WIAA Washington State Debate Championships
2023 — U. of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA/US
Public Forum Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Bkg: Coach, former competitor
Debate: Traditional, stay true to the debate form. If PF, keep to PF as accessible to the public. Spreading OK in all forms if used intentionally and maintains clarity
IEs: If you have triggering content, state your disclaimer as you walk in the room, so judges can be swapped ASAP as needed. Performance over content in most events, Extemp should be quality and informed content.
With or without policy jargon, I like to see impact calculus and how your arguments evolve throughout the round in response to your opponent. If you tee an argument up early in the round or in crossfire and then forget about it until voters, that's not fair to anyone. I'm okay with speed so long as your opponent is as well.
Original, un canned argumentation goes a long way, but as far as constructive go, it makes no difference to me weather you wrote, bought, borrowed, stole, or found your case in a dumpster. Critical thinking and eloquent delivery are skills that share very little with reading loudly.
A very common stopping point on the way to becoming a great debater is identifying clash. Winning the point, however, takes more than repeating yourself and taking your facts as more true than your opponents. If anyone in the room is going to leave the round with a richer understanding of why you should have won, it's often because of the reconciliation of aff and neg worlds, not writing the opposition off as entirely incorrect. Armchair experts are aplenty. Meeting an interlocutor on their terms is a key lifeskill. (Sportsmanship)
I typically make my decisions off of the flow. Egregiously incorrect information will prompt me to point you in certain directions vis a vis feedback but I will allow you and your opponent to take care of the world building.
If you mention dogs at any point in the round, I’ll know you read this.
Brownie points for strong links and connecting ideas.
If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.
When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider 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, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.
I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.
I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.
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. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.
Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.
If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.
If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.
Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.
I disclose if it is the tournament norm.
If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.
Public Forum Paradigm
RESPECT and DECORUM
1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".
2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.
I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)
I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.
I like direct clash.
All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.
I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.
In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.
In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.
I did 4 years of PF for Gig Harbor High School (Gig BK), competing on the local and national circuit with relative success. I am currently a student at the University of Washington.
Tech > Truth. Warrant your arguments. PLEASE weigh. Signpost - I need to know where you are. Speed is ok.
Wear what you want. Feel free to enter the room, set up, and flip before I arrive.
Don't be a dick. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!
If you are clear, I can flow speed. If you spread, I expect you to be able to provide a speech doc if asked.
Please warrant your arguments. Good logical warrants beat bad evidence imo.
I will evaluate arguments under any presented framework as long as the framework is established early and well extended. If there are two competing frameworks, please tell me which one I should prefer and why.
I consider arguments that are dropped in rebuttal conceded - but you can still outweigh a conceded arg.
I think theory and K debate can be hard to do in PF, but I will evaluate theory arguments and kritiks to the best of my ability if you run them :)
If there are ten arguments on the flow but no weighing, it is a lot harder to evaluate than if you only have one argument on the flow but weighed well.
Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy, do actual comparative analysis and even justify why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.
Don’t just weigh impacts - weigh links. Tell me why your link to the impact is stronger than any links your opponents go for, AND tell me why your impact is more significant than theirs.
I will only vote on arguments extended in both summary and final focus. However,
First summary does not have to extend defense for it to be in the final focus, but should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined. If second rebuttal doesn’t frontline, you can extend defense straight to FF.
To extend a turn as offense, even if it was dropped, it must be mentioned in summary.
When extending, do not just extend author names and taglines - try to also extend the warrants of your arguments and why your impacts matter.
No new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is addressing something new from second summary).
I generally will pay attention to cross, but if there is something in cross you really want me to evaluate, bring it up in a speech.
I prefer if you do not paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round.
Please read the author's name and date.
I will only call for evidence if you tell me to, so if you believe an opponent is misrepresenting a card, tell me to call for it.
Evidence exchange should be quick; if you can't find your evidence i'm dropping it.
Speaker points are dumb, I'll probably give you a 30. However, points go down if you're unnecessarily rude.
*I will generally disclose who won, and feel free to post round me if you disagree with the decision.*
Also if you're looking for private coaching or a new team coach hmu, I am open to it if available :)
Role of the judge: My primary role is to serve as an impartial evaluator of the arguments presented by both sides. I strive to create a fair, respectful, and educational environment for all participants.
Evaluation criteria: I will evaluate the debate based on the following criteria: a. Clarity and organization: The arguments should be clear, logical, and well-organized. b. Evidence and reasoning: The debaters should provide strong evidence and well-reasoned arguments to support their claims. c. Refutation and clash: The debaters should directly engage with their opponents' arguments, effectively refuting or mitigating them. d. Persuasiveness: The debaters should be able to persuade me that their side of the resolution is more accurate, plausible, or beneficial.
Speaker points: I will award speaker points based on the following factors: a. Clarity and organization: The debater should be easy to follow and well-organized in their speech. b. Persuasiveness: The debater should effectively convey the strength of their arguments. c. Respect and decorum: The debater should maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the debate.
Flexibility: I am open to a variety of debate styles, strategies, and arguments. However, debaters should be aware that overly aggressive or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated and could result in a loss of speaker points.
Disclosure: To ensure transparency, I am willing to disclose my decision and provide constructive feedback to the debaters after the round, while respecting the tournament's rules regarding disclosure.
Paradigm preferences: I do not have any strict preferences regarding specific debate formats or arguments. I will evaluate each round on its merits, considering the context, the resolution, and the arguments presented by both sides.
- Ask me if I am the sole author of this paradigm
Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached PF: 10+ years
Competed in PF: 1 year
Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years
Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.
Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.
Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.
Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.
1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.
2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.
3. Give me voters in Final Focus.
4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.
That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.
Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.
Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.
Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.
I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.
Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.
Things that help you win my ballot:
Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)
Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.
Things that hurt you:
Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.
Disregarding All of the above points.
Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)
Ignoring my point about evidence debate.
Insulting an opponent-personally.
TOC Specific Items
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
The speed of Delivery: Medium Speed-and clarity tends to win out more then the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.
The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)
I generally would go for either-But Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.
Role of the Final Focus
Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches
If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.
Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.
Not for PF.
With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.
You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?
Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?
Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?
No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?
If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.
Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.
I'm Skye, any pronouns are fine.
I prefer traditional debate based on framework, however, I am open to any style of case. I also like progressive debate and appreciate creative arguments.
I am three years into a philosophy undergrad degree so I'll be interested in any writers you want to run.
I did LD in high school and currently do parli, and coach at Seattle U's debate camp if you're interested in my 'experience'.
Abolish prisons, give back the land, reject the ivory tower.
Hi, Im Sami (she/her) and I am currently a 3rd year student at the University of Washington, studying Political Science and Community, Environment, and Planning. While I have personally never have competed in speech and debate, I grew up going to tournaments since I was 7 years old with my dad who was a debate coach. I also have an older sister who competed in Public Forum and attended Nationals 3 years in Worlds Debate, so I am more than familiar with the event.
I am a traditional Public Forum judge. My biggest ask from debaters to win a round is persuade me to vote for you. I like to see clear arguments with strong support. In your summary, I would like to see what the debate is boiling down to, not just a reflection, I want to see the main ideas and why your side is winning, and why the other is losing. I love to see clash between the two teams, and cross used efficiently. In your final focus weigh the debate for me, I will not do it for you. Finally, please respect your fellow debaters, I don't want to see one group speaking over the other or having personal attitudes filter into the debate.
Also feel free to ask any questions before the round if you need clarifications, Good Luck!
I have a background in Policy (CX), Stuco, and limited prep IE. I am primarily a stock issues judge.
I look for a well developed speech/argument with a claim, data, warrant that is clearly connected and has been well researched.
Especially for Student Congress, I expect a well polished and respectful presentation that includes engaging with the room/audience and presenting yourself well as a speaker (i.e. posture, eye contact, less fidgeting, etc).
Specifically for Policy, keep stock issues present. When Aff. you have the burden of proof and a dropped argument is a true argument.
K's - I am okay with kritiks just keep it relevant to the topic.
About me: I graduated 4 years ago. I debated Public Forum for 4 years. Studied Econ and Political Science.
About the round: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. If you're unable to explain your cards that looks very bad and will be very easy to refute. I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework, I like that, but you need to tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.
Don't be afraid to concede on smaller arguments in the round to give yourself a strategic advantage on bigger arguments. This is crucial in many rounds.
SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.
Overall, do whatever you want, just do it well.
If you have any further questions please ask.
I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am open to any arguments and rebuttals but will be specifically looking for arguments that are supported by evidence and will rely on you to demonstrate the impact and calculate the numbers (where appropriate). I am looking for you to flow your arguments and rebut your opponents arguments. Please do not leave your opponent's contentions hanging without a rebuttal.
While I will weigh the round, I am looking for you to provide you point-of-view and will certainly take that into consideration.
Lastly, please be respectful (I will deduct points if you are not), have fun and speak slow enough so that I can understand you. Compelling arguments with evidence and impact are more important than speed and volume.
I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.
I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.
I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.
Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.
I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.
Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.
I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.
It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.
Enjoy the journey and have fun!
My background is primarily policy debate. I have a fair amount of experience in PF as well. I am fairly new to LD.
I am not a fan of speed within speeches (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 will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, framework, theory, etc. as long as they areexplained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round!I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, and clear taglines to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.
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.
It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what I hear so watch your speed and clarity. Communicate ideas in an organized and professional manner. You WILL NOT win by trying to confuse your opponents.
Looking for solid evidence-based logic, reasoning, and depth of analysis.
Clearly state contentions, your own and your opponents, both in constructive and rebuttal
Key influences in my debate judging choices include the following:
Clarity: Were your contentions well-constructed and easy to follow? Was each contention clearly related back to the resolution? Did you remain on-topic over the course of the debate? In LD, did you pick a solid value/value criterion and shape your arguments around them? Would a person who wasn't an expert on the resolution's topic still be able to follow your argument? (It's okay to assume some background knowledge, but using excessive jargon to prove that you're knowledgeable will not earn you any favor.)
Strength of argument under pressure: How well could you answer your opponent's questions in cross? As the debate went on, did you pivot your argument to appropriately acknowledge and address the challenges brought up by the other side?
Evidence and warrant: Did you provide appropriate factual evidence to back your contentions? When asked to provide additional cards or information to clarify your argument, could you rise to the challenge? Can you explain how your evidence proves your point and why it matters to your greater argument?
Presentation: Speaking skills matter to me here just as much as they do in Oratory. Did you speak in a way that was poised, articulate, and easy to understand? Spreading will almost always lose you favor with me, especially in PF--it's one thing to speak a little fast to get all your information in, but your primary responsibilities as a speaker are to be clear, compelling and easy to follow, which are all quickly derailed if you speak like an auctioneer.
Thinking outside the box: Did you bring up unique perspectives on the resolution? While arguing proficiently is ultimately more important than arguing creatively, I do enjoy hearing ideas and viewpoints beyond what is provided in the topic analysis.
Decorum: This won't make or break your score (unless there's a particularly egregious lack of it), but you will only gain favor from being polite and showing good sportsmanship. Debates come with inherent conflict, but you should be able to manage that objectively without making it personal. I expect you to show respect throughout the round to your opponents and judges.
My judging practices:
Prep time: I am happy to give you a requested amount of prep time or to give you running prep. I will time you. In online tournaments, I will enter the amount of prep time you've used in the chat so that we can both keep track.
Timing: I will time you during each section of the debate and offer you a hand signals for 1 minute, 30 seconds and 10 seconds. You are welcome to self-time.
After the round: I am happy to offer feedback upfront and debrief the session with you, but I will generally not disclose my decision until after I enter my ballot.
Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.
•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.
•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.
•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .
•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.
Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.
Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.
Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.
New for 2022: Don't argue that ____ will lead to nuclear war. It won't. Try another argument.
As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.
While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say, because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.
If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.
Please sign post. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?
Off time road maps are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you sign post, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, I will deduct a full point for each off time road map.
Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.
This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.
I have spent a lot of time helping and supporting the debate program at Mount Si over the last 6 years. I have watched a lot of rounds and understand the basic terms and structure.
I value clear and strong arguments. If you speak too fast, then I may not catch what you are trying to say and then I can’t count it in your favor.
I also value being polite. I won’t tolerate rudeness or being overly aggressive.
Debate is supposed to be fun and a learning activity. Just play fair and do your best!
I did debate in high school and have been judging for a few years.
Things I like to see in a round:
Good clash--please do not just restate your evidence when it conflicts with your opponent's; tell me why your evidence is better, that is, more comprehensive, more recent, the reasoning is better or more intuitive, etc.
Aggressive CX--do not be rude and please do not talk over each other. Having said that, I like a hard line of questioning, getting to the heart of arguments, and getting an opponent to state their position and follow those positions to their natural conclusions. I do not flow CX, but there are plenty of rounds where the winning argument is developed from something that comes up in CX, if you want me to flow something that comes up, mention it in your next speech
Unique arguments/framework--I will hear out any argument you want to run if you have evidence supporting it and can make a coherent rational argument for it. I do not care if you want to run a funky framework, if your opponent runs an abusive framework, don't just tell me it's abusive, explain why and why that abuse is bad for the debate or the discussion of the issues.
Formalistic arguments about PF rules-- I am not a rule stickler, and I frankly do not care about running what might technically be considered a plan or counterplan. The point of debate is to improve rhetorical skills and learn about relevant topics. Neither of those goals is hurt by stating a specific course of action in regard to the topic or proposing an alternative answer to the one suggested by the topic. Public Forum is not Policy or LD, so I don't really care to see a formal plan, counterplan, pic, etc. run like you would in another form of debate. However, the conceptual ideas behind them absolutely belong in Public Forum debate. Giving me a general idea of how the topic would be implemented, or a mutually exclusive alternative course of action to the topic, etc. is encouraged. It makes the debate better by forcing teams to expand the scope of the arguments, be more rhetorically elastic, and make the debate more interesting generally. However, there are things that teams can do which are bad for the debate itself or do not advance an understanding of the topic. In those cases I want the opposing team to point out the abusive/unproductive tactic being used by the other team and explain why it is bad for the quality of the debate or for education of the topic. If you make that case I am happy to flow that argument as a turn for your side. Also I do reserve the right to drop the argument, whether or not the other team brings it up, if it both contradicts the overarching goals of debate and is in violation of a public forum rule.
Giving time signals--I am terrible at remembering to give time signals. This is totally my fault, but I think it is only fair to give a fair warning. If you really really need me to give time signals I will do my best, but I strongly encourage you to time yourselves.
Not Giving Voters--PLEASE GIVE VOTERS! I don't want you to cover the flow the last speech. Pick the couple of issues that win you the round and explain why these issues are the most important to the debate and why you win them.
If you are in a rush please skim the bolded text for what is relavent to you, the not-bold text that follow is just the longer clarifying explanation for those that might want more details.
email@example.com is my contact email for any other questions or if you need to add me to a potential link chain
Competed and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NFL(now known as NSDA) Nationals in Congressional Speaking.
Was a high school assistant coach for 3 years. (Currently an unaffiliated judge)
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Communication, Early Childhood Development, and Psychology.
I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are noted on paper for my decision of the winner. I do listen though so, if you want a notable answer marked in my decision bring it up in your speech so it is on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').
Speed - is no problem. If online I need camera on while spreading though- I have a much harder time keeping up with a case if I cannot read your lips while you're talking if you cannot have your camera on for any reason please slow down your speaking slightly and make sure to emphasize your tags. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
I strongly encourage you time yourself. I keep Official Time- but I am not very good at providing time signals while I am also flowing. . If you run out of time I allow approx 4 second grace periods to finish your sentence before I'll have to cut you off. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a quick answer.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.)
I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.
Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that I will need less supporting evidence for your claims.
In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as the primary weighing mechanisms for decision-making in the round. I would really like to see a focus on the value and value-criterion debate but not just how your value clashes with your opponents, I would like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions as well as how your's should be given more weight than your opponent's.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.
In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
I love Voters at the end please- it helps show what you as debaters believe to be most important in that round.
If no RA, framework, or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolution question and demand, but student defined frameworks(within reason obviously) are my first preference weighing mechanism for the round.
In Congress I am a seasoned Parlimentarian, I've held Parli as multiple state level tournaments in both Idaho and Washington, I look to Roberts rules and NSDA standards. I prefer that POs use audible time signals such as knocking or make a timer accessible and easy to see for the speaker.
In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style debate much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a few jargon words will lose me.
I'm a parent judge. My wife was an assistant debate coach. All of my kids are in debate.
No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Road maps. Let me know where you're going. Then make sure you go there.
Sign post. That will help me to make sure I capture your contentions.
Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.
For PF, f you use a RA, make sure your contentions support your analysis. Ensure I know why it is important to judge on that analysis.
For LD, I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value. Make sure all of your contentions support that value.
I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.
Be respectful during Cross.
Call for cards when necessary.
Will accept off-time road maps.
Will be timing but it is expected for you to also time.
Going fast is okay but only if it is for a reason. For example, you have a long constructive speech. You will still be expected to be clear.
Impactful points brought up in cross must be restated in summary or they will not pull through.
Have fun and debate cleanly!
I have debated and judged Public Forum for a combined 7 years now. I currently am the head coach and started the debate program at Shadle Park and have judged Public Forum and LD.
Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.
Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will tell you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.
I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.
Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.
Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.
Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.
Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!
Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.
Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.
30: Best Speaker at tourney
28-29: Very Good
Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in
1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases
2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread
3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with 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 and morality. I'm a Math and Social Studies teacher so I like when arguments take good research, with strong sources, combined 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!
Fast speaking is okay, but I lean towards a strong, powerful argument as much more important.
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.
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!
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.
Hello debaters! I am a parent judge with no experience judging PF. Keep in mind that I'm not a tech judge and don't value spreading, so please talk at a normal pace. The better I can understand your arguments, the more likely I am to vote for them. I will be flowing in every speech, so dropped points are going to weigh very high. Please signpost. Terminology is not my strong suit. So be descriptive. Reconstructions are also important.