1. Experience: I have done three years of PF and extemp. I can deal with most spreading in PF; I was a second speaker.

2. Framework: If you don't say anything else, I'll assume cost/benefit. I won't like anything abusive though.

3. Extensions: I'll weigh whatever is extended through to final focus. But don't just extend, tell me why your argument is more important.

4. Evidence: I prefer authors and dates. If the evidence is self explanatory, then that's fine; it can speak for itself. If it isn't clear, then you need to link it to the resolution. I'm fine with paraphrased evidence, as long as its not abusive/misleading, and its used to sum up some non-text evidence or long essay.

5. Cross: I don't flow this, but I pay attention to what is said. It's important for clarifying what is happening.

6. Defense: extend it in summary; however, in summary, narrow it down to a few responses, not a shotgun approach.

7. Theory: In PF, I don't think we should have theory unless an abuse happens. Public forum is about the arguments, not who can argue theory that doesn't apply to the resolution, but I'm not going to vote against you for reading theory.
I honestly don't care that much about disclosure. My circuit doesn't do it.

8. Analysis and evidence: I like analysis. Not all arguments need to be based on some prewritten evidence or block if you can explain it well. However, if your analysis and response is based on something that a debater wouldn't know, then you need a card, or explain it really well.

9. Sign posting and road maps: please sign post, I can deal without road maps, but if your speech is, or will be, all over the place, then please do an off time road map.

10. I've seen tricks on some other paradigms. I don't know what that is. Take that as you will.

11. Other stuff: I don't have cards or authors memorized. Tell me something beyond just the author's name in round if you're referring to a card. I don't like underdeveloped arguments, but I understand if you tried something and it fell through. Just don't put out something you know won't work for the sake of a shotgun approach to responding to arguments. You win based on persuasion, not on saying words really fast and hoping something sticks.

12. I swear this is the last thing: Debate is about communication, so do your best not to be really dry. I prefer some humor.

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.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

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

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.

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

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

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.