I am a parent judge with some background with debating. Please talk slowly and clearly and explain the terms used. Please use signposting. Please email me your case ahead of the debate round to mrudhula.mb@gmail.com so I can follow along. Thank you.

e-mail chain: dondraper021@gmail.com

garfield ‘19, uw '24

coach for garfield. i debated locally and nationally for 3 years, winning state my senior year. i was a k and k aff leaning debater (including performance debate), but i've had my fair share of running 6 plank adv counterplans and econ disads.

general

run anything you want. i don't play favorites when it comes to judging. i lean tech > truth, but context could change that.

i don’t have much formal knowledge of the topic, so be careful when spreading jargon or specific details.

if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!

k aff + fw

absolutely go for it. with fw: impact turns, internal link turns, counter models of debate, f uck debate — u do u.

for framework, i tend to be more persuaded by arguments about skills and research than procedural fairness.

the k

if you wanna run the weirdest k in the world, go for it.

please don't have long overviews :( if you have to have them, just let me know before you start the speech.

theory

i'm open to any theory argument, but please explain why that should result in an L, no CP, etc. if it's in your 2ar/2nr, spend time on it please.

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.

---

Tabula rasa.

Hey everyone, I'm a parent judge so I don't really know how this debate stuff works so please explain any jargon or arguments. Overviews at the top of each advantage and each off case if appreciated. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD, I do not know what you are saying. I would prefer if you don't run a K, I don't understand normal policy debate I surely don't get Ks. Please prioritize explaining your pints I'm not very experienced so the one who wins will probably the one I understand best, so please explain your args, talk slow, and explain stuff in simple terms.

Hey everyone, I'm a parent judge so I don't really know how this debate stuff works so please explain any jargon or arguments. Overviews at the top of each advantage and each off case is appreciated. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD, I do not know what you are saying. I would prefer if you don't run a K, I don't understand normal policy debate I surely don't get Ks. Please prioritize explaining your points I'm not very experienced so the one who wins will probably be the one I understand best, so please explain your args, talk slowly, and explain stuff in simple terms.

Garfield 21 University of Washington 24

Add me on the email chain notchriswen@gmail.com

Debated 4 years for Garfield High School, one year as a 2N, 3 as a 2A. Primarily read policy arguments on the aff and kritikal arguments on the neg. Currently studying accounting and finance, if you are interested in pursuing those fields at UW feel free to ask me about that.

I would love to say that I am a tabula rasa judge, but my experiences through life and debate have shaped my views which I hope to outline. 99% of these thoughts can be easily flipped with good debating and judge instruction. Just don't read arguments like racism good.

Tech > truth

I wish I could say that I have a perfect flow, but I don't. I'm still a bit rusty, and my ears have gotten worse. Give me just a bit to adjust to your voice and speed. And if you can, either speak a bit louder than normal or speak closer to me.

Please don't make every little thing a voter, and then give me no reasons why it should be a voter.

General:

Read what arguments you can articulate the best. I will do my best to judge the round in a method that requires the least amount of intervention.

I love to see new creative arguments, especially on the negative side. Specific negative research against the case will be rewarded.

Please tell me the implications of you winning arguments, how does winning this argument on a flow impact the other arguments, how should I prioritize weighing?

Theory

I love a good theory debate. Most theory violations I default on reject the argument besides condo. Of course if you provide me a good reason with why rejecting the team should be done instead, I am happy to listen to it. I want to hear about the world of debate under your interpretation and why rejection of a team/argument would be better for your model of debate. Please don't make random small things voters. If you are going for a theory argument I need standards. Reject the team should be 5 minutes, if that is how you think you are going to win the round, I want to see committal.

Topicality

If you have done the research and have strong carded evidence with intent to define, I will be a good T judge. The more specific the evidence, the better. Use case lists and explain what your model of debate looks like. I strongly prefer topicality be debated when comparing about models of debate rather than in round abuses. This means I prefer education related standards over fairness. In situations where proof of abuse can be provided, go hard for fairness. I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. My default belief of reasonability for me is about how much of the negative's offense is resolved by the aff's counter interpretation, but again can be changed. Topicality is like theory where I think you should commit 5 minutes to it. If T is dropped, please still impact it out.

CPs

The more specific the CP, the better it will be. Fan of creative counterplans, but not as much of a fan of multiplank CPs. Condo can go anyway for me.

DAs

Love good disads. I want to hear a story, tell me the internal link scenarios that lead to your impact, and why each of those internal links makes your scenario likely in the world of the aff. Turns case analysis and comparing warrants will make it very easy to vote neg on a DA. I want to know why your DA scenario leads to a more likely war, a faster war, just tell me how your evidence's warrants are a unique scenario that the aff's defense won't apply to. I believe in terminal defense and zero risk can exist, an extremely low risk to me is most likely noise that will always exist. However, give me a reason to change that opinion and I will be happy to adjudicate differently based on guidance.

K

I am fine for Ks. I am slightly familiar with most common Ks, but please explain your arguments well. I especially want to hear about how the alternative solves the links, and what the alternative looks like. The more structured the alternative is, the more likely I am to vote on the alt. Be organized, do the analysis on the line by line, I would prefer to not have a long overview. If you do go for framework, go hard, do the weighing and explain to me how exactly you want me to weigh the aff vs the K or even weigh the aff at all. Otherwise, I'll default to some middle ground.

K Affs/FW

Honestly, not the best for K affs. I think that the topic of the K aff should be at the very least be related to the topic in some way. Secondly, I think presumption and SSD are both strong pushes against K affs. To win my ballot as a K aff, you have to win both those arguments, and not lose some impact on FW. As the neg, have a clear strategy for FW in terms of what terminal impact you go for, have a good TVA, etc.

I have recently started judging this year. My mentality is informed by my previous experience competing in speech events, Student Congress and Public Forum back in 2006, when we did not read judges' paradigms. We just made the best arguments we could and followed the rules of the event. Coming from this perspective, I may be the furthest from the "game theorist" sort of judge. That is not to say that I am completely tabula rasa, since I am relatively well-informed on world affairs, though I do judge based on actually debating prowess, as if you were debating in any other context.

I will judge you primarily on the strength of your arguments, which means the validity of your stated reasoning and the apparent accuracy of your premises. I also judge on decorum, primarily in the sense of how you deliver your arguments and engage with your opponents. I am looking for civility, as well as articulation. Show that you understand your opponents' arguments and explain how they are wrong.

Some debaters, particularly in policy rounds, will speak as quickly as possible. I ask you to speak no faster than Eminem. If you speak as if you were narrating a horse-race, then I will likely not understand what you are trying to say well enough to give you credit. Annunciate clearly and phrase succinctly. We can establish pacing before we begin the round in order to ensure that will not be a problem.

Marshall Wilcox

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.