As a new judge, I'm looking for clarity in the debate. Slower speaking style without a lot of jargon will help me follow your arguments. Please articulate where your clash is happening and give analysis why your argument is superior to your opponent.

General Background

I have an MA in communication studies and have served as an adjunct professor of communication, public speaking, and argumentation at US universities and internationally.

In Beijing, I partnered with private academies to create the first policy debate circuit for private English institutions in China and built communication departments with curricula in public speaking, debate, emotional intelligence, and logical reasoning.

I have been judging and coaching debate for around ten years. My original focus was policy and LD, which I competed in in the early 2000s. More recently I have begun coaching and judging World Schools tournaments including the European Open, Winter Holidays Open, Stanford, and Harvard invitationals.

My students have consistently broken in Worlds tournaments and placed in the top ten of Speaker Awards for ESL students. My expertise in coaching is in public speaking and coherent logical presentation slightly more than debate tactics.

Brief Debate Background

My own experience in debate is around twenty years ago as a policy debater. I won seven state tournaments and two regional championships in a row in my two years competing before going to university. I did not compete in college forensics, choosing instead to pursue positions with political groups and I gave speeches in campaigns and in support of bills I wished to see passed. I even had the opportunity to be a direct sponsor of a bill and speak to a congressional committee. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down. I was an impressive speaker but my opponents had money.

Judge Paradigm

As a judge, my paradigm can generally be categorized as stock issue with elements of policymaker. I believe each motion has clear-cut burdens and that the affirmative or proposition team must meet them to win the round.

I expect the arguments to stay focused on the motion and to understand the motion and the spirit of the motion clearly.

The elements of policymaker can be seen in how much I love the weighing of ads vs. disads and well-designed counter-plans. Are you designing the counter-plan to incorporate or replace and can you clearly elucidate mutual exclusivity? Very fun.

I respect evidence but debates are not won or lost on the strength or deliverance of evidence. If any piece of evidence is presented without analysis of its significance and relationship to the motion and to the debate do not expect me to make those connections for you.

In LD, I come from a time when it was still a pure value debate and the points made were based on a logically reasoned explanation of the value clash with presented values and criteria for upholding that value rather than cut cards of evidence. I still expect "ought" motions to be debates about the existence of moral obligations rather than evidentiary proof of solvency.

I know I sound old when I say that, and I am adaptable, but I do love the difference between an LD debate and a policy debate and hate to see those differences dissolving. That being said, I do still appreciate good evidence and will still decide the round on the major points of clash, burden meeting, and weighing.

I don't like PICs, particularly when the difference is tiny and makes the debate semantic. If I want to affirm the motion, I will vote affirmative. I expect a meaningful clash not manipulating the debate to earn a vote. A PIC suggests that negative has little to offer beyond what the affirmative has already offered. CPs are fine, love a good CP, but I expect it to be mutually exclusive and categorically non-topical.

I have seen and debated Ks... Haven't seen one yet that would justify deciding my vote, mostly because they are poorly presented. Race and gender Ks consistently come across as a way to avoid the actual argument. Present the K if you want to point out poor judgments in language, the motion's perspective, or assumptions, but don't make that an excuse not to engage with the underlying arguments being presented.

And honestly, I've watched debaters try economic K's about capitalism being the source of all evil in the world and must be stopped at all costs. So far, the debaters who tried it have shown that it is impossible to prove without a predetermined ideology. But I'm always willing to hear someone take on the challenge and I think there is potential in this and all K's when presented correctly.

However, leave the anti-humanism out of it if I am your judge. To argue that it is "better" if more humans die is not going to win a debate or turn an impact on my flow.

I think that's enough. Be respectful.

Hi! I'm Jennifer (she/her) and I'm a fourth year at Cal Poly SLO majoring in Ethnic Studies. I was a Congress kid, so if I get put into another event for judging please keep that in mind :)

I am open to theory and things like Ks, the largest thing is just spreading for me. If you spread too fast I will have trouble keeping up but you don't have to talk super slow just be mindful.PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR CASE IF THIS IS PF/LD/CX, etc.If this is Speech/Congress PLEASEdon't use any cookie cutter speech openers like "My opponents arg is like a cone of cotton candy, it seems nice at first but when you take a closer look, it's fluff and no substance' plssss thats so corny lol.

Also if this is Congress, PLEASE CLASH! Clash is what makes the event fun and exciting to watch.If you PO more then likely you will be getting a 3-5.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Parent Judge

Speak slowly and clearly

Hi there!

I'm a Junior at the University of Puget Sound working towards a BA in History. In high school I competed in PF for all 4 years and dallied in LD, Parli, Policy, and Congress. I have competed in BP and PNW debate at the collegiate level.

LD:

I am generally ok with speed but you will likely loose me if you fully spread - I'll chime in if you're unclear or too fast. Clear signposting is appreciated but will not cost you the ballot. I have a soft spot for CX, be polite, concise, and effective - it will likely benefit your speaker points. With online debate I appreciate checking in with judge(s)/opponents/observers before starting you speech. Wifi glitches happen, if you know your connection is unstable please give us a heads up and we will work with you from there. I appreciate being able to see speakers throughout the round but audio takes priority over video, just communicate your needs.

I do enjoy a good framework debate but am swayed by evidence, case arguments, and clash. In my view good debaters will continue to cite their evidence/authors throughout the round, remember we listened to your constructive for a reason, use it to your advantage. I usually do not weigh author credentials over analytics, respond to analytical refutations with your own ideas or those of an author do not assume authors are infallible or unassailable for their ethos. I am not a particularly formal debater so I have limited experience with straight up debate theory but if your argument is clear and salient I encourage you to run it. I am okay with Ks but may not be familiar with all your theory. In general I encourage a logical flow, original ideas, clash, and good use of evidence.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School since 2017. Currently, I most frequently judge speech events, LD and Public Forum. My email iseastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during rounds; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy. I also may eat in rounds. Again, if this is a distraction to you, please let me know.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out a little slower so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape, disabilities, immigration and interracial relationships are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: When judging policy debate (not too common anymore) I default policymaker. In LD, I will likely default Util but I welcome other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be at least 2-3 minutes of your final speech.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar. Saying the tagline of an argument in the final rebuttal is not enough for me. I will not vote for "nuclear war" if you do not extend the entire link chain. I need a reason to vote for an argument.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

I debated LD and did IX for 4 years in high school.

Be kind to each other, don't make offensive arguments, and if your opponent asks you to slow down, then slow down.

Tech over truth; I want to see a thorough impact calculus in your voters.

For LD, all arguments and rebuttals should tie in to the value and criterion. Don't shoehorn it in; it should be intertwined with each of your contentions. Also, tell me why I should prefer your VC over your opponents.

I don't like kritiks; I'm a fan of traditional LD. But if your arguments are well written I'll vote on them begrudgingly regardless.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head of Debate at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Experience: 2 years of policy debate, 15 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

*I believe systems of apartheid are unjustifiable because they do harm to the ethnic group that is not given full privileges in that society or government nothing you say will move me on that, saying we need to end Affirmative Action or other DEI things you lost me, you say racist/homophobic/anti trans rhetoric I will not only vote you down but request tab disqualify you for the rest of the tournament.

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. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

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. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

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. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

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. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existent, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.

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 peeve 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. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech. If out of the constructive I don't understand how you access your offense of your contentions you need to rewrite or start over with your cases.

PF specific - I do not time your speeches; you, as a debater, are responsible of keeping track of time during your speeches. If you go overtime then you go overtime

Please have the email chain or speech drop set up before round –yoyolei.debate@gmail.com

---------TLDR---------

1- policy/ks/k affs

3-theory/t

5- trad/phil/tricks

~treat me like a policy judge who will buy almost if not all ld positions~

I do disclose speaks

Please send analytics that are being spread

--------- GENERAL --------

I felt like my original paradigm was too convoluted and drawn out, so I decided to move it to a google docs that is linked at the end. Otherwise the tldr should be enough if you're just doing preround prep or prefs. feel free to look at my essay of a paradigm if you desire, it just elaborates on my stances above.

I am pretty generous with speaks as well as just general debater nonsense in round. With that being said, please be a kind person, I have very little patience for people who are rude without reason.

[FOR K DEBATERS SPECIFICALLY] Please do not use jargon while explaining your theory of power, you should be able to tell me the story of your k, either in cx or in your overview without using words that only a PhD candidate would understand. I've been googling what words mean in round and that shouldn't happen so please dumb down your speech at least 20% for me, thx!

Old Paradigm

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

specific thoughts:

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance. Splitting isn't horrible but extend warrants and the story of abuse. Up layer arguments must be clearly warranted out.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: be clear on warrants in order to beat the inevitable gut check. When answering trix calling out the silliness is fine but shouldn't be the only answer.

Speaks: I give them fr.

Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.

All events: be inclusive and KIND :)

I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.

I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...

I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.

ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have an extremely high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

tl;dr: I am okay with any and all arguments. That said, if you spread unclearly, and I am forced to say clear more than two times, I will drop you. To spread clearly, you must talk at conversational speed while reading tag lines, key pieces of analysis, and internal link elements of warrants. That said, I prefer rounds where everyone has the ability to absorb and evaluate the content of all present arguments, so I would prefer if you dont spread.

Hello there,

My name is Alex Sapadin. I am currently acting as the assistant coach for Mercer Island High School. And previously I acted as the assistant coach for Interlake High School. I have competed in speech and debate at both collegiate and high school levels. For the entirety of my debate career, which has now spanned roughly 13 years, I have specialized in Lincoln-Douglas debate, NPTE parliamentary debate, Extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. I have both competed on and coached for national circuit competition. I have won the state title for various events including LD six times, and have gotten deep into out rounds at a series of national competitions.

I say all of the preceding to give you an idea of my experience and general knowledge level with all things regarding speech and debate. There are few argumentative positions that I haven't interacted with or taught at one point or another. So with that said, I invite you to run any position that you wish and have the debate you find most interesting.

I have one very strict caveat to the above; if you spread unclearly, and I don't understand your argument as a result of a failing in your communication style, I will not flow your argument or extend it throughout the round. I will also likely drop you for failing to communicate your case legibly.

There is an unfortunate "emperors new clothes" situation transpiring in speech and debate as of this present moment. The situation and problem is most prominent in Lincoln Douglas debate. Many debaters try and spread to emulate what they consider the most effective "national circuit" format of debate. Unfortunately, they spread without slowing down to a conversational speed to read significant points of analysis, significant components of a warrant, or most importantly, tag lines. More to the point, many debaters haven't been instructed on how to spread clearly using a series of drills that emphasize enunciation. As a result, most debate rounds involve a serious lack of clarity during the AC and NC. After, both competitors and judge are scrambling to retroactively understand a case throughout the CX and the subsequent rebuttal speeches. This results in poor rounds that are usually decided by what arguments go unaddressed, not which arguments have the best substantive clash.

More unfortunate still the practice of unclear spreading is so regular that most judges take it at face. Afraid that they're the "stupid" one in the room, they don't openly discuss how they could barely understand what was going on in the round. This silence surrounding the act of spreading has allowed practice to perpetuate. Judges are now becoming more confident, and coaches are taking proactive steps to instruct their judges to drop competitors if they dont present their case clearly. I stand amongst the coaches encouraging this practice.

If you feel any resistance to what I'm saying, and if you feel the state of spread in debate is fine, think of it this way; how long does it take you to read, understand, and apply your evidence at the time of constructing your case? For the more academic information in your case I'm sure it took a good chunk of time. The majority of warranted evidence in case is written at an academic level. Even college and professional level audiences need time to sit with academic level information to absorb its significance. Usually one paragraph takes a few minutes, and this is for a practiced and educated audience. So, that said, what is the likelihood that your judge will be able to understand a truncated version of the same academic information, read at two to three times the speed of normal internalization, in roughly 10-25 seconds?

If you spread and are unclear, it stops a judge from being able to sit with and absorb your arguments. We have no way of figuring out if your evidence supports the claims youre making. To fairly judge an argument, to be persuaded by it, I have to have the ability to clearly hear your claim, the support for your claim, and its significance. Without those three components of the argument, I cant tell if the argument is well built and persuasive. And if I cant evaluate an argument, I wont consider it in round.

All of the above said, I will say clear twice to help you gauge my ability to absorb speed. I am also very experienced in all things competitive speech and debate, so I will be quicker on the uptake than most. You will get a fair round with me, granted that you also work to set the precedent for a fair round.

The devils in the details as they say. Without the details present and at play, the devil has its way. Be clear and we will have a fantastic round!

All the best,

Alex

Hi! I'm Andrew (he/him) and I debated in LD at Interlake for 3 years, graduating in 2021 and qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I now do some policy debate in college as a hybrid team with Western Washington University. Please add me to the email chain: shawan[at]uw.edu

Top Level:

- I am most familiar with philosophical arguments and decently familiar with policy, theory/topicality, and critical arguments. However, I'm willing to listen to anything as long as it is warranted and explained well—please don't run something you don't understand just because you think I would like to see it. I will also not supplement arguments using my prior knowledge if you do not make them, so what I know/do not know well should not be super relevant.

- In general, I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention for me to vote for.

- Weigh, signpost clearly, and collapse—the 2NR/2AR should give a ballot story and a clear path for me to vote for you.

- Don't do anything racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/anything that makes the round unsafe.

- Please try to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to your opponents (e.g. they say instead of he/she says).

- Defaults: drop the debater, no RVIs, competing interps, epistemic confidence, no judge kick, presume neg unless there is a CP/alt.

Locals:

- I'm fine with speed if you're clear.

- I will vote on the flow and will not consider blatantly new arguments that are made in the 2NR/2AR.

- It also makes me sad that framework/phil debates are dying out, so I'll give higher speaks if I see a normative framework syllogism and/or in-depth framework debate.

- I'm not interested in listening to your value debates. Values other than morality are probably impact justified and regress back to some form of morality. I use the value criterion to evaluate the debate at the end of the day, so please spare us all 3 mins of justice vs. societal welfare and skip to the value criterion debate.

- If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Phil:

- This is not the same as tricks debate—if your idea of a phil debate is spamming independent justifications or hiding indexicals in analytics, please see the tricks section below.

- Here are the FWs I ran/am most familiar with: Kant, virtue ethics, pragmatism, ubuntu.

- Well-justified normative syllogism > 10 blippy independent reasons to prefer. The best phil affs are those where every part of the syllogism can be strategically leveraged against different possible 1NCs.

- I know all judges say this, but please weigh and do comparative interactions between FW justifications! This means going beyond "and actor spec comes first since different actors have different obligations," but instead doing big picture explanation of the main points of disagreement and using those warrants to take out individual arguments.

- My favorite affs are plan phil affs with offense unique to the plan. I think analytic philosophy in general has a strong Western bias and love to see phil outside the Western canon when it's run well.

- I never understood indexicals and think it's a silly argument. It's fine as a throwaway argument in the 2NR/2AR but I would rather not vote on it.

DA/CP:

- LD 1NCs should spend more time on case in my opinion—many policy affs in LD can either be impact turned or are behind on the internal links debate.

- Cheaty perms are fine as long as you defend your model of CP competition and/or what the opponent has done to justify the perm.

- Weighing arguments should be comparative.

Topicality/Theory:

- A lot of theory shells/dumps are severely underwarranted—please include full warrants for theory arguments in the original speech that they are read in.

- I don't care whether your shell is frivolous.

- Paragraph theory ("x is a voting issue") and full theory shell are both fine.

- Reasonability needs a brightline. "Good is good enough" is not an argument.

- I think Nebel T is probably true on a semantic level and like a good 2NR collapse on semantics.

- No strong biases on condo or other CP theory—just justify why it's good/bad.

Kritiks:

- I am familiar with common Ks (afropess, anti-humanism, setcol, fem, cap, security, etc.). Regardless of my familiarity with your K, you should still give a brief thesis-level explanation of your theory in the 2NR.

- Ks should have link explanations that are contextualized to the aff and impacted out in the 2NR—explain the broader implication of your link arguments beyond just operating under the framing of the K.

- Floating PIKs are fine but the newer it is in the 2NR the more leeway I will give the 2AR to answer them.

Tricks:

- I don't like these arguments but will vote for them if won. I was never the best at flowing fast analytics, so read at your own risk.

- If I just don't understand an argument, I will not vote for it.

- I will evaluate the debate after the 2AR regardless of what arguments are made to the contrary, as it seems infinitely regressive to me to evaluate arguments on this issue.

- EDIT: Please do not read no 2NR I-meets + the N-word shell in front of me—I don't think it's responsible to trivialize serious racial issues in debate. If you read this and there is even a semblance of a response in the 2NR I will not evaluate it.

- EDIT: After judging truth testing + a prioris for 4/6 prelims at Grapevine, I would like to reiterate that I do not enjoy judging these debates. You will have a much better chance of getting higher speaks if you do not go for this strategy in the 2NR/2AR—please be more creative with tricks :(

K Affs and T-FW:

- I vote aff on K affs when the 2AR isolates an explainable impact to voting aff or what the ballot does.

- Affs that defend the topic "as a method of x" and then go for pre-fiat reasons to vote aff seem extra-topical or non-topical to me.

- 2NRs on T-FW should spend more time answering case.

- I think fairness is an impact and intrinsic to debate, but that there can be other impacts that matter more.

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my sixth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. Asst. Coach at Gonzaga Prep High School. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I am happy to go where ever you case leads me as long as it makes sense and is backed up by evidence. I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE (if LD)!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. (If LD) I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters. In Public Forum no framework is required, therefore if you decide to use one, use it well.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it. If you are speaking too fast I will say clear and hold up my hand to let you know I am not getting your case.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it to see what was actually said or defined etc. But if you or your opponent does not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not. Characterization is key in interpretive events and POI. Spend some time developing good characters to rank higher with me.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 50 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 six years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past 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. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

Please don't go for every argument. The final half of he round should focus on the important issues and expand the debate there.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past five years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, 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 kritiks, DA's, or plans, 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. CX is binding. 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. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

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. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

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.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

As a parent judge, I like to see your speeches being well-structured, with good logic and strong evidence to support your opinions. Your performance, such as your posture and tones will also be considered. Keep up your good work.