I am a lay judge who enjoys listening to debates. Pls speak at a conversational pace and do explain the jargons, if you use any.

My email id is :- deepali1.agni@gmail.com

I am an experienced debater from a long time ago. I did policy debate from 1987-1989. I am a physician and on the faculty at the University of Washington Medical School. I also have a degree in Public Health. I neither reward nor punish debaters who venture into areas I know a lot about, but if you do so please don't try to convince me of something I know to not be true. That will not go well for you.

I like clash. I like well-reasoned arguments that are responsive to the resolution and the opponent. If it gets on my flow I just might vote for it. However, don’t run arguments just to run arguments. Being strategic is fine but reading blippy arguments just to trick your opponent, I think is abusive. All arguments must be warranted in the first speech that they are given in. If I wouldn’t vote on the argument after the first speech you made it in then I won’t vote on it after your last speech.

I am fine with faster than conversational speed but I really want to understand what you are saying. If your speech is too fast I'll put my pen down, which means I am not writing anything down and therefore I can't vote for it. You can go as fast as you like but if there is any loss in my understanding then it is not worthwhile for you. I think emphasis is useful for my understanding. I am not voting off of who talked better but I would say the two are correlated. I think of debate as oral argument. I will judge based on my flow, which in turn is based on words spoken during the round. If questions come up about evidence during the round of course I will take a look afterwards but this happens rarely. I listen carefully and if statements made about a quote like the tag not matching the quote then I probably heard it too.

I like stock issues like topicality, inherency, significance, solvency, weighing advantages/disadvantages. I am fine with counterplans but I don’t understand the theory behind them. If you want to run a counterplan or you are debating against a counterplan be prepared to argue that it either is or is not legitimate in a way that is understandable to a layperson.

I do not understand or really want kritiks. If you think that your kritik is so obviously true that any lay person would believe it you can read it but I am not promising to understand it. If you are trying to criticize something truly egregious that you believe your opponent has done just point it out and I will vote on it if I agree with you. The same goes for theory shells. I don’t understand and don’t really want to understand the meta of how to read theory shells. If you think your opponent has done something unfair, say so but time debating about how to debate fairly about the debate topic is time wasted, and probably won't help you.

A great thing about LD is philosophical engagement. I am very happy to see clash on that front. You should explain your philosophical concepts as if I am someone who does not know them given that I probably don’t.

You will do well to treat your opponent, me, and debate with respect. At its best debate can be really cool and I'll be excited to learn from you!

Parent Judge. Economist with a quantitative research background. Investor and Trader.

pourelise@gmail.com Please send in your case doc ahead of time, and time yourselves during the round.

Well-structured and clear communication (no spreading) is a must. Weighing, numbers and creative analysis approaches can make my eyes sparkle, for which a no less than 28 score is guaranteed. You pay speaker points for being disrespectful to your judge or opponent, for which a no more than 25 score is guaranteed.

I am being a debate judge in the tournament, because the estimated opportunity cost of my time spent on this is relatively low this weekend. Debate is A BETTER INVESTMENT NOT FOUND ON WALL STREET, indeed.

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 for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; 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.

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 slow 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.). 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 somewhat sensitive to how mental health, rape and disabilities are discussed.

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: I'm a default policymaker but am open to 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 prefer 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 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

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.

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.

Greetings, esteemed babies, I'm Sam.

First and foremost, I use the pronouns He/Him, and if you call me anything more mainstream like Microphone/Microsoft just because I look the part, I will be very sad.

Now onto debate specifics.

samganyx@gmail.com

Send case pls makes flowing easier.

LD:

Pref shortcut: Trix(not the cereal) >>>>>>>>>> Theory > stock = policy > framework > K

1. "Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Please do not spread. I lived the majority of my life in China so I find speed hard to flow. If you are going to spread do it in Chinese. I do not give warnings. <- JUST KIDDING!!! Spreading is fine. zoooooom.

2. "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." I am ranked 5th in the state in LD so feel free to run whatever you want. If you want to run meme cases, this is the round to do it. While I attempt to be unbiased, I still think we should keep things in the realm of plausibility. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made-up evidence, I will take it into consideration when I cast the RFD.

3. "While traveling our separated roads through life, we are also either road signs or potholes on the roads of others." Road mapping is very important. I am not confident in my ability to concentrate on flowing the arguments in the right place so make it clear to me which argument goes where.

4. "Brevity is the soul of wit" Clash is critical to a debate. If you spend the entire time orating on the beauty of your case but not saying why your opponent is wrong, that is a speech, not a debate.

5. [I'm lazy no more quotes] Please time yourselves. I will keep time and if you go over time that will affect your speakers. I will not give warnings and it is up to you to stop.

6. Do whatever you want that makes you comfortable during the round as long as it doesn’t make me annoyed. Don't break the rules though. If you want to win I recommend watching my reactions to seeing which arguments I buy.

7. Theory: I will flow it, and I have a very very very low threshold. I love frivolous theory and it would be very easy for you to win off of it. If the AC is super stock and you are considering running theory just because you can, please don’t, you’ll probably lose.

If you are a noob don't worry too much, I've probably debated someone who uses the same style as debate as you so I can probably flow your arguments fine.

Other stuff:

+1 speaker point if you are over 100 stars in bedwars. (IF YOU SAY ROBLOX BEDWARS I WILL GIVE YOU MINIMUM SPEAKS)

+0.5 points if you are over 10 stars in skywars.

+0.5 points if you quote the art of war

+0.5 points if you quote Yi Jian Mei

+0.5 points if you make star wars reference

+2 points if you read trix (not the cereal). (maybe auto win)

+1 point if you can make me visibly show emotion

If my paradigm is insufficient, here is a 10-minute video explaining my stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt7bzxurJ1I

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and likely indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at Nationals last year for it.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

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

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

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 existant, 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 peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. 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.

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.

General:

Speed: I’m worried about judging online, so please slow down a little bit to avoid any issues. 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.

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.

PSA --- My debater Ausha is my favorite fave : ) but I probably shouldn't given her my tabroom info

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of positions that serve no point.

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.

LD - Skep, permissibility, etc.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, congratulations and welcome to my worst nightmare.

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

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Cohesion, logic, organization, politeness... These are the traits I prefer to see in the debate.

Speak in short, clear sentences. Take advantage of pauses, which are very effective at helping any speaker make their point or add emphasis. Also look up from your prepared text once in awhile; if in person - make eye contact. It's far better to clearly emphasize one key point than to try to argue/rebut several points by speaking too rapidly or saying far too many words in the short time allotted.

Remember, you're trying to reach your audience (or in this case, a judge) to make your argument.

Be respectful to others at all times and have a great time doing so.

-Rick

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

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.

I value clarity of argument. Be civil. Be clear. I prefer you don't go to fast; otherwise, I may miss things in my flow. Topicality is important, although creative cases are always interesting to hear.

Disclaimer: I can only argue with what is presented to me in round. Ultimately, if you want to run something, who am I to stop you? I'm flexible enough to deal with it.

TIME YOURSELVES!

TLDR: Speed fine. K's n stuff fine. Do what you want.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Never had a problem outside of policy rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

History:

I did LD the most when I was actively debating, but have experience with most other forms of debating and have actively judged for Pufo and Pol (Though still pref LD). I debated a wide range of arguments, from stock to progressive. I have a particular love for K's, especially so when they are accessible by everyone in round, and understood particularly well by the Debater running them.

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. If you say you're only going to take two minutes of prep, end up taking an extra 30 seconds and try to pass it off as only two minutes... no... just no. 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 less confrontational than CX and much more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX. Flex prep is Not binding as far as tricky questions go, however, if a debater willfully misrepresents their argument, I'm either slashing speaks or treating just that misrepresentation as binding, depending on how much that misrepresentation shifts the round. IE. If it becomes a centerpiece for the debate, it's binding. If it's just a side argument... speaks. Try not to do it.

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 nuance difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

K's function as their own FW. They don't necessarily need a super comprehensive FW with a K, the ALT and Link's are FW on their own. If those aren't sufficient, you can run a bit of FW up top or something, especially if your Alt is Drop the Debater... that isn't really a FW sufficient Alternative and you're going to need some work to set that up. Honestly, I have a higher threshold for Drop the debater args with no intrinsic justification then I do a more progressive mindset alt. You have to disclose an alternative for your K's when you read them, no more hidden drop the debater alt. I weigh the Alt as part of the K's FW. I think it's also good form for accessibility. If you don't disclose an Alt, I'm going to default it to Drop the Debater, and hope you provide justifications in the next speech and probably drop speaks a point or two.

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.

Not really a whole lot to say here, just debate it.

I'm fine with Speed and progressive argumentation.

That all being said, I can only vote for what is offered to me in round, and am pretty flexible with what the debaters want to argue.

Parent Judge

Judged Public Form for 2 years and this is first year for LD

As a judge I look for :

Clear communication of goal

Medium speed

structure

Logical Arguments

Timing

This is my 3rd year of debate. Its also my 3rd year of LD debate.

During rounds I prefer clear speaking, don't speak too fast where I cant flow what you say. I also vote on standard value/criterion and enjoy when the round is weighed. Make me believe that your value is the best for the round. 

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

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 . . . .

Hello, I'm a Lincoln Douglas debater for the second year. I personally prefer a value debate, but I will take everything in to consideration. As a human, I have biases, but I will judge as objectively as I can.

I will vote on impacts of arguments. I will vote on value and criterion. I will not be flowing cx please keep that in mind. I can flow fairly quickly but if you are spreading I will probably miss things.

Please sign post. It makes it easier to follow the flow, I will vote off the flow so please make it easier for yourself to win

I’m good with progressive arguments, I really like framework but I understand progressive arguments. Please understand what you are running if it isn’t traditional

If any discriminatory comments are made I will not vote for you.

extra speaker points for bashing on the patriarchy

have fun!

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

The 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.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national 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 policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. 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. 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.

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.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Second year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case.

Experience - I did Public Forum as a freshman and then switched to primarily doing Policy. I also have some minor experience doing Lincoln Douglas and Big Questions. I have judged many practice debates and a few rounds at tournaments.

Policy Paradigm - I like to think of myself as tab, however realistically I'm not perfect at fulfilling that position. I will vote on anything if it is run well and explained enough that I can understand it. I won't rule any arguments immediately and try to vote solely off the flow.

Case - Not much to say here, in general I like a case with some degree of framing.

K - I am not the greatest at comprehending large amounts of postmodern terminology strung together and read extremely fast. The simpler your Kritik, the more likely I am to vote for it. Having an overview on more complex Ks would be greatly appreciated.

Stock Issues - I love stock issue debates. I have a fairly low threshold for solvency and inherency. Please don't only go for stock issues, however, I'd like to see some offense. That being said I will vote neg on presumption unless a valid argument is presented otherwise.

DA - Obviously I like and will vote for DA's. They're kinda the stock issues of the neg and should be present in most neg cases

T - Kind of fits in with stock issues. I do consider reasonability a good argument, and have a slightly higher tolerance for T over other stock issues. Please don’t run T to be abusive because I will vote on theory against clearly abusive T if given any reason to do so.

CP - I will vote for competitive and non-topical counter-plans so long as the neg sufficiently proves the CP is such and that it's a better policy option.

Theory - I don't like to vote on theory, although if there is clear abuse I don't mind it. make sure you do a good job of explaining why your interp is good for debate.

K-Affs - I'm likely to vote against K-Affs as long as there’s enough for me to vote off of.

Will all of this in mind, I will vote off of what I see on the flow at the end of the round. I also generally prefer smaller higher probability impacts but that doesn't usually end up changing the decision in round.

LD Paradigm – I’m not the most progressive judge when it comes to LD. One of the reasons I like LD is because it specifically avoids the mess of lingo and technical understanding that is policy while covering similar ground. That being said, I won’t immediately vote against progressive case ideas, however I am less likely to. As with policy I vote off what’s on the flow. Please don’t speed, I can handle it but I don’t like seeing speeding in LD, unless you’re reading the content of your cards. I will cover my opinion on some arguments I have weird opinions on below –

Util frameworks – I hate util, especially if both sides run util. I don’t want a debate solely about who has the better evidence and I want to see some framework clash. I won’t vote you down on face but I won’t enjoy the round.

CPs – If the topic isn’t over a recommendation of policy, I don’t want to hear a counterplan. If you don’t frame it right, I will vote down CPs on non-policy topics (for instance the wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance topic) on face. Generally be careful running a CP, because poorly run CP’s will annoy me.

K – I don’t particularly mind Ks in LD and won’t get annoyed if they’re run, although they must be run well. I don’t want a weak link that just barely gets the job done, you need to prove that your Kritik is relevant. I will err on the opponents side if there is any significant risk of not linking.

K aff – Just don’t please. I’ll buy just about any argument against K-Affs if you don’t affirm. I will intervene with personal beliefs regarding the RoB unless you completely convince me otherwise. This means I won’t buy arguments about the morality of voting for your side.

Religious arguments – I don’t really like religion-based arguments. You’re going to have to do a lot of legwork for me if you run such an argument because I’m not going to do any work for you regarding understanding religion, even if I do have a lot of background knowledge. I am probably more likely to buy arguments regarding the burden of proving a religions existence.

SCT – I am very likely to buy the argument “well I didn’t consent to this government so get pranked”. If you’re running SCT against someone who’s case is antithetical to SCT then you’re going to have to do a lot of work to prove that there is a social contract.

DeOnt – I prefer DeOnt to Util but I still don’t like seeing debates in which both sides read a DeOnt framework. It gets a bit too stale for me.

In General, I want an interesting debate with lots of framework clash in round. I will vote for any argument run well enough although how good is good enough varies depending on the argument and context.

PuFo Paradigm

I want to hear interesting arguments. I like good framework. I don’t like really deep evidence debates, please minimize how much time you spend arguing evidence, If you have one really good point about why their study sucks just say it clearly and move on. I don’t care about how y’all behave in Cross-Fire and will vote you up in speaks if you can successfully get answers, as long as your methods aren't outright offensive. I vote off what’s on the flow at the end of the round. Because of that, having a strongly structured case with policy styled cards will help a lot because I’m never really sure what to flow with uncarded PuFo cases.

Big Q’s Paradigm

Once again, I will vote off the flow. Once again, I want y’all to be intense in cross-fire, that’s what makes the round interesting. I will say that I prefer a more passive-aggressive approach when it comes to Big Questions. Please define words that are in the resolution, particularly the ones that are important to your arguments. I don’t mind hearing the NSDA cases, however I highly encourage y’all to come up with your own cases.

Tl;Dr

I will vote off the flow to the best of my abilities. I like to see well executed cross examination/ cross fire.

Hi, I'm David Zeng, a high school senior. I mainly do speech and I'll be judging novice LD.

Spreading is fine. No theory plz.

Be mature, be good to people.