I have been coaching speech and debate for 7 years. I have judged Public Forum debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and various speech events in that time.

-Make sure you state your taglines for your contentions clearly. It should be easy for me to flow your cases and keep track of your arguments, so the clearer you can be, the better.

-Provide clear impacts, and focus on impact calculus. Stress these (especially in your final focus or your final rebuttal).

-Weighing your arguments against your opponent's is the key to winning the debate. Clearly state how your arguments outweigh theirs, and again, stress your impacts.

-Please do not spread. If I didn't hear it, then it never happened. If I can't keep track of what you are saying, then it is possible that your opponent cannot either. Speaking clearly is imperative to a fair debate. It will also result in more speaker points.

-If you have a framework, stick with it. If you drop it, there is no purpose for it, and that hurts your arguments more in the long run (especially if your opponent realizes the framework was dropped).

-I do not flow CX. It is your job to bring up what happened in CX in your next speech. That is the only way it will make it onto the flow.

-For LD, make sure your value/criterion is clearly explained at the start of your constructive speech. If you and your opponent have the same value/criterion, or they are similar, it is best to acknowledge this and focus on arguments rather than getting into a framework debate.

-For LD, keep arguments traditional. I'll listen to counter plans and kritiks, but I prefer traditional arguments.

-Please practice good sportsmanship. Being snarky or belittling an opponent, especially if it is clear they are new to debate will not be tolerated.

-To prove you have read my paradigm, simply say "Bear Down" or "Go Wildcats" prior to starting the round.

I'm a traditional Public Forum judge. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with well-developed contentions and significant depth of argumentation. I'd encourage you to state your points concisely, and without significant undue repetition. I do not tolerate spreading; I expect you to have developed reasonable skills of word economy by this point in the season, and would hope that you can concisely develop your case to fit within the required time. I reward the use of reasonably clear enunciation at a comprehensible pace. While I do encourage you to weigh your arguments, be mindful of the tone you use to do so. "Speakersplaining" to me, attempting to tell me which way I am going to decide in the round rather than a courteous appeal for my vote, comes off as arrogant and will not do you any favors in my evaluation of the round. For any clarification, feel free to ask me in-round.

Hi, I'm Allison (she/her) and I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school and in Worlds debate at the National Tournament for 3 years. I am also the daughter of two debate coaches and have grown up in the activity.

Public Forum:

I am a traditional Public Forum judge. The biggest thing I ask of any debaters I judge is that you persuade me to vote for you. Your FF should be spent spent weighing the round for me, I will not do it for you. I will only vote on points that are carried through from summary to final focus. I do not prefer off time roadmaps. Respect and be kind for your opponents.

I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speeches. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm not a fan of progressive argumentation so use only when necessary, I would much rather see a traditional Value-Criterion debate. I can handle some speed. Depth > breadth. Make sure you have clear signposting and use voters! If you do not weigh your impacts, I will not weigh them for you and you will drop my ballot.

All debate styles: The best debaters are the ones who know the most, prove to me you're the debater who knows the most.

Also feel free to ask any questions before the round if you need clarifications. Good Luck!

From the 2020-1 school year:

tl;dr:

LD: flow judge, but you can argue that stuff like CP's, neg fiat are illegit and that durable fiat is not realistic if there are too many actors. You'd need to tell me why of course and convince me. The val/crit debate determines how I evaluate the rest of the debate, and winning that debate just means I evaluate stuff as specified in the victorious val/crit. Also even though I'm a flow judge, that doesn't mean you're locked into line-by-line for every argument-- you can group stuff and some of the best LDers in my judgement are closer to the PF realm than the Policy realm in style.

PF: public forum is like a TV show, like the McLaughlin Group or CNN's Crossfire. The best PF judge is someone who doesn't understand debate, yet these days you have speed and framework in PF. If I saw speed or framework on the TV, I'd change the channel. When I see a PF debate without these things, my heart soars. But if your opponent makes a lot of points, how do you not get pulled into the speed and the mire? Although you should not neglect to answer the opponent's important points, when you get spread, the magic words from a persuasion perspective seem to me to be, "here's what's really important in this debate," or some variation thereof. As with many speech events, in Pufo fluency is also key to persuasion.

longer:

LD — flow judge. Two debates occur in parallel in every LD round: the value/criterion and the contention debate. Usually the winner is the debater who does the better job telling me why their contentions line up with the prevalent value/criterion in the round. I want to see this weighing underway by the NC and a tad in the 1AR so that both sides have time to rebut each other’s assertions.

One debater may attempt to spread the other in LD. When this happens, the other debater can agree to this kind of line-by-line debate by participating in it. The other debater may instead group arguments and bring the round back to a more ‘common-sense’ manner of argumentation. Most times this year I’ve found that when one debater starts with the line-by-line, the other goes along with it. I’ll evaluate such rounds in this way if there is no dissent in a particular round on it. But the other side of this coin is, neg sometimes just reads 10 esoteric arguments at speed. When this happens, if aff says something like “I didn’t understand that and I suspect you didn’t either,” aff is probably right. If LD is debated like Policy, neg just has the opportunity to get more ink on the flow and win 80% of the time. The preceding is more or less my own ROM of LD theory and arguments to the contrary are very unlikely to change it.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON LD:

If you run a val/crit that would make all aff or all neg cases under the current resolution illegit and this fact is pointed out (truthfully) to me, I am very likely to weight the fact that you did that against you for reasons of fairness and education.

Fiat means that we assume an Aff world and compare the aff world to the squo world. Thus, when we say fiat, we mean “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff; now, how would that be different that the squo?” It does not mean, “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff, the aff worked as planned, and the world was saved.” Fiat does not mean that political repercussions can’t happen. Fiat does not mean that solvency is assured. I already know what aff fiat means and theory arguments about it won’t persuade me— they have not once done so. Neg fiat, however, is another matter. Does it even exist? Are counterplans legit? I’m agnostic on this question currently.

If we are in a world where neg fiat exists, which I will assume (for now) if neither debater disputes it, the mere fact that a perm is logically possible is not enough for me to prefer the aff. If perms are permitted, then I consider that the aff’s advocacy has shifted from the plan to the perm, and I will vote based on whether the perm or the CP best achieves the prevalent val/crit. Let me give you a sense of what I mean by logical possibility. Many negs will say something like “we can’t do something and also do the opposite of something.” Uh, yes we can. I can dig a hole and fill it up again. I can attempt to dig a hole with one arm and refill the hole with my other arm. The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do that same thing (e.g. cops arguing over jurisdiction.) The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do the opposite (e.g. Oregon permits drugs while the Feds ban them; California has sanctuary cities while the Feds uphold contrary rules.) Someone can set a fire with one hand and also call the fire department. All these things I have stated are logical possibilities. Are any of them wise, in the sense of, is it wise to have different arms of the same government working at cross-purposes? No, I would say not. Would doing any of them be a waste and probably have terrible effects? Seems obvious that they would. Just don’t tell me that something is logically impossible when it is not.

Evidence in many areas of our lives is a good thing to consider. In certain areas of our lives, it may be the only important thing in determining what we should do. But this is not the case for all questions. In particular, evidence may not be salient on all questions of values. Let’s consider a topic that is not yet controversial but that we can imagine might become controversial: the eleventh amendment to the US constitution, which, according to wikipedia as of today, “restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.” Imagine a debate happening on whether this was right or wrong. One side says more or less, “It’s unjust that you can’t sue states. The judicial system is our recourse, and if states act wrongly, people, foreign or domestic, should be able to sue them.” The other side says, “Federal courts are not the only form of recourse. The Federal government can already sanction and impose restrictions on states, and additional methods to hold states accountable are not needed and would be disadvantageous. Also changing the constitution in this way would open the door to frivolous lawsuits which would hurt everyone. From a utilitarian standpoint, we should keep the 11th amendment as it is.” Now what if a third party came in and said, “Well, according to philosophy professors at Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, you should prefer utilitarianism over justice.” Well, that’s not really how debates on values work. You argue values via talking about why the values you advocate are good. Appeals to authority might work when the subject is something very complicated like molecular biology or quantum mechanics, but for questions of values, citing a source usually won’t work.

PF — The ideal public forum judge is someone who has never seen public forum before. Now, although I have seen it before, I have, and I believe the community has, an interest in keeping it true to its original form. This is the genesis of how I judge PF.

I was asked to write a PF paradigm, but I believe that PF judges should not have a paradigm. Bottom line, when I watch PF, I pretend that the debaters are on my TV and are trying to convince me of their point of view. If someone is trying to convince me of something, running theory or topically are not a good idea. A better idea is, if your opponent is discussing irrelevant things, remind the judge/audience what the debate is about and proceed to talk about it better.

If someone is trying to convince me of their point of view, saying “extend and cross-apply Johnson 2015, I already responded to that” is not going to convince me of anything. Instead, consider saying “as we have stated previously, and as underscored by Dr. Johnson…” and so on.

If someone trying to convince me starts talking very quickly, that does not get them very far. I’m not going to expect the other person to speak very quickly as well. Everyone has similar speech times, and a reply such as “my opponent mentioned many interesting details, but here’s what you really need to know…” will probably suffice.

Courtesy is of course important, but don’t spend to long with the ‘you ask a question first, oh thank you so much,’ game. Most rounds I’ve seen lately have been fine in this dimension, so you’ll probably do well too.

I’m not going to flow PF rounds. I will take notes to help my memory, but if you say, “extend point 3, subpoint b,” I’m not going to know what you mean.

The more you use debate to explain to regular people why issues matter to them in the real world, the more you’ll get out of debate in the long run, I feel confident. So, emerge from the cave of speed and jargon and gaze upon the sunlight of excellence!

Policy - I'm a deconstructionist judge.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

Hello,

Thank you for participating in today's debates. I look for well-crafted arguments delivered at a reasonable speed.

Please limit spreading. Fully explain your thinking and reasoning. Slow down when making main points (contentions) or when making pointed critiques of your opponent’s argument.

All the best,

Kieran Jacobson

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

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

Congress:

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

Substance > Style

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

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

LD:

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Briefly, I tend to be a tabula rasa judge. Overall I favor evidence, and prefer speech clarity to rushed speech.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

Hi! Here's stuff to know about me:

I'm a previous public forum debater, so I am aware of PF rules, lingo, and conventions.

I also do flow PF rounds.

My overall PF philosophy: Strong contentions have (1) a strong, theoretical, logical argument, and (2) a good trail of evidence to back it up. So, don't have a debate 100% in the theoretical realm, and don't have a debate focused solely over who's card is better.

If I have you for a non-PF event (e.g. congress, LD, IEs), I will listen with their different purposes in mind (i.e. I will not hold you to PF criteria, I will will hold you to your event's general criteria). Regardless, you may still gather useful info below (after all, this is what I am used to looking for).

------

In PF...

I appreciate:

-Strong Frameworks and Clear Definitions

-Concision

-Signposting contentions

-Clearly stated impacts and Voters

-Both logical and evidence-based arguments - and note, evidence is only as useful as how you use it.

-Off-time roadmaps

-Line-by-Line responses

-A healthy mix of offensive and defensive strategies

I do not appreciate:

-fast reading

-poor decorum - please don't use accusatory/charged words towards opponents and/or their cases (e. g. "__ is racist", "__ is stupid"). I see this as both degrading to the art and science of debate, and a sign that you're out of good rebuttals. Any legitimate concerns may be raised outside a timed speech.

In general, make it easy for me to vote for you, learn something new, have fun, and give it your best! :)

I am a parent judge so I am new to doing LD and Debate.

In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech. Off time road maps are helpful as well as signposting.
I don't prefer speed at all, always quality over quantity..
As for different types of debates such as traditional, theory, K debate etc. Just make sure to explain what I should be looking for as I am not familiar with most types of progressive arguments. Also, I don't have any preferences for arguments but I will require more tech for arguments such as nuclear war compared to arguments such as recession.

Finally, during Cross X you as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.

Rick Spoonemore

Background: I was the 1985 Washington State Debate Champion in Policy (LD had just started way back then), 1st in State in Impromptu Speaking, and 2nd in State in Extemporaneous Speaking. I went to college on a debate scholarship, then to law school at the University of Washington School of Law where I was inducted into the Moot Court Honor Board, and won the Falknor Appellate Competition during my third year. I have been a Seattle litigator since 1992, and have been named a Washington State Super Lawyer every year since 2005, including six years as a "Top 100" lawyer in the state. I am currently the managing partner of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, a Seattle-based litigation firm. I have taught speech and debate, moot court, and trial advocacy to high school students, law students, and young lawyers. My professional profile is here: www.sylaw.com/

How to Lose a Debate Round: I have a great deal of respect for speech and debate and have little tolerance for those who disrespect the process or their competitors. If you are rude, you'll likely lose. If you are sexist, racist, or anti-LGBTQ+, you'll likely lose. If you are unprepared, then you are not respecting the process and that will hurt you. If you attempt to bend or break the rules, that also shows a lack of respect for the process. Don't bring up brand new arguments in rebuttal -- a twist or spin on an existing area of contention is good, but wholly tangential new arguments will hurt you. Speed is fine -- see below -- but if you attempt to spread, make sure you can do it with sufficient enunciation to make it intelligible.

How to Win a Debate Round: Clash, clash, clash! A good debate round is not two ships passing in the night with pre-canned arguments that fail to clash with the points advanced by the opponent. Sure, openings are set, but once the case moves to rebuttal I expect to see real engagement. I will give a win to a speaker or team who advances the most logical, reasoned, and supported arguments over a speaker or team who is smooth, but lacks depth, every time. I will flow all your arguments, make sure you engage all the positions advanced by your opponent. Dropped arguments can kill in policy, and will hurt in LD. I can handle speed, but make sure you can too if you decide to spread. If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. It took me years to unlearn speed after I got into the real world, so I don't penalize lack of speed, especially in LD. I generally buy problem area arguments and positions in both policy and LD. I like humor, where appropriate. Core principles, standards, burdens of proof/persuasion are key: I'll pay a lot of attention to the fight over the playing field in LD, so make sure you don't just engage on the details but neglect the superstructure.

Individual Events:

Impromptu: I admire any student with the guts to do impromptu. I am open to any form of speech in this genre -- from a story to a serious discussion about a current event. Give me a structure or roadmap, and attempt to tie in your conclusion to the introduction in some form. Pauses, stumbles, gaps and the like will not surprise me in this event, so chill if that happens to you. Just, please, don't go fast -- I know many people who do impromptu are also debaters, but this is the time to slow down and make a speech that has resonance with normal, non-debate people. Speed kills in this event. Finally, I really hate pre-canned impromptu speeches where the speaker takes one of the prompts and attempts to shoehorn it into a canned speech. That's not impromptu in my view, even if many students make it to nationals with this approach. If you do it, then make sure I don't know that you are doing it because I think it undermines the purpose of this event.

Extempt: See Impromptu. You have time to create a roadmap and structure (and hopefully a message or theme) so I view those elements as important. Like impromptu, this is a time to slow down from your debate tempo. I am not looking for volume of information -- don't spread extemp -- but a well-constructed outline with a theme or message that is, hopefully, thought-provoking.

Informative/Oratory: I have definite thoughts about good speeches in each of these events, but understand that by the time you are reading this there is nothing you can do. I'll make constructive comments on the ballots. In general, I think both of these events have become too formalistic and patterned. If you have a unique approach, you will likely be rewarded. The same tired formula (espicially in OO) has existed far too long, in my view. If you have a formula speech because that is what you have been coached to do (because the coach was coached the same, etc., etc.), just do it well.

Interp Events: Interp is far outside of my wheelhouse, and if the tournament decides to have me judge one of these events then treat me just like a "parent judge." I'll do my best . . . .

About me:

I am a coach at Mountlake Terrace High School. I was awarded most argumentative in high school, and probably would still hold that title if re-evaluated.

My strength is in historical periods/perspectives, philosophy and morality. I'm a Math and Social Studies teacher; so I like when arguments take good research, with strong sources, and combine it with logic and interpretation of material mixed into a smooth transitory argument.

I like civility and respect in my debates but don't mind rebuttals and crosses having a little bite to them.

I like sources that are short and concise but to a strong point, especially with numbers/stats!

Strength of an argument is brought through strong points that are well articulated and backed with sources. Out-speaking your opponent in words-per-second is not a source of victory from my standpoint.

I don't mind controversial topics being brought in as long as it is done tastefully and with purpose.

Off time roadmaps are always helpful but by no means necessary.

Speech-

With so many varying speech types paradigms are a little harder to pinpoint. The most consistent and well-put-together performances that include strong openings and closings with details/script inside. Vocabulary, diction, intonation and articulation in your words, emoting/gesturing in your body language, and preparedness (as much as possible) are the qualities I look for.

Any questions on my paradigms please feel free to ask!

My name is Astrid (they/them), and I did speech (info and extemp) all 4 years in High School in the Montana circuit, did 2 years of college level NPDA debate, winning Novice Nationals in 2018, and now coach all events at the high school level. I'm excited to judge!

All Events: Avoid gendered language when possible or addressing the crowd. Let me know if you have any time signals you'd like. Have fun, and respect yourself and others. Self advocate for acommodations when possible!

Congress: In a congress debate, I am looking for adaptability and cleverness. A good congressional debater is one who can play the room, find incisive questions that make speakers sweat, and understand the motions that control the pace of the debate space. Congress is best when it's about the details, both of the arguments and of the procedure. Debaters should be able to expand upon their prepared material AND approach new materials/bills with excitement.

In other debates, there is a skill called telling the "story of the ballot." In congress, that is giving a clear and cohesive summary of the argument about a bill and trying to tell the room why it's best to vote the way you're advocating for. The best congress debaters do that with ease.

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESOLUTION AND A BILL. Please.

I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm pretty good at speed, I've spread-ed my fair share in my day, but I'm a slow writer. For the sake of detail and understanding I may call out "slow" or "clear" when I need it. Please go slower when you're not reading a card so I can keep up.

I'm a big fan of FW debate, impact calculus, and interesting/lesser known philosophy. Watch yourself on colonialism Ks and anything to do with disability/marginalization; I love love love hearing these arguments, but often debaters end up speaking on behalf of marginalized people in unfortunate ways.

In your final speeches, give me clear voters with a story that carries me throughout the flow so I know what the heck is up. Throughout your speech, signpost WHERE we are on the flow.

I weigh theory debates about accessibility and basic respect (misgendering, accessibility around speed, disclosure/wiki etc.) are weighed very heavily for both sides. Evoke them VERY carefully. I care a lot about access to the event. I weigh procedural arguments first unless given a reason not to.

Run stuff you love and what you think is fun.

if you must email a case, email it to alecwillis00@gmail.com

All Speech Events: Move around! Explore the space! Don't get happy feet (shift from foot to foot as if anxious), but don't plant yourself in front of your phone. I value a kind of energy that takes up the whole space. I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Extemporaneous: I count sources and it contributes to my ranking. I generally like to hear the "out there" questions I know less about, but remember that I might not of heard anything about the topic! Give some preliminary info (which is a great place to stuff in more sources).

Impromptu/SPAR: Explore the space! Have fun! You're in a funny event, make jokes and smile. I love a nice, concise lesson that ties your points together. For Spar, I love having a passion or conviction that is far outside of what is normally considered for such funny topics. I want to feel like you care more about the topic than anything in the world (for both events).

Informative:I will be counting puns and it will contribute to both my ranking and my speaker point allocation. Most puns = 20 speaks no questions asked