theory bad

trad pf good

anecdotal evidence bad

tabula rasa! (unless its just an obvious flat-out lie)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1el8_yvpo9BdHTKaG9QzX0E4qYja3h_0BMlBoyy3pZEc/edit

old paradigm (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3z2ygZtT-wZE0sF7m2BY9C8AlU9_ub-3IQDhAbgw6I/edit?usp=sharing) was too unserious :(((

4 years of PF in Washington State, current college freshman doing British and American Parli —> decent success in high school and college

Consider me a flow judge but keep in mind I debated in a pretty lay high school circuit (with a bit of nat circuit experience) and I’m a pretty traditional debater. College has made me better with speed but don’t policy spread lol. I’ll flow theory and Ks but my threshold of understanding is probably lower.

Some basic round analysis stuff: Unless it’s defense I expect it to be extended through all speeches if you want me to consider it (defense is sticky). Second rebuttal has to frontline. I probably won’t bring in personal topic knowledge but if you don’t do any weighing for me then I’ll mostly likely gut check each arg and vote for the most probable side or the arg that’s more intuitive. I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to it for speaker scores.

Be respectful, I’ll drop teams for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. and report to tab.

Just ask me if you have any more specific paradigm questions.

Hello,

My name is Bren Hamaguchi (he/him) and I am the assistant Speech and Debate coach at Overlake HS.

I want to be clear: I have no prior experience participating in or judging Speech or Debate (this is my second season). But, as a history teacher, I am familiar with how to construct an argument, thesis, use of evidence, some philosophy, and persuasive speaking techniques.

I have no overt biases that will affect the decisions that I render.

Warnings:

Speed - I have a difficult time following along when people talk fast, I'll do my best, but if I don't write it down there is a good chance I'll forget and I can't judge you on information I don't have. You can send me your case if you think you speak too fast. No spreading, even with a case.

LD - Philosophy, Theory, and K's - if you're going to run theory or use a philosophical argument make it clear. If you reference something you think a Lay judge might not understand, either thoroughly explain it during your time or don't bother. Try at your own risk.

Be careful with the amount of technical LD jargon. My knowledge of technical, especially progressive debate terms, is limited.

LD/PF - ESPECIALLY PF - Be courteous! I really dislike when competitors are rude to each other.

Congress - I have my B.A. in Political Science so I am very aware of congressional procedure and how to construct arguments for and against bills. It is still up to you to follow proper procedure and structure your speeches in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Speech - Speak clearly, have a thesis, stay on time, and have fun!

Good luck everyone!

Hi I give up on having an actual paradigm. I did pf for like three years and some speech do whatever u want.

I like meme cases if u manage to connect ur case to the previous topic I'll give u a 30 i'm dead serious.

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 7th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school, 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, but with enough specifics to understand 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 and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

4 years of debate experience. State finaled for Public Forum and Oratory. I've also competed at NSDA Nationals & NIETOC. 

PF:

• speed is fine as long as you enunciate
• collapse in summary; don't wait until FF 
• if you drop something in summary, I won't weigh it
• I don't flow cross, but I'll listen if new information is brought up 

I like tech debate just as much as I enjoy lay debate and good speeches. Just use good evidence ethics and be respectful :) 

Background: started with an LD camp in 8th grade and did PF for all four years throughout highschool. I'm relatively experienced with tech debate.

Speed: go as fast as you want but anything > 300wpm (if you're unsure just send a doc) I'll need a speech doc. If not I'll say clear if I need you to slow down.

Prog: run anything you want I'll vote on the flow. My PF background doesn't give me the most experience so you might want to be a bit more deliberate in warranting out prog arguments. Generally I don't like frivolous theory but again I'll vote on it if you win.

Please give me a clear path to the ballot. You can win the round even if you're in an objectively worse position by the last speech if I find it easier to vote for you instead of your opponent.

First year out judge.

caitrinw@uw.edu, put me on evidence chains, speech docs, etc

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, if you go over time, I'll give you some grace but I will cut you off about ten seconds over speeches or 15 seconds over crossfires.

Speaks:

Almost always in a range of 27 - 30 unless you're shouting at your opponents/doing ad hominem attacks

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, imo second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory: I don't love theory in PF, I think it takes the 'public' out of Public Forum. That being said, debate is always changing and I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well. I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them. If you're going to spread, provide speech docs.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

I will try to disclose and provide an rfd unless the tournament is adamantly against it.

3 years of high school public forum debate (both 1st and 2nd speaker) experience in Washington State.

PF:

TRUTH>TECH. Just because you say the sky is green and your opponents don't respond doesn't mean the sky is green (I will try not to intervene too much).

Consider me a flow judge but keep in mind I am debating in a pretty lay high school circuit (and I competed at a couple national circuit tournaments) and I'm a pretty traditional PF debater. I try not to bring in topic knowledge/judge intervention.

Make sure to signpost (tell me what arguments you are addressing), I am fine with off-time roadmaps (nothing over 5 seconds).

I like clash in debate. In order to win the clash on an argument, you need to either explain to me why your evidence is better, or why your logic is better. Simply saying "they say this", "we say this" is not enough for me to vote for you on this clash, you need to do a comparison. Again, simply saying "their evidence says this", "ours says this" is not enough.

I will flow progressive arguments (theory, Ks, etc.), but my threshold of understanding is probably low, and please tell me before the round or before your speech if you are going to run any of the progressive arguments listed above.

Be respectful, I’ll drop teams for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. and report to tab.

• Speed and Jargon:

"PF speed" is fine as long as you enunciate. Do not spread, I will stop flowing if you are going too fast. If it's not on my flow, I will not vote on it.

I am okay with debate jargon (delink, turn, nonunique, etc.), if you are going to run progressive arguments, again my threshold for understanding and jargon will be low.

Do not run an abusive framework. If the other team does not respond to it, I will flow it through, but probably drop your speaks.

• Crossfire:

DO NOT BE RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENTS. If I feel you are being too condescending or not letting your opponents talk, I will either deduct speaker points or I will drop the debater (if it's really bad). With that being said, I will not penalize you for asking follow-up questions. I will not be flowing crossfire (I will be paying somewhat attention for speaker points), if you want it on my flow, bring it up in the next speech.

• Rebuttal:

DO NOT CONTINUE READING YOUR CASE IF YOU DIDN'T FINISH IN THE FIRST 4 MINUTES.

First rebuttal: Try to spend all 4 minutes refuting your opponent's case (I dislike it when teams spend a lot of time "rebuilding their case"). If you run out of stuff to say, weigh the debate.

Second rebuttal: You need to frontline. By frontline, I do not mean extending your argument, I need you to actually respond to your opponents' refutations. I will only vote on offense in the round, so if you concede defense, it will not count for the other team.

• Summary:

First summary: You definitely need to frontline. If you concede defense on an argument, it makes it much harder for me to vote for you on that argument. If you are dropping an argument, conceding defense is fine, do not concede turns if you are dropping an argument though. Be strategic with your time. You also need to weigh the debate, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

Second summary: Pretty much same thing as first summary. New weighing is allowed, but no new arguments, you can make new implications of arguments as long as it isn't super abusive.

For me, probability weighing is more important than magnitude. DO NOT IMPACT EVERY ARGUMENT OUT TO NUKE WAR. If you don't do the weighing, I will do the weighing. I will try not to intervene as a judge, but I would prefer if the debaters did the weighing.

• Final Focus:

Do not try to cover the entire flow. Go for voters, which are reasons why I should vote for you. Make the speech organized. A teammate once told me, the final focus is the speech you give to your team after the round complaining why you should have won.

Do not make new arguments, this includes no new weighing (weigh in summary, extend the weighing in final focus). If you blatantly lie in second final focus because your opponents can't respond to it, I will dock speaks and not count it on the flow.

+1 speaker points for both competitors on your team if you start your FF with this:

This round comes down to two worlds. One world is the world of the aff, that is the world in which (insert resolution, ex. The world in which the U.S increases diplomatic efforts in West Asia). The other world is the world of the neg, that is the status quo. What we would argue is that the (insert your side) world is comparatively better for (insert number of voters) key reasons.

• How I make my decision:

I will vote off the flow. Speaker points are awarded based on how fluent your speech is (not a whole lot of ums and stuttering), and also based on strategic decisions made in round. I will try to give high speaker points when I can.

Just ask me in round if you have any more specific paradigm questions.