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.

---

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.

Emilyn Hazelbrook (she/her)

Please put me on the email chain: emilyndebate@gmail.com

Kamiak '21, Emory '25. Debated policy for four years in high school and in my third year of college debate, although I am not nearly as involved as I once was in the activity.

I adapt to you, not the other way around. Everything below will make it easier for me to understand, weigh, and vote for your arguments, but shouldn't dissuade you from reading anything.

LD for Barkley Forum 2024: I have judged approximately 10 rounds of LD in my life and none on this topic. The closer your debating style resembles policy, the more easily I will be able to evaluate arguments, but I do have experience with evaluating criterion/value debates. My best advice to you is to focus on clash and responding intelligently to the other person's arguments and over-explain terms on this topic. Ask me as many questions before the round as you need.

Tech > Truth.

Argument = claim + warrant (and + impact or reason why it matters in rebuttals). If you say "they dropped the link" and then do not explain warrants and impact out why I should vote on it, I will not vote on it.

K Affs — Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

Topicality — I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

Theory — Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

Kritiks — Read very specific links and err on the side of over-explaining your thesis and alt. I'll probably weigh the 1ac impacts, but if the aff is losing that your reps/in-round actions make the world/debate worse, you're in a bad place. I am not the best for postmodernism kritiks and will likely be confused if I have to render a decision on one.

Counterplans — I lean neg on most questions of competition, although I am really not a fan of consult cps. If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2ns won't spend time extending a losing cp.

Disadvantages — Compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

Case — Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Miscellaneous — High-quality historical examples, well-executed jokes, and really good CX will boost your speaker points. Suffering, violence, and death are unquestionably bad. I like debaters who make it easy for me to flow them by numbering arguments, signposting clearly, and avoiding extensive overviews or walls at the top of the flow. I dislike people who cross the line between assertive and unnecessarily rude during CX, and will factor that into speaker points.

Be nice and have fun!

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

Background for Bill Lemonovich

Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.

Email:lemonovich@verizon.net

High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.

I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.

Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms

~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !

~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !

~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !

~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing

~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'

IE Judging

~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a

'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?

Background for Bill Lemonovich

Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.

Email:lemonovich@verizon.net

High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.

I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.

Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms

~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !

~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !

~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !

~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing

~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'

IE Judging

~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a

'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?

I need education impacts to justify going against fiat, I do not believe that neg can go against Fiat without this.

So I guess since this is an online debate now this kinda stuff would probably be more often read (if you are reading this during prep super don't worry unless I'm told to not give paradigms in online debates)

I did LD for four years so I definitely get the format, I definitely get at least the base level debate style of value-value criterion debate, so def don't worry on the point of making sure I'm lost or worrying about me not understanding how to flow those kinds of arguments.

However, I found myself (and still find myself, as it turns out) extremely more into contention level debates and will almost never vote off of value value criterion debate solely unless there is no possible way for the winning framework to go the other way (which to me is extremely difficult to do). Because of this, I find myself increasingly more compelled towards contention level debate and feel that this does better for clash and for overall productiveness of debate in that in general I feel that philosophical value debate gets pretty vague when focused on for more than a small (but important, mind you!) portion of the flow.

At the end of the day what I look at for end of round decisions are solid contention level debate and flowing those contentions through whichever value won the round (and I am totally fine with flowing through the opponents value, if it works better it works better, or if you have just that solid of contention level debate than you might still win even if you hard dropped your own value).

TLDR: Think of me as a PF judge that understands and goes with value and value criterion debate.

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

I did 4 years of HS debate (PF, Parli, BQ, Congress), I'm in my 3rd year of debate for OSU (IPDA). Be kind, be confident. Tell me why you should win, not just which points you won. Other than that, I trust you to run a good round.

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.

Parent judge who has judged PF & LD both. If you spread, I probably won't be able to flow it, so speak at a reasonable pace. Progressive arguments are fine as long as they make sense. Signpost clearly so I can follow your speech.

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.

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.