Updated 3/11/2025

For sending documents, evidence or questions, please use: speechteam@stlukeshoreline.org

Background. I am a former high school and college debater. I also participated in Extemp/Impromptu as my time allowed. Currently, I am the Speech & Debate coach for St. Luke Middle School in Shoreline.

For Speech Events:

First and foremost - enjoy your experience! It's commendable that you're at the tournament and willing to try!

I appreciate poise and confidence in speaking events. Take your time to articulate your speech, emphasizing words, phrases and emotions in your piece - don't rush. If you're having fun doing it, I will enjoy it equally!

I generally understand the rules and protocols involved in individual events.

For example, Storytelling is NOT Dramatic Interpretation. It's intended to be a reading with expression, not to scare the daylights out of the audience!

Duo Interpretations should be somewhat balanced between the two participants.

I will give time signals if requested and allowed.

For All Debate Events (PF, LD, C-X, Worlds)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Yes, I flow. I'm not a lay judge, but even flow judges appreciate good signposting and clear warrants, and not a machine gun output of seven or eight assertion arguments in a row just to inundate opponents. Importantly, I won't flow off a document. Fundamentally, this is an oral activity

You can expect me to have a more than layman's knowledge of the topic. Yes, I also prepare in advance. However, you should know your case, like you did the research, wrote the case and researched the arguments yourself. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistics and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card. I won't fill in the gaps for you - that's your job.

Signposting/numbering your arguments is crucial. If I don't know where you are things can get messy, and I'll end up with a decision you won't like - off time road maps are appreciated but should be direct and short. (e.g., AFF case, NEG case, weighing, etc.) Just tell me where you'll start and signpost well.

Most important ->Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines for emphasis. Debate is an oral exercise; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. Read full sentences instead of randomly highlighted words. Your arguments should make sense without a doc.

Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Attack arguments and not the people you debate.

Post Rounding. I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

EVIDENCE

Read evidence. Evidence is the backbone of this activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. Read a tag and then quote the card. That allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author. "Furthermore, And so" and other transitions are NOT tags.

Have your evidence ready. You should prepare in advance and always have your evidence/cards/blocks within easy reach to share. If an opponent asks for a card, you should be able to produce it in less 60 seconds.

Please exchange evidence for 1AC/1NC before your speech if possible. It will undoubtedly speed things up! It's not a disclosure thing, but rather it saves lots of time in between speeches when people would be calling for cards.

Quality of evidence matters. Avoid paraphrasing. Cards should be cut (highlighted) and contain at least: descriptive taglines, relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

I'll explain most everything from my viewpoint as a judge. In preliminary rounds I will take more time explaining how I understood the round to help from an educational perspective and likely write a more extended critique. In elimination rounds, I'll do my best to explain my reasons for decisions, time permitting.

Please understand - You don't have to win EVERY argument to win the debate - just enough of them. How much is enough? Read on...

Extending Arguments. An argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant. Repeating arguments doesn't help - extend them! Answer the opponent's argument to yours!

Collapse. I value quality of argumentation over quantity, especially in rebuttals/summaries. You can't cover EVERY argument from constructives in rebuttals. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, and weigh your arguments.

Weighing. I don't just care that your impact is big, I care about how big it is relative to that of your opponent. And you must tell me WHY it's more important that your opponent's.

I start every RFD with an evaluation of weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions about what to cover in your rebuttals/summaries and how much time to spend on 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

I am in my second year as the Advisor of the Eastside Prep Speech & Debate team. While I judged many rounds last year, I am newer to judging Upper School/High School debates. During the debates, I pay close attention to each speaker and team, taking notes on the contentions and refutations presented and supported with evidence. It is crucial to explain your contentions and their refutations in a way that anyone can understand. You should speak as though you are convincing someone else, not yourself. Speaking faster and louder does not necessarily make you more convincing. When judging debates, I appreciate it when debaters explain their points and how the evidence relates to the overall position. Off-time roadmaps are unnecessary if your statement is well-organized and presented clearly. It should be evident that you understand your side, the contentions, and the evidence and the impacts, rather than just referencing sources or reading from cards. During the debates, it is essential to demonstrate consistent communication with your teammate and to build off each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite and respectful, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to explain the sides of the topic, engage in the arguments, and seek understanding through a clear explanation of the evidence and the significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

     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.

Lay judge debate paradigm.

Hi,

I'm a new parent judge without much experience. English is not my native language, so please do not spread and speak clearly. I prefer clear organization, strong evidence and good summary.

Thank you

I'm a parent judge.

I understand that as one debate judge, I need to convey the significance and importance of competitive integrity to all members of our community, in the interest of maintaining the high standard of conduct. I will try my best to support your interests in debate.

I competed in high school at several events and went to the state tournament in Idaho at Boise. I love to judge IE and take it very seriously. I make an effort to decide my rankings and give very detailed feed back. My husband is the Mercer Island coach.

Briefly, I tend to be a tabula rasa judge. Overall I favor evidence, and prefer speech clarity to rushed speech.

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.

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

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'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)

I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.

I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.

As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 25 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.

Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.

I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.

I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.

I am humanity-centered. I know you will be running theories, hypotheticals, and extrapolating a significant amount, but remember, these topics affect real people. If you run cases that dismiss the humanity of the topic or dismiss the humanity of any specific group of people, your score will reflect omission.

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.

I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.

1. I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc. 
2. I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
3. I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
4. If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing.  You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
5. If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.