I am a 2nd time parent judge.

Please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying I will tell you to speak slower.

Please don't run anything progressive (theory, k's, etc.)

I like clear persuasive arguments and evidence.

Please be respectful in round.

Current events savvy, Independent/moderate with a background in debate, theater and public speaking. Logic driven and fact oriented, I believe firmly in free and open discussion on tough topics.

One important paradigm for me is that debate is NOT a speed talking competition. I firmly believe that if you have to rush through the information, you are probably trying to include too much information. The purpose of debate is to persuade the audience, not to baffle them.

Flay Judge, been active over the past two debate seasons. Nat Qual is my third tournament of the current season.

Economist, with a quantitative research background.

Clear and respectful argumentation is the goal. During the round, you're expected to do your best to communicate, clarify terminology, justify positions with sound argumentation, and support arguments with logic, definitions, facts, evidence, analogies and expert analysis. Winning side will be decided based on the quality of arguments as well as the persuasiveness of delivery style.

pourelise@gmail.com or SpeechDrop. Please share your case doc ahead of time, and time yourselves during the round. No spreading is a must.

Pronouns: He/Him

Hi, I am a parent judge. Please set up an email chain before the round (email: duggaraju@gmail.com) and send me documents.

While speeding is ok, I would prefer that you not spread and instead use word economy and vocabulary to convey the same.

I’ve been involved in debate since 1999, when as a HS sophomore I joined the MVHS team as a policy debater. My first affirmative case was about DADT. The first disad I remember was about the Gore v Bush 2000 election. The first counterplan I ran abolished the military. A few things about my background influence the way I judge:

1) Back in the day my favorite judges were those that said the debate was up to the students — they set most of the rules about the content of the debate. I strive to follow this example and minimize the intervention of my own proclivities in the way I judge, with the exception that I remain convinced that arguments are not mere assertions — “the sky is blue, voting issue” — and thus I believe complete arguments begin the burden of rejoinder/refutation. I don’t have to agree with an argument to vote for it, especially when it’s not countered, but I do reserve the right to dismiss arguments that are not fully explained or which lack essential pieces of the “claim, warrant, evidence” puzzle.

2) As a HS debater, my least favorite judges said their paradigm was “comms” focused: although it claimed to be an orientation towards the forms of presentation — i.e. speed, evidence citation, organization, eye contact — I quickly learned that it was paradigm was typically a euphemism or mask, revealing or concealing other preferences, including about theory and types of arguments (counterplans, kritiks, etc.). As I got older and gained more experience, I realized that these judges nevertheless had a point. Debate *is* a communication activity. The game is not reducible to research and logic alone. Successful arguments — successful debaters — take this into account, and my evaluation/feedback will as well.

3) I’m no longer a policy debate purest (elitist), though its with this format that I’ve spent the most time, first at MVHS and then as a policy debater at Michigan State University and later as a coach at Whitman and the University of Georgia. I’ve also coached and judged: LD, PF, World Schools, American Parli, British Parli, Asian Parli, and World Schools. Although each format has certain unique eccentricities, the truth is that all these styles of debate have far more in common than most participants realize.

4) From 2014-2020, I lived in China and coached mainly PF, World Schools and BP. Once a year I would bring students back to the US to debate at Harvard, Stanford, and Berkley.

5) Readers beat talkers, especially when talkers fail to read.

6) I follow the Chilean antipoet Nicanor Parra’s proposition that real seriousness rests in the comic, which I realize now is sadly lacking in this paradigm. What do I mean? I mean debate hard, take it seriously, but don’t forget that this is a game. It should be fun.

7) As a general rule, specificity >>> generality.

8) Anything worth doing is worth doing well, provided that pursuit of excellence does not become an alibi for treating other people badly. Treat your opponents, partners, judges, coaches and everyone else with respect, including yourself.

Parent judge, please talk slower and explain things well.

Second Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate (Value, Criterion, Disads, Counterplans, etc.)

50 + rounds judged last season (in LD and PF).

What I like to hear is a well-laid out case, clearly articulated, as well as solid and clear responses to the elements of your opponent's case.

Generally, I'm against spreading. Talking fast is fine, but it's important for me to hear and understand your case, as well as taking an accurate flow. Without a good flow, it's hard to judge the round. Spreading, especially if it inhibits articulation and clarity, is hard for me to follow.

I'm also not opposed to K's, as long as they are articulated well, relevant to the topic, and that the debater has a nuanced understanding of the K. Being able to answer questions about your K in cross is key.

For IEs, my preferences are for clarity of topic, engagement with the audience, dynamic delivery, memorization, and compelling narrative.

Thank you. And good luck!

Chris Goodson

First time judge. No speed/spreading. Not too technical or progressive.

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.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


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 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. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. 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. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

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 2018 Nationals for it.

Tabula rasa.

Hello everyone,

I would consider followings in my judge,

1) Speak clearly 2) Respect each other - don't want you to bother your opponent's speaking

3) Make questions/answers precisely

4) Keep time strictly

Good Luck!

Email Address : damonrang79@gmail.com

Hi,

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please keep things simply and speak slowly. Thank you and good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there! I'm currently an 8th grade paraeducator for Mount Vernon School District in Mount Vernon, WA. My professional background is elementary & middle school education.

I did LD for 4 years at Central Valley High School (Spokane, WA) and I did parliamentary debate at Western Washington University for 2.5 years. I typically judge LD.

Prefs shortcuts for LDers:

K debaters- 1 or 2

Policy (plans/CPs/DAs,PICs)- 2

Traditional- 1 or 2

Phil debaters- 2 or 3

Theory/trix debaters- 4 or strike

Performance debaters- 1 or 2

*Note for traditional/novice/PF debaters — if none of this makes sense to you, scroll down to the bottom for my traditional paradigm.

*Circuit paradigm*

1. My NUMBER ONE rule is to keep the debate space safe and inclusive. Therefore, if you compromise the safety of the debate space for your opponent, for me, or for anyone, you will likely lose the round. This could include being overly-aggressive in cross-x, treating anyone disrespectfully, disrespecting someone’s pronouns, running something -clearly- outrageous or offensive, or using offensive rhetoric.
2. Spreading’s okay with me. If you do spread, PLEASE email me a copy of your speech doc before your speech(es). Otherwise I might lose some crucial warrants in cards or something. I will destroy each speech doc in front of both debaters after the round is over.
3. I’ll give speaks around 27-30 for standard circuit rounds. I use speaks to punish debaters initially, but ultimately the ballot if you really piss me off. You’ll earn higher speaks by giving good rebuttals, good word economy, appealing to pathos and logos, and speaking clearly.

Specifics-

Ks- Run them. I’m a K debater myself so I know how to evaluate Ks. My personal favorite Ks (in order) are Anthro, Fem, Cap, afropess, and most of DnG’s stuff. I love these Ks not just because I like the arguments themselves, but I like debates about those critical fields. If you’re running high-level kritiks like Baudrillard, Fanon, etc please slow down to explain them. If you can’t explain your K to a common person, don’t run it. I generally need a ROTB for Ks but I can evaluate it through a value criterion if that’s how you roll. Also - I like it when debaters explain how their alt’s solvency and when they weigh the K and the AC. Oh and K affs are awesome.

Theory- I’ll vote on theory if you win it but I generally don’t like theory debates. If trix or theory-overload is your style, avoid me. I’ll vote on RVIs if you win them. I really have a hard time voting for plan theory/CP theory/DA theory/K theory but if you win it I guess I’ll vote for you. PIC theory/disclosure theory are definitely acceptable positions for me, so go ahead and run that if you want.

Policy- Run it! Plans are totally fine as long as they’re topical (see non-T positions below for non-T plans). CPs/DAs are totally fine and legitimate too. CPs don’t have to be competitive IF they solve much better than the AC. You can also run a CP even if the aff doesn’t have a plan text. DAs need UQ and a solid link, and idc how long the DA is. PLAN-INCLUSIVE counterplans are good with me, word PICs are ok with me. Please have solvency for your counteradvocacies besties.

Phil- Probably run it if you know it, but be cautious. I know Kant fairly decently, and util/consequentialism is always fine. You MUST send me your speech doc when you’re going for a heavy phil position. Also, you MUST be able to explain the phil if I look confused. I like well-warranted frameworks, and I love syllogisms within the framing. Other notes — standard/value criterions can either be the name of the phil or a text, I LOVE(!) it when you break the framework cards into subpoints, weighing between AC and NC under your phil is a must, and you don’t have to have a value generally.

Performance/Non-topical positions- Run them. Anything counts as a performance if you call it one, so have fun (but be safe). If you claim to be topical and you lose on T with these kinds of positions, you’ll lose the round. Performances/non-T need framing of some kind. Also you need to be able to explain the thesis of your performance’s argument if it’s unclear. Performances need to either be reasonably topical or 100% nontopical. Otherwise, do whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the debate space. Also - disclosure is nice for nontopical positions. If you provide proof that you disclosed your performance to your opponent BEFORE the round starts, I’ll give you an extra half of a speaker point.

Topicality- I have a very high standard when it comes to topicality. If I feel the shell is especially frivolous, I won’t vote on it. Otherwise topicality is just fine. If your go-to strat is T no matter what, avoid me. Oh yeah, and T’s a voter if you win it.

*Traditional paradigm*

1. MY NUMBER ONE RULE is that every debater must be kind and respectful to everyone in my rounds. Overall, just be a good person :)
2. I value effective communication, persuasive argumentation, creative thinking, and having fun! Debate is supposed to be educational and a good time, so make it that way.
3. I like giving high speaker points and seeing -tasteful- passion behind what you’re arguing. Logos and pathos go a long way in my book.
4. Anything in my circuit paradigm will generally apply if you wanna be circuit at a local, traditional tournament.
5. Other random notes — I like good eye contact, slowing down on tags, polite cross-x, humor, and being a human (and not a robot) in round.
6. SPECIAL NOTE FOR PF DEBATERS — If I’m judging you for PF, everything from my traditional paradigm still applies. I like when PF teams have frameworks in their constructives but it’s not necessary. Make sure you focus on clash during your speeches and make sure CX isn’t overly-aggressive.

Specifics-

Definitions - unnecessary unless you are defining something creatively. Definitions debates will make me very, very sad.

Framework- You need to have a value and value criterion, and they need to be fair to both debaters. Weighing between frameworks and weighing under your opponent’s framework is a must. But I’m completely fine if a debater just wants to use their opponent’s framework. Also, if you have similar frameworks, I appreciate it if both debaters agree to collapse on a similar goal with their frameworks. (example: aff has justice/consequentialism, neg has morality/util. Debaters agree to weigh their impacts under what’s the most ethical consequence). Generally, I like framework debate more than contention debate, but it depends on the debaters and the topic. I’ll tell you in-person what I like with frameworks on a particular topic.

Contentions- I like well-warranted contentions. They can have multiple sub points, but they all have to be meaningful. Also, contentions MUST HAVE empirical evidence, not just analytical arguments. If you have a good mix of empirical evidence and analytics, I’ll go with it. In traditional rounds, solvency isn’t that important, but nice if you have it. Your contentions also must have impacts and you ABSOLUTELY NEED to weigh those impacts against your opponent’s.

Closing thoughts—

1. You can time yourselves.
2. You can sit or stand no matter if it’s a circuit round or a traditional round.
3. Try to use all of your time in your constructives and rebuttals, but it’s probably okay if you don’t have a lot to ask in cross-x (if you understand everything).
4. Memes cannot be offensive or potentially to anyone in the room.
5. Content warnings are appreciated BEFORE your speeches.
6. My pronouns are he/him/they/them. Don’t care which ones you use.

My contact info —

Email: gavinmccormick10@gmail.com (flag emails as important if I’m ur judge)

Facebook: Gavin McCormick

Have fun out there in the debate world, and I’m looking forward to seeing you if I’m your judge! Thanks for reading my paradigm :)

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.

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

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

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

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

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

Framework:

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

Contention level:

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

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

PF

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

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 . . . .

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

Zavia (ZAY-vee-ah) (She/Her)

Categorically refusing to be identified as diversity enhancing

Put me in the email chain: waka.wow64@gmail.com

I did 3 years of LD in highschool and now I'm assistant coaching LD. I did some circuit debate, mostly reading Ks, but not a ton and I've only been back involved in debate for a year, I think my speed tolerance is probably around 80% top circuit speed and I'm unfamiliar with any recent debate norms (especially ones related to online debate).

My first concern is always that debate is a safe and accessible space for everyone, if you ever feel that something made you round unsafe or uncomfortable for you feel free to talk to or email me about it. I will fight TAB/Judges/whoever on your behalf.

I will vote on pretty much anything and am generally pretty tech > truth. The only exceptions to this is if you say some racist/transphobic/ableist or whatever I will absolutely vote you down and may stop the round. Also I'm not a fan of bullying newer debaters, if you're a circuit debater you should not need to read disclosure or spread out some 1st year open debater at their first big tournament, just win your arguments, that shouldn't be hard. It would have to be especially egregious to lose you the round but will definitely hurt your speaks.

Spreading is fine and I will clear/slow you as needed, your opponent can also clear/slow you, debate should be accessible.

Flex prep is fine but your opponent doesn't have to answer, if you ask me if flex prep is okay I will know you didn't read my paradigm and while this will have no effect on my decision or your speaks I may glower at you.

My judge philosophy is that debate is a space for debaters to have the rounds they want to have and the judge should interfere with that as little as possible. So run your cool cases you really like and have a round you enjoy. If you and your opponent both want to do something that isn't even debate, good for you, no idea how I would evaluate it but I certainly won't stop you.

Argument specific:
Tricks: I will vote on tricks but have a high threshold and expect them to have actual warrants, I wont vote just because your 6 word blip got dropped.

Theory: I'm totally fine with theory, really friv theory might lower your speaks and I tend to have a higher threshold but I'll vote on it if you win sufficiently warranted reasons why I should. RVIs are fine. Please don't read paragraph theory in front of me, just read a shell.

Kritiks: I love a good K, if I think your K was interesting I will probably raise your speaks. I am familiar with a lot of the common K lit but always appreciate good explanation of the way your K works. Feel free to ask me before the round how well I know the lit you're reading. Aff Ks are fine be as nontopical as you want. In responding to a K I tend to be much more convinced by specific line by line analysis than reading a bunch of generic blocks.

Plans/Counterplans: make sure your plan text is specific and does what you want, feel free to run planks, condo, whatever but I will also happily vote on the inevitable theory shell if your opponent wins it.

DAs: sure. I generally think neg cases that format their topical offense into DAs and not contentions make more sense and are better

Trad LD: pain and suffering. Okay but actually debate how you want its my place to evaluate the debate you guys want to have and I will do that to the best of my ability, it will make me happy if you make it interesting with a cool framework or something. Please tell me very clearly what you want me to vote on.

ROTB/J: I try not to assume any particular role of the ballot but give that's impossible I probably err towards being an impartial mediator who votes for the team that won an argument that they warranted gives them (better) access to the ballot. But I am more than happy to change that if you win an argument that I ought to be a critical educator or whatever.

Speaks:

I generally base speaks off how well you presented your arguments, meaning: clarity, sign posting, how easy it was to follow the argument you made and to some degree speech strategy. So tell me a good impact story (I don't care how much weighing you do in your last speech you should do more), tell me exactly which card you're putting offense on and what specific warrant in the card you're attacking, be easy for me to flow.

Other factors that could hurt your speaks are: saying something minorly messed up but not enough for me to vote on it independently, bullying less experienced debaters, running really friv theory, misgendering me (bad) or your opponent (worse)

I am happy to clarify my paradigm and answer any questions before the round, though I will be a little annoyed if you ask me questions and have clearly not read my paradigm

Have a good round, try to win and don't be a coward, cowardice is always a voting issue.