Tabroom.com

Seattle University High School Speech and Debate Tournament

2022 — NSDA Campus, WA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Adilina Aguirre Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate None

Julie Badgley Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate

Michael Bartanen Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate None

Grace Biles Astor Redhead Academy

X Elizabeth Braithwaite Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 10, 2021 at 1:42 PM EDT

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

edit for grapevine: pls don't go at ur top speed, school is already scrambling my brain and its the first tournament of the year. 70-90% is good but above that I'm def gonna miss arguments

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X. I will doc your speaks by 0.5 if you call me anything else but judge or X***

I’m X, aka Newark Science SB (she/they), i’ve done LD debate since I was a freshman and policy debate a couple of times since I was a junior. I qualled twice to the TOC (2019 & 2020) and took two tourneys my junior year, Byram Hills and Ridge, and got to bid rounds of policy tournaments with 3 different partners. I almost exclusively read identity-based arguments from the time I was a sophomore until my senior year. My literature base consists of Alexis P. Gumbs, Saidiya Hartman, Nadia Brown, Lisa Young, etc. This should tell you a little bit about my stance towards Ks

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>T>Theory>Policy>Tricks

2. YOUR 2NR/2AR SHOULD BE WRITING MY BALLOT FOR ME- The best way to get high speaks/my ballot is for my RFD to sound damn near like those 2 speeches. closing the debate is reallllly important, especially in close rounds. I won't do the work for you.

Things I default to-

1. Truth > Tech: Techy arguments make it so that important conversations about race, sex, positionality, etc. get drown out by things that don’t matter like a debater dropping subpoint A8 of impact 35. By truth I mean, big picture debate, not claims that are literally true. Ex: The aff says that black women should sacrifice themselves to save the entire world. The neg should engage with this idea, it’s clearly a bad one. The way tech is used against K debaters is unable to hold them accountable for the ways in which they add to a violent debate space. That brings me to my second point.

2. Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts for those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

3. Word PICs against K affs are not a good look whatsoever. Unless they do something OVERTLY wrong, like saying the N-word without being black, etc. don’t read it infront of me. It’s violent and abstracts from infinite violence against the group of people they’re talking about. So you’re telling me changing the ‘e’ to an ‘x’ in women will change discourse about black women in gender studies? Yeah aight. Anyways, it’s a form of infinite policing and promotes a bad model of debate. But if you feel like there’s a legit reason to read a PIC go for it! I exclusively read PIKs in the latter half of my senior year.

4. Util framing is kinda ridiculous and anti-black. Not saying I won’t evaluate it, but if your opponent warrants why it is, given that the claim is literally just true, you’re gonna be held at a higher threshold to prove why it’s not. Just saying.

Now the fun stuff:

Ks/Ks affs/Performance: This is what I LIVE for. But only if you know what you’re talking about. If you’re just doing just to do it or for my ballot and execute it poorly, I won’t hack for you. K debate takes work, dedication and reading. If you think that you can override all three layers, read some K off the Wake backfiles and get my ballot, it’s gon be a sad day for you.

Theory/Tricks: Friv theory belongs with tricks, don’t like it, it’s violent, will not even flow it. Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one. 1. Niggas don’t have to disclose to you 2. Disclose to niggas. Besides that, theory can be really creative and fun and actually substantive/responsive.

T: Traumatizing, mentally exhausting and often times whiney. Fairness isn’t a voter, read it and I will not flow it as an impact. T is often used against black debaters to get out of hard convos. Also like if we being REAL right now, I think theres probably like one or two completely untopical affs per year. Y’all like to run T against K affs to silence their relation to the topic because it’s “too hard to engage with”. Boo-Hoo for you. Ask your coach how to engage. It’s what they’re paid for.

***EDIT AS OF 1/1/2021: I do like a good T debate but please please please don’t read from some K aff block. make it nuanced. make it relevant. make it meaningful.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

X Braithwaite Seattle University

Last changed on Fri September 10, 2021 at 1:42 PM EDT

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

edit for grapevine: pls don't go at ur top speed, school is already scrambling my brain and its the first tournament of the year. 70-90% is good but above that I'm def gonna miss arguments

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X. I will doc your speaks by 0.5 if you call me anything else but judge or X***

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>T>Theory>Policy>Tricks

Things I default to-

Now the fun stuff:

***EDIT AS OF 1/1/2021: I do like a good T debate but please please please don’t read from some K aff block. make it nuanced. make it relevant. make it meaningful.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

Molly Bruins St Mary's

Last changed on Wed December 8, 2021 at 4:10 AM PDT

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Charlene Chen Delphian School 8 rounds

Beth Cole Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate

Last changed on Sun March 27, 2022 at 10:26 AM EDT

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my recent retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD).

Speed: I prefer a moderate speed for debate. Enunciation is important! I was never a speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

I prefer to not disclose my decisions in the rounds, but if it is the preferred method of the tournament I will do so.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants! If you have questions, I can be reached at budclomom@gmail.com.

Chris Coovert Gig Harbor

Last changed on Mon March 13, 2017 at 2:41 PM PDT

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 21 years
Coached CX: 17: years
Competed in LD: 4 years
Competed in NPDA: 2 years
Rounds judged 2016-17, LD: 10, CX: 1, PF 1

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.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and 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.

Tracey Croisier Newport High School 8 rounds

Tim Do Richardson Middle School

Last changed on Fri January 14, 2022 at 8:46 PM EDT

reach me at littletimmy10004@gmail.com (please don’t judge) / hdo11@jhu.edu / tim do on FB

hello! my name is tim, and you can refer to me as judge or just by my name! i mostly competed in public forum in high school and some lincoln-douglas (c/o 2020), and i currently compete in college parli for johns hopkins university, where i study neuroscience.

notes to all:

--- always remember to warrant, mechanize, and weigh; don’t ever give me bare statements. be comparative, add layers and depth to your rebuttals, and always be explicit rather than implicit.

--- i can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. i will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, i will flow what i can and whatever i cannot will be missed.

--- if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible.

--- if you plan on speaking about econ, please don’t. if you do, then at least go slow and have robust explanations.

--- please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals; if i find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, your speaks will be docked -0.5.

--- i will happily answer questions after the round, but i will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. as much as i love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith.

--- remember to have fun! at the end of the day, debate is, and should always be, an activity that everyone enjoys. let’s have some educational and meaningful debates!

public forum (my favorite event):

--- send your cases and any evidence you all intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if you all opt out of this, speaks will be docked -0.5.

--- i want to see cut cards with proper citations on them; if not, don’t be surprised when your speaks are low.

--- do not make me do extra work. if you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out; if you are going to go for impact calc, delineate everything to me. fail to do so, and i will start to make assumptions and trust me, these assumptions will not help you.

--- i am a pretty straightforward judge when it comes to public forum; i will evaluate you the way you want me to, but just make sure you uphold what i stated above!

policy:

--- i really am not picky with this event; i can judge kritikal debates and straight policy strategies/debates as well. just remember to define terms, have robust explanations, maintain a framework, etc. – this will make me a happy judge.

lincoln-douglas:

--- same thing as policy.

speaks:

--- when i judge, speaks always start at a base level of 28. depending on how the round goes, i move up/down. be communicative, have good strategy and in-round choices, be comparative, weigh, impact… you get the point.

--- if you get 29.5+, i am clearing you; if you get 28.5-29, you did well and i believe you can break if you are in a bubble; if you get 26.5-28, you performed as expected; anything below 26.5, you did something terrible and i had no qualms docking you.

--- most importantly, no speaks theory.

Elise Dong Newport High School 8 rounds

Rick Findley Seattle University

Last changed on Tue January 25, 2022 at 12:41 PM PDT

I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition.

As I noted above, the intent of debate is to facilitate communication. Speakers need to remember, and this is extremely important, that communication is not only about speaking, but it is also about listening. I have seen it happen more times than I can count, that your opponent will give you information to flip against them in the round, and that flip is not utilized. The tough part is identifying that information. Do not be constrained by what is obvious, meaning do not be afraid to ask "what if". Lateral thinking therefore, is incredibly important to consider.

Further, I consider myself a pragmatist. Originally, Lincoln-Douglas debate was designed as a values-oriented platform. This has evolved into a policy-values hybrid so while I will look at a round from a purely values perspective, the values and values criteria have become more of a means/end assertion. The use of real world links and impacts should support your decision. If you are able to demonstrate why your real world analysis/evidence supports your values/values criteria and you set that parameter up front, I will strongly consider that as a voter. I would however note the following:: the links to your impacts are absolutely critical to establish in the round. Off time roadmaps are also important. Organization is absolutely critical. It is your responsibility to tell me where you are on the flow.

I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, Rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link.

I started my involvement in LD in 1982, I also debated policy from 1980 to 1982, competed in speech from 1980 to 1984, and competed at the college level in the CEDA format in 1985 and from 1988 to 1990, and have been judging since 2014 in the Spokane, WA area. I also judged policy in the Chicago, IL area in the early 1990"s.

A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. One of my biggest pet peeves is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you. I also do not have a problem with you timing yourself or sharing evidence, provided it does not detract from the overall use of time in the round.

Finally, remember that the case/argumentation you start off with at the beginning of the semester, will not be what you end up with at the end, provided you do a self assessment at the end of each round. Ask yourself what was supposed to happen. What did happen? What three things went well for you. What three things happened to you that are opportunities for improvement. If you are consistently applying these criteria, and using your coaches/opponents/peers as resources, by default your weaknesses will get shored up. Incidentally, this is a really good life skill as well and can be applied in the real world. Good luck to you going forward!

Cayman Giordano Seattle University

Last changed on Fri April 17, 2020 at 6:38 AM EDT

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.

N-TOCvid-19 Update (Judging on Zoom™)

Given the new evidence rules on evidence exchange this year, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are new to everyone, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since we'll be beta-testing the new coin flip functionality, if/when something goes wrong, I'm fine with holding the round as if everything is normal and straightening out the ballot with tab after the fact. Since flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the Zoom room early with time to spare. If you're in Zoom and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, both because this is a new system and in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a full theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Grand cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

Policy and LD since 1998
Parli and PF since 2002
WSDC and WUDC since 2009
Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-present
Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

CX:

Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.

L-D:

The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.

PF:

I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their OS and their time allocation in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's SM any favors.
Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.
SM cannot go line-by-line. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.
GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.

Parliamentary:

Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
"but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.

I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.

If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.

Limited-Prep

Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.

Interp/Platforms/Congress

How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Bren Hamaguchi The Overlake School 8 rounds

Dakota Hiltzman The Overlake School 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 21, 2022 at 10:46 AM CDT

General things that are always applicable

I am disabled. I have a disability that effects writing, fine-motor skills, and information processing. I do not flow speed, blippy arguments, or breathlessness well. If you choose to run these kinds of arguments anyway, be mindful that I will most likely miss key taglines, authors and warrants. That's not to say I'll close excel and stop flowing on principle, but If I have to choose between processing your argument and flowing then I probably will stop flowing at points. If I miss something because it's inaccessible, then it isn't a voting issue for me. Do not try to figure out my threshold for speed, it's insulting.
I only vote on clash, or offense that is both uncontested AND impacted. If the uncontested offense is dropped by your opponent, and you fail to show me why it matters, then it will not be a voting issue. I will not vote on an empirical impact calculus that fails to intersect with your opponent’s advocacy - this is a debate, not an essay writing contest. I do not care how good your cards are, or how qualified your authors are if you do not do the work of using them to make your own arguments. If you respond to a tagline without substantively engaging with the argument’s content, then I do not consider that clash.
I want to be on the e-mail chain: dakota-hiltzman@hotmail.com. Unless there is a reason for me to do so, I will probably not read anything you send me. I used to be of the opinion that e-mail chains harm accessibility because they encourage inaccessible speaking styles, however in the age of digital debate I have changed course on this. If there is a connection issue, or I am having trouble processing your speech, I want access to whatever you’re running even if I don't read it. You can also e-mail me if you want further clarification about something I wrote on your ballot.
I'm probably not going to turn my camera on unless someone from tab directly tells me to. As long as I have no reason not to trust you, I'm okay if your camera is off as well. it is exhausting mentally, emotionally, and physically to be on camera all day. Also, I live in the sticks and have bad bandwidth, I would rather hear than see you, especially since I'm in another tab flowing anyway.
Decorum is a voting issue. I have voted down debaters for being nasty in the past, I have no qualms about doing it again. Just be nice to each other.

LD Specific things

If your value is morality because of the word ought in the resolution, and you don't do anything else to establish it, then I would rather you just skip your value entirely. It just feels so nebulous to me, and I'm sick to death of it. This is not me saying that I don't want a value/criterion framework, I would much rather you just value something else. Also, if your opponent is running value and you clash with literally any other value, I'll probably prefer the different value.
I don’t mind policy approaches to advocacy, but will never demand solvency, funding etc. This is not policy debate, as such the debaters are not responsible for the same burdens they would be in a policy round. I will always flow policy approaches to LD as an endorsement or indictment of value. This also applies to the Neg, if you run two disads then say aff doesn’t solve, I will not vote for you. I expect all Policy Affs to defend the whole resolution every time, policy can spec an aff because the topics are written broadly, LD topics are not written this way.
I love K debate, but please do not assume I know anything about your authors. Do the work, explain the theory, and impact your Alt. If you do not do these things, I will not evaluate the theory the way you want me to.

PF Specific things

In my ideal world speeches the first set of speeches would be strictly constructives, the second set strictly attacks against your opponent's case, the third set strictly case defenses, and the final focus speeches would be voters. If your teams adapt this way, it will make me very happy, and keep my flow much cleaner.
Crossfire is not binding to case debate, if you want to garner offense for anything from anything said in crossfire, it needs to be made as a substantive argument in the following speech. I am not flowing crossfire, I usually use that time to make comments on the ballot. That said, I'm not ignoring you, and please don't be rude or needlessly aggressive.
It’s helpful for me if you can start each prelim speech with your first name and whether you’re Pro or Con. Since pro and con aren't set as first and second speaker, it can be confusing since we're virtual, I’m not looking at you during speeches because I flow in Excel.

Policy Specific Things

1. I'm a Stock issues Judge. its just the cleanest way I understand to evaluate the event. I judged a lot of Policy between 2012 and 2016, but I haven't really touched it since then. I will render the correct decision regardless of your approach, but outside of a straight-up policy debate I can't guarantee you will like my RFD. I would also be lying if I said I wasn't an LD judge at heart. Come into the round with that understanding and we'll be fine.

2. I love good K debate (so long as the K isn't conditional or squirrelly), BUT, if you are going to go for the K then I need you to commit to it.

3. I HATE everything-and-the-kitchen-sink negatives that read anything remotely applicable to the Aff and then kick out of all but one approach. All negative arguments (including counter-plans) should be unconditional. If you do kick it I still expect you to answer aff's offense on it, otherwise I may just go ahead and give to aff as offense.

4. Please extend warrants rather than authors. My disability makes flowing authors difficult, extending warrants ensures my flow stays cleaner.

Jaime Holguin Gig Harbor

Last changed on Fri November 5, 2021 at 7:11 AM PDT

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 12 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks; As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated.

PuFo Paradigm

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. You want transparency on cards do policy not Pufo.

Cameron Houg Nova 42 Academy

Hazel Huang Bellevue High School

Trey LaCroix Waterford School

Dennis Lee Mercer Island High School

Wesley Loofbourrow Seattle University

Last changed on Mon April 4, 2022 at 7:15 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Since there is a new topic every round, and part of this event is thinking on your feet with a brand new topic all the time, arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic always tend to strike me as more persuasive. A unique procedural element of Parliamentary debate is the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time; debaters who utilize this tool to further conversational turns increasing analysis on a key issue usually impress me as well.

LD -- See Policy above, and also Parli for cross-examination analysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Dennis Luo Newport High School 8 rounds

Yves Martin Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate None

Bruno Mastrodicasa Nova 42 Academy

Prastik Mohanraj Fairview HS

Anusha Neupane Eastlake High School 8 rounds

Ken Nichols Mercer Island High School

Jeffrey Philpott Seattle University

Last changed on Fri January 28, 2022 at 11:32 AM EDT

I'm a geezer. I did debate and IEs all through HS and college. My foci as a competitor were policy debate, extemp, and impromptu, but I was gifted with coaches who pushed me to do a wide variety of IE events, both interp and platform. I coached college teams for 10+ years in both debate (policy NDT and CEDA values) and the full range of NIET individual events. I also judged all of those events at tournaments. However, I last coached formally in the 1990s. I'm a rhetoric professor in the Communication and Media department at Seattle University and the Director of the University Core curriculum at SU.

My preferences/approach to judging debate:

I'm a flow judge in debate. I care about the arguments. I attempt to track arguments and evidence and make my decision based on who "wins" the argument on the flow.

My decision is about the topic: I'm being asked to make a decision on a specific question/proposal embedded in the topic and I focus on making that decision based solely on the arguments, evidence, and criteria presented and contested in the round.

I like debaters to argue about decision criteria during the round and apply those criteria to the substantive arguments they are making. Tell me why, given the criteria you have attempted to establish, your arguments/evidence are superior to the other team's. How should I evaluate the topic question?

I don't mind some speed (I competed in NDT but am no doubt rusty) but don't expect me to put the pieces of your argument together for you. Tag lines without analysis or explicit connections are just going to be flotsam and jetsam on my flow. The winning arguments are the ones where the debaters have put the pieces together into a coherent and compelling structure. Don't expect me to read your mind.

I don't judge directly on delivery, but that doesn't mean that delivery doesn't matter. I'm going to make my decision on MY understanding of the round, so you are well advised to use all of your communication skills to help me understand and accept your arguments. If my understanding of your arguments is different from your own you're not fully succeeding in communicating.

Extending and summarizing arguments in rebuttals/later speeches is good. I'm not likely to go back and look for dropped arguments if you don't extend them yourself.

I'm OK with theory arguments, but not if they are a waste of time or an attempt to upset the apple cart by totally changing the game. We're here to practice argumentation and speaking skills by debating a value or policy proposition, not change the nature of debate or transform society. And remember that I stopped following debate theory a quarter century ago.

Finally, debate should be competitive, but it should also be collegial and fun. Be creative in your arguments. Don't take yourself too seriously. Don't be rude. Show your opponents and partners respect. Let's focus, but have a good time doing it.

Tim Pollard Gig Harbor

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 2:02 AM PDT

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

For people who want experience blurbs:

Competed: High school LD. Read tricks to doubles of the 2011 ToC. College Policy. 2N position. Flex args.

Coached: Gig Harbor (LD) 2012-16. University of Wasington (NDT/CEDA) 2015-16 Ingraham High School (Policy) 2015-16

Rebecca Prosise Mount Si High School

Ted Prosise Mount Si High School

Anna Rhea Seattle University

NIco Roshau Puyallup High School

Ellison Roycroft Aurorae Young Academy

Abigail Sarno Emerald Ridge High School None

Thadeus Smith Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate

Last changed on Mon May 16, 2022 at 2:29 AM BST

UNLESS YOU ARE IN POLICY, I DO NOT WANT OR NEED AN OFF-TIME ROADMAP

add me to the email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

TL;DR

Don't lie, be considerate, treat me like an old man, and you'll probably be fine.

Background

I've been involved with debate for eight years. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I coach for a few different middle/high school programs around the Puget Sound area, compete at the university level, and am the content manager for TalkMaze. I’m a graduate student at the University of Essex studying the Theory and Practice of Human Rights.

You should read my whole paradigm - Some stuff in PF will be applicable to LD and vice-versa.

Online Debate

I cannot think of a single reason for me to care whether your camera is on. I can think of many reasons why you might be uncomfortable having your camera on. As such, I do not enforce camera policies.

I, on the other hand, will have my camera on. If I don't have it on, assume that I'm not present.

Evidence Ethics

Have them! I have voted on evidence ethics in the past, both with and without competitors calling it out in-round. Don’t paraphrase - I want to see actual cut cards. You cannot take evidence out of context (this includes implying it supports something that the author doesn't) or manipulate the text in any way.

Speed

See the source image but still be clear, clarity trumps all

Congress Philosophy

i do not like congress please don’t make me judge congress

Policy Philosophy

~~the only event worse than Congress~~

Public Forum Philosophy

Debate is a game, and the most important thing to do in a game is to win (the second most important thing is to have fun). To that end, I am generally tech > truth, but I tend to sit right on the line between the two, so it's really important for you to explain the link chain, especially for big impact contentions. I will not vote for "oppression/death good".

The line-by-line matters a lot. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal. That means you should respond to arguments in an order that makes sense (down the flow). That means you should be actively extending your own arguments. I don’t want to extend arguments for you.

On the subject of extensions, two notes. First, for an extension to work you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it’s important. You can always do that in three sentences or less, and if you can’t, your argument probably isn’t realistic. Telling me “extend the Hendrickson card” means nothing to me because I don’t flow evidence names. Second, I'll only let you kick an argument if both sides agree to do it - Just saying "we aren't gonna go for that" doesn't mean your opponent can't keep pulling it through the round. Don't bring up arguments that you can't be bothered to defend throughout the round (this goes double for progressive argumentation).

In Public Forum, fiat is almost always going to be a thing. There’s a reason PF topics usually ask “is this policy a good idea” and not “will this thing happen”. That said, politics DAs can work provided they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and they don't say that a policy won’t happen because of politics.

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 whole 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 Philosophy

only do off-time roadmaps if it's a really weird round.

I am a grad student in human rights, which means I have an irrevocable bias against util frameworks. I wouldn't say I hate them, but I do strongly dislike util framing. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but I won't like voting for them unless you go deeper than "greater good." What I will never do is vote for "oppression/death good" arguments.

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 sole 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 explain how you want me to interpret the round if you don't use a value/criterion.

Don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time for my dissertation work 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, counterplans.

Don’t paraphrase, don’t rehilight.

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.

Oppression/Death Good Arguments (or impact turns)

I will not vote on this. 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 these arguments in front of me unless you want a loss, 20 speaks each, and the round to end early. They're not good education, they actively create an unsafe space, and they're often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

(This includes Spark but usually doesn't include Dedev).

Trigger Warnings

Better safe than sorry, I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience of being triggered.

Speaker Points

they're dumb, shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker, and mine skew high

Backup of this paradigm

it's located here

Natalie Soderquist University HS

Greg Stevens Puyallup High School

Last changed on Wed May 11, 2022 at 6:53 AM PDT

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past four years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus.

LD I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national tournament, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Patrick Tapia HS2 Academy

Linh Tran Newport High School

Greer Trefethen Parker School

Denise Vaughan Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate

Shuqing Wang Redmond HS None

Janelle Williams W F West High School

Sachin Zachariah Seattle Academy

Login to Tabroom:

Seattle University High School Speech and Debate Tournament

2022 — NSDA Campus, WA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

Judges