I’ve found that when one debater starts with the line-by-line, the other goes along with it. I’ll evaluate such rounds in this way if there is no dissent in a particular round on it. But the other side of this coin is, neg sometimes just reads 10 esoteric arguments at speed. When this happens, if aff says something like “I didn’t understand that and I suspect you didn’t either,” aff is probably right. If LD is debated like Policy, neg just has the opportunity to get more ink on the flow and win 80% of the time. The preceding is more or less my own ROM of LD theory and arguments to the contrary are very unlikely to change it.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON LD:

If you run a val/crit that would make all aff or all neg cases under the current resolution illegit and this fact is pointed out (truthfully) to me, I am very likely to weight the fact that you did that against you for reasons of fairness and education.

Fiat means that we assume an Aff world and compare the aff world to the squo world. Thus, when we say fiat, we mean “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff; now, how would that be different that the squo?” It does not mean, “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff, the aff worked as planned, and the world was saved.” Fiat does not mean that political repercussions can’t happen. Fiat does not mean that solvency is assured. I already know what aff fiat means and theory arguments about it won’t persuade me— they have not once done so. Neg fiat, however, is another matter. Does it even exist? Are counterplans legit? I’m agnostic on this question currently.

If we are in a world where neg fiat exists, which I will assume (for now) if neither debater disputes it, the mere fact that a perm is logically possible is not enough for me to prefer the aff. If perms are permitted, then I consider that the aff’s advocacy has shifted from the plan to the perm, and I will vote based on whether the perm or the CP best achieves the prevalent val/crit. Let me give you a sense of what I mean by logical possibility. Many negs will say something like “we can’t do something and also do the opposite of something.” Uh, yes we can. I can dig a hole and fill it up again. I can attempt to dig a hole with one arm and refill the hole with my other arm. The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do that same thing (e.g. cops arguing over jurisdiction.) The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do the opposite (e.g. Oregon permits drugs while the Feds ban them; California has sanctuary cities while the Feds uphold contrary rules.) Someone can set a fire with one hand and also call the fire department. All these things I have stated are logical possibilities. Are any of them wise, in the sense of, is it wise to have different arms of the same government working at cross-purposes? No, I would say not. Would doing any of them be a waste and probably have terrible effects? Seems obvious that they would. Just don’t tell me that something is logically impossible when it is not.

Evidence in many areas of our lives is a good thing to consider. In certain areas of our lives, it may be the only important thing in determining what we should do. But this is not the case for all questions. In particular, evidence may not be salient on all questions of values. Let’s consider a topic that is not yet controversial but that we can imagine might become controversial: the eleventh amendment to the US constitution, which, according to wikipedia as of today, “restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.” Imagine a debate happening on whether this was right or wrong. One side says more or less, “It’s unjust that you can’t sue states. The judicial system is our recourse, and if states act wrongly, people, foreign or domestic, should be able to sue them.” The other side says, “Federal courts are not the only form of recourse. The Federal government can already sanction and impose restrictions on states, and additional methods to hold states accountable are not needed and would be disadvantageous. Also changing the constitution in this way would open the door to frivolous lawsuits which would hurt everyone. From a utilitarian standpoint, we should keep the 11th amendment as it is.” Now what if a third party came in and said, “Well, according to philosophy professors at Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, you should prefer utilitarianism over justice.” Well, that’s not really how debates on values work. You argue values via talking about why the values you advocate are good. Appeals to authority might work when the subject is something very complicated like molecular biology or quantum mechanics, but for questions of values, citing a source usually won’t work.

PF — The ideal public forum judge is someone who has never seen public forum before. Now, although I have seen it before, I have, and I believe the community has, an interest in keeping it true to its original form. This is the genesis of how I judge PF.

I was asked to write a PF paradigm, but I believe that PF judges should not have a paradigm. Bottom line, when I watch PF, I pretend that the debaters are on my TV and are trying to convince me of their point of view. If someone is trying to convince me of something, running theory or topically are not a good idea. A better idea is, if your opponent is discussing irrelevant things, remind the judge/audience what the debate is about and proceed to talk about it better.

If someone is trying to convince me of their point of view, saying “extend and cross-apply Johnson 2015, I already responded to that” is not going to convince me of anything. Instead, consider saying “as we have stated previously, and as underscored by Dr. Johnson…” and so on.

If someone trying to convince me starts talking very quickly, that does not get them very far. I’m not going to expect the other person to speak very quickly as well. Everyone has similar speech times, and a reply such as “my opponent mentioned many interesting details, but here’s what you really need to know…” will probably suffice.

Courtesy is of course important, but don’t spend to long with the ‘you ask a question first, oh thank you so much,’ game. Most rounds I’ve seen lately have been fine in this dimension, so you’ll probably do well too.

I’m not going to flow PF rounds. I will take notes to help my memory, but if you say, “extend point 3, subpoint b,” I’m not going to know what you mean.

The more you use debate to explain to regular people why issues matter to them in the real world, the more you’ll get out of debate in the long run, I feel confident. So, emerge from the cave of speed and jargon and gaze upon the sunlight of excellence!

Policy - I'm a deconstructionist judge.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

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.

When it comes to Public Forum, I will favor the team that can identify and support --or deny-- the few fundamental assumptions upon which everything else rests. Doing so does not require a participant to independently rebut or defend every minor point presented, so long as those points are clearly related to the fundamental assumptions. Nor does it require the rapid pace of policy debate. I follow this philosophy because it is consistent with the spirit of Public Forum as I interpret it. The intent is to develop the skills of logical thinking and clear explanation that are key to effective engagement with the public.

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

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.