I'm a 47-year old speech and debate parent who works at Amazon. As I flow, I look for thoughtful engagement with the other team's arguments, ideally reaching a Hegelian synthesis.

Email (add me to the chain):garepishollandd@bsd405.org

Head coach @ Interlake

PolEcon + Urban Planning @ UW

PF @ Palo Alto 2019-23, GTOC + CA state finals in '23

See also: Fiona Li's paradigm

General

First I will evaluate the highest layer of offense that is extended in every speech after it's read

If both teams have offense in the highest layer, I will look to the fw/weighing debate and the link-level, and vote for the team has the least-mitigated link into the most important impact.

If neither team have offense left I will presume neg unless given a reason to do otherwise.

General PF Specifics

Tech > truth

Nothing is sticky. All offense/defense must be extended in every speech to be considered

These are my preferences for sending evidence: speechdrop w/ Word docs > email chain w/ word docs > full docs body of email > card requests in body of email > looking over at people's computers. Please don't paraphrase

If you want defense to be counted as terminal I would implicate it as such

High-level circuit rounds: slow down from top speed maybe 15-20% during the back half so I don't miss anything

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense and turns at least briefly or they're considered dropped

Collapse and be clear what arguments you are going for. Avoid going for more than 1-2 pieces of offense please or the round will be difficult to evaluate and the decision may not go your way

Prereq and link in weighing are great. Probability weighing is just link-level analysis, which is valuable but do other things as well

Please warrant things, warranted analytics > unwarranted cards. Do not respond to a warrant with only an empiric

New weighing in first FF is probably OK, but I would prefer weighing to be in summary

Running extinction impacts does not exempt you from having a strong internal link or defending it. Good work on the IL will be rewarded in flow substance rounds.

Theory

Theory defaults: no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, text > spirit, DTA, and theory players substance. Also I will generally err towards disclo & round reports being good, cut cards > paraphrasing, OS > full text, and bracketing being bad.

Extend the interp in all speeches including rebuttal (only applies to theory not sub)

I will evaluate any theory argument – it's not up to me what is frivolous or not

K

I am definitely more comfortable with theory than the K, but I am happy to evaluate it - however I will not vote on what I don't understand.

K: I have evaluated sec, setcol, and cap. K-aff: have evaluated fem identity & fem IR.

I will probably not understand tricks enough to vote for them

Anything else is new to me but I will do my best to evaluate it

Third Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate.

50 + rounds judged last season (mostly 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. Additionally, extending your own arguments and weighing are important.

Spreading?? 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.

I will do my best to provide useful feedback, but forgive me in advance if the feedback seems short. Tournaments move fast, and getting ballots out fast is key.

Thank you for participating in Debate. It's a ton of work, so congratulations on being here.

Good luck!

Chris Goodson

Current Assistant Coach. Keep with this activity—it will take you far! I'm about to start my career in foreign policy with the Department of State, and I attribute so much of my preparedness for the field to my time in debate/speech. This activity will take you wherever you want to go!

SPEECH:

I'm a former competitor who has learned and/or competed in almost every speech event from middle school to college with national collegiate awards in Extemp, Impromptu, and Interp. I do not let you time yourself, but can modify time signals as needed.

DEBATE:

As a former competitor (from middle school to college—with a state championship in PF, national quarterfinalist in NPDA, other national, state, and local awards in LD, PF, and NPDA), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech.

LD:

• LD is also known as Value Debate and is one of the most unique forms of debate for that reason. You will not win without a value (and hopefully also a vc). The value is also a built-in weighing mechanism, and the goal of LD is to weigh what we OUGHT to do. The best debaters will pull their V& VC through to the end.
• Plans and counterplans are not explicitly banned in WA (though if you really like them you should consider policy debate), however, the NSDA LD Textbook (pg 3) says the following: "The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle." I rarely find people who try to get into the weeds with P/CP can do this. Also, if you really want to run it, it had better be detailed and laid out in the first constructive. This includes: plan/cp text, solvency, ads or dis-ads, and possibly harms & inherency. CP should state competitiveness. Good Ads/dis-ads should have link, uniqueness, & impact. Each of these things should be verbally labeled clearly.
• T & K: NSDA Textbook (pg 3) "The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented."

PF:

• NSDA High School Manual (pg 32) explicitly mentions no plans or counterplans allowed in PF

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

• My experience level - Novice - this is the second time to judge
• Speak Clearly and at a Measured Pace: Prioritize clarity in your delivery; avoid speaking too quickly to ensure your points are understood.
• Focus on Clear Communication: My judging will emphasize how effectively you convey your arguments. A well-articulated idea carries more weight than one buried in jargon.
• Use Standard English: Aim for accessible language. Avoid debate-specific jargon or phrases like "unique" unless you clearly define them for the round.

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that are relatively easy to follow. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, good clash, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches.

I have professional experience as a performance coach and have delivered countless presentations and speeches in my career. I will be looking for articulation, good eye contact, as well as good command of your arguments and supporting facts.

Thank you and enjoy the Tournament!

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

I can deal with a bit of speed but Please do not spread and speak clearly.

I enjoy getting an idea of the structure of your argument so I appreciate off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

Please no spreading - I like to flow debates, so a well-structured speech delivered at moderate speed is preferred.

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

I am a lay judge and this is the first time I will be judging this event.

Please speak clearly and keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

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.

Jonathan Tao, jonathantao.2005@gmail.com

2nd Year Undergrad @ UW, 4 years PF experience in HS on local & nat circ, quite rusty (I'm washed), count me as flay-lay

TLDR:

-I have MINIMAL topic knowledge, take that as you will

-Don't spread, spreading = instant minimum speaks (no, sending a speech doc doesn't work, do policy)

-If you think you're speaking too fast, you probably are

-Theory/K's/Progressive = drop unless there is a LEGITIMATE violation that must be addressed (See below for legitimate violations), I never debated prog and don't really understand it

-Blatant and Intentional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia or other discrimination/egregious behavior = instant drop

-Tabula Rasa, run anything that makes sense and maybe something that doesn't :D

-Google Docs & Email Chain both work, but I prefer Docs

-Have fun, don't take or make anything personal

-Any questions abt paradigm or something not on it, please ask before round, I'll do my best to answer

------

On Substance:

-Dropped Arguments should to be mentioned to be dropped, else I'll still entertain it

-Clash is nice, interact with their arguments

-Devote some time to weighing plz

On Evidence:

-Unless something is critical to the debate and heavily disputed I will not ask to see it, if you say I should discount it you better have a decent warrant

On Timing:

-I'll keep time, but am inclined to give grace periods, don't exploit it. I reserve the right to drop speaks and tell yall to get on with it

(If you sing a duet after FF +5 Speaks & I will be very impressed)

hey y'all!

a little background on me: i was a public forum debater all throughout high school and captain of the team for two years, so i have a fairly thorough (though rusty and possibly outdated) understanding of PF and a general sense of speech/other debate events. i have not debated in around 4 years now so take that as you will.

things i think are super important:

• please!! signpost and provide off-time roadmaps as it helps everyone flow arguments easier and allows for a more productive debate. if i'm fumbling around my flows trying to follow you, that's only to your own detriment
• nothing is sticky. extend what you want me to know
• make sure to give me clear voters and weigh, ideally before ff – the goal is for me to do as little work as possible
• i'm tech > truth though i do occasionally call for cards out of curiosity (and to give better post-round comments). and on this note, don't just throw cards at me and hope one of them sticks - make sure you're giving me good analytics. warranted analytics > unwarranted cards
• i know nothing about Ks and theory. i am okay to evaluate off of them but you'll have to explain them super super thoroughly
• please don't spread – speaking fast is fine (somewhere between spreading and how fast you'd speak for a lay judge?) but if you're going to speak fast you'd better speak clearly too
• be respectful throughout the debate!

baseline is, make everything clear for me. don't assume i am going to remember big parts of your argument just because you think they are important.

less important but i give 28 speaks on average – i think it's pretty crazy that tabroom won't let me tie speaks, but that's beside the point. bonuses if you bring candy or snacks (i dont have allergies) and/or if you do something fun like incorporating merriam webster's word of the day, but i won't dock your speaks if you don't do either.

feel free to ask me questions before the round about any specifics. good luck! have fun! if you want to reach out to me for any reason my email is nataliekatran@gmail.com :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23 and '24, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

• Lay parent judge
• PLEASE DO NOT BE RUDE or you will receive a fat L.
• I evaluate cross heavily so pls leverage it.
• Don't talk fast and be clear, please give organized speeches (signpost and number responses)
• Truth matters > if you say something blatantly incorrect that I catch, that may influence my decision.
• HAVE FUN debate is a game!

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog