MS1 at University of Washington School of Medicine
2023 NSDA National Assistant Coach of the Year

Coaching History:

Head Coach of Interlake High School Speech and Debate (2019-2022)

Head Coach of Sammamish High School Speech and Debate (2021-2022)

Assistant Coach of Bellevue High School Speech and Debate (2022-2023)

Co-Head Coach of Newport High School Speech and Debate (2023-2024)

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: paluri@uw.edu

LD Paradigm

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.

Cross Examination

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.

Speaker Points

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 look for a well-crafted, logical argument supported by data, well-delivered with eye contact, at a normal rate of speech. Relying on anecdotes and speaking too quickly to be easily comprehended are not favored.

David "Will" Davis

This is my first year of coaching at Mercer Island. 42 years ago I debated at Nationals (they called it NFL back then) and Extemp. Now I am a retired trial attorney with more than 50 civil jury trials under my belt.

1) I am not yet totally familiar with Washington debate. So, let me know if you think I am doing something wrong.

2) Don't talk fast. I don't like spread debate. I don't like watching someone gasping for breath every ten seconds just so he can cram in one more argument. Slow down. Speak clearly and persuasively. If I put down my pen and fold my arms--- take that as a hint that you should slow down. Of course, you have to be looking up to see me. Eye contact!

2) REPEAT. Don't talk fast. If your affirmative is set for spread, then slow down and cut out a contention or two, and go at a reasonable speed. Your outcome and speaker points will suffer if you start off fast. If you spread, and the other side does not, I will not reward you for "dropped" points.

3) I am not a big fan of outrageous arguments such as nuke war or world hunger as a result of school prayer. Keep it real. We are not going extinct because of social security payments to Puerto Rico. Argue something a reasonable person would believe.

4) Imagine that you are chosen by your school to present a plan to the state legislators for additional funding for debate. In your speech in front of the senators would you spread? Would you claim that the economy would collapse if we don't fund debate. KEEP it real.

5) Have some fun.

My background: I competed in Public Forum and Original Oratory from 2005-2008, and in university-level Parliamentary Debate, Informative Speaking, and Persuasive Speaking from 2009-2010.

I place a lot of weight on arguments that demonstrate clear, compelling, realistic impacts. Carrying a line of argumentation out to thermonuclear war or the heat-death of the universe reads to me as hyperbolic (unless the topic at hand is specifically about those things), and will generally to diminish my confidence in your case as a whole.

Tell me the story of your case. I will flow your arguments, but I don't generally view the winner of a round solely as the team that "scored the most points" on the flow. Both teams will likely have some arguments that they "win" within the round, and it's up to you as debaters to persuade me that the cumulative impacts of your successful arguments are more significant and should be weighted more heavily than those of your opponents.

Cases that are defended holistically as multifaceted examinations of the intersecting and interconnected issues surrounding a topic will generally read as stronger to me than those that present siloed or disconnected contentions. Similarly, I expect teams to provide defensible reasons for dropping contentions as they move through a round rather than carrying them across the flow if they go uncontested or minimally-contested by your opponent. If you decide that one of your own contentions is no longer worth defending I will generally read that as a concession of that point to your opponents unless you make it clear why I should think otherwise.

I don't expect full verbal citations, but the weight of your evidence should be made clear through your argumentation if you choose not to fully cite. Assume that I have not read any of the specific evidence you will be presenting and that I have no idea who your sources are. "Anderson 2021" could be a peer-reviewed scholarly article from well-respected academic in the area being discussed, or it could be a blog post from a layperson with no credentials to support their expertise. Unless you tell me why a piece of evidence matters I won't be able to effectively weigh your analysis of it or understand why it contributes meaningfully to your argument. This cuts both ways -- highlighting the dubious credibility or reliability of your opponent's sources or analysis only works if I understandwhy I should doubt them.

Please do not spread. I will indicate in my RFD if there were any arguments I couldn't flow accurately or understand because of delivery speed.

Regarding Public Forum specifically, I am not a fan of highly technical, jargon-y, theory- or framework-based debate. I will judge the round based on the cases presented, but generally am more willing to award high speaker points to competitiors who focus on persuasive argumentation that doesn't treat the round as a numbers game.

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. Hyperbolic butterfly effect linkchains are not a winning strategy. 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. Long and complex link chains are not usually part of a case that wins with me. 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. Refuse to adapt to the format's standards at your own risk.

CONGRESS

Guess we're doing paradigms for Congress now. Please be sure you're contributing new material and argumentation to the debate. If you're rehashing the same points that the previous speakers have done for the last 45 minutes, it might be worth preserving your recency and just moving on to the next bill. I value clear, eloquent, and persuasive speaking over the technical aspects of a speech. Any use of jargon or concepts from other forms of debate e.g. Solvency, Framework, etc. is incredibly inappropriate for this format of debate and will result in a significantly lowered ranking in the chamber.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

PF Paradigm – Paul Reese

What school(s) are you affiliated with? I coach for Roosevelt HS, Seattle

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? I did not compete in debate in school. However, I was a practicing lawyer for 18 years.

How often do you judge policy debate? Not often.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? No

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments over style.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win.

3. 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? An argument needs to be extended only to the extent necessary to rebut and/or establish its superiority.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Analytics. Analytics makes evidence meaningful / relevant. I want to hear your reasoning, not just facts.

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

I often find a brief up-front roadmap helpful, as a listener. And it can be to your advantage if you run out of time; at least I’ll know what you planned to argue.

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.

Debate kids -- I'm primarily a flow judge. I value argumentation and weighing those arguments during crystalization in rebuttals. While I generally do not have an issue with speed, don't go there if you can't do it with clarity. It may be the best argument you've given in your life, but if I don't get it on my flow, it doesn't matter. I'm generally regarded as pretty expressive so look up every once in a while. Finally, I want you to write the ballot for me in the final rebuttals; give clear voting issues and tell me why you win each point.

Congress kids -- read what I wrote above and apply it. If you want to score well with me, don't just read your speech. Only doing the 1A /1N on every piece of legislation is not showing me anything. I'm not here to judge oratory - this is a debate event. Ask good questions. Refer respectfully to other competitors.