Puget Sound High School Tournament
2022 — NSDA Campus, WA/US
PF Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
(she/her) I'm a senior at the University of Washington and debated public forum for three years. You can run pretty much whatever and I'll vote off the flow. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.
Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but the speed needs to be purposeful. Nothing is worse than listening to a fast speech filled with useless info.
As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. When there is clash, I want you to clearly lay out why I need to prefer your side. Any we said/they said arguments with no analysis are going to be a wash. Use impact calc and the specific terms.
Make the debate fun!! Its always better to judge fun rounds, and you should be enjoying yourselves as well.
I did a bit of debate in high school but I forgot most of it so you should treat me as a lay judge.
I'll probably vote for a nice narrative or something.
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.
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.
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.
I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.
I did PF for 4 years in high school on the WA circuit & am currently a sophomore in college. I've been out of debate for two years so don't expect topic familiarity but I should remember most of PF itself. :)
Some things to know
Speed: I'm okay with mostly anything as long as I understand what you're saying. I'll let you know if it's too fast.
Roadmaps: Also okay with these as long as they're max 5-10 seconds.
Rebuttals: Go down your opponent's flow and refute key warrants/links/evidence. With that said, be sure to present a clear reason why your refutation overturns whatever they said. Make sure this is structured and you give me a clear reason to (for the time being) cross things off their flow.
Summaries: Defend your key arguments that you might want to collapse on. Make sure to extend - if you're gonna emphasize it in your FF I should hear a reason for it to still be standing in your summary. A bit of weighing sometimes also helps at the end.
Final Focus: Give me a substantiated narrative! Narrow down to 2-3 main "why we win/why they lose" do some impact calc & weighing (scope, magnitude, probability), and be clear as to why my ballot should go to you.
Overall, I'm p flexible with your styles & will likely vote over what's on my flow & obviously storytelling/persuasion as well. Lmk if you have any questions! :)
I am a parent of one of the debaters. I'm a lay judge, please speak a little bit slowly and make the debate easy to understand. Thanks!
Freshmen in college. Did PF a lot, but assume I have 0 topic knowledge. Tech over truth - do whatever you want. I'm ok with theory and k's. Weigh! I don't flow crossfire, make me laugh I give you 30 speaks. 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense. Make my life easy and follow the flow, and signpost, roadmaps, etc. Don't be sketchy with evidence. Let me know if you have any q.
About me: (He/Him Pronouns) I graduated three years ago and am a current student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I now do coaching for EPS.
If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: email@example.com Or, text me at 253-683-1929
About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS
speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.
I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.
If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.
Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.
SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.
I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.
Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.
For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow
For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.
Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned
if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary
Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.
FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why
weighing is also good
Things that are bad and you should not do:
CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)
Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.
overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.
if you have any further questions please ask.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am new to the debate and speech judging. I am a parent and a lay judge. Please do not spread or speak too fast. Please be polite and time yourself. Thank you.
Case/evidence email: email@example.com
Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.
Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)
Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.
Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)
Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.
My flowing is very detailed. I write down the main concept of the arguments and refutations as well as what is said during the crossfires, as it helps me later make my decision.
As long as you enunciate well enough for me to understand, you can go as fast as you want to. If you don't, I might lose some of the things you said and not write it down.
Use the time of rebuttal to refute all the arguments of the opposite team. Once you're done with that, you can expand your arguments in the time left, not before.
Weigh your impacts and those of the opposite team, it lets me know why you should have my vote. You can do this throughout the debate, but it is a must during summary.
Aggressiveness, as long as you keep it respectful, is accepted.
But, most importantly, have fun!!
I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good
If you want more specifics
I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you
I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round
On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round
I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump
Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me
s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only
I am a parent judge with some cursory knowledge of the topic, however this is my first day judging at TOC 2022 for this topic. Please slow down, make your arguments simple and explain them clearly and concisely. I will not evaluate any theory or critique arguments. Not only will you lose the round, but you will also get ZERO speaker points. I am tech over truth but the more absurd your argument the less the other team needs to say to prove their point. If you use they/them pronouns please let us know at the beginning of the round. Please speak slowly, signpost, and weigh. You are to keep your own time. Lastly, please add me to the email chain, I must see any documents being shared. Please provide your cases either in that e-mail chain or to me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org Good luck!
Greetings!!! I have children that debate at the Middle School and Varsity levels, but personally have limited experience judging. I generally have an open mind and do well at judging an argument on merit, but here’s the kicker - I do not respond well to people talking very quickly or incomprehensibly. Having said that, I look forward to hearing (well) from you!
I'm a parent judge. My wife is an assistant debate coach. All of my kids are in debate.
No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Road maps. Let me know where you're going. Then make sure you go there.
Sign post. That will help me to make sure I capture your contentions so.
Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.
For LD, I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value. Make sure all of your contentions support that value.
I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.
I'm a parent judge who has little bit of experience judging tournaments over the past year. I can follow contentions to some degree as long as they are delivered in a conversational pace the way average human beings communicate. I have limited knowledge about Article 9 but I'm planning on educating myself before the tournament. If you plan on running theory, I might not be a suitable candidate. I generally relate to arguments that are quantified. I can make good decisions when the main contentions are repeated with impacts.
Good Luck to all of you!
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.
Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!