email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

background: debated ld in hs, now 1A/2N @UH

come to our debate camp! https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

top level:

Columbia update – prefer not to judge trad rounds, in open there’ no need to adapt to a lay/novice debater anything is fair game, ** extra speaks if you sit down early when you clearly winning **

tech>truth, if something is conceded then it’s true, but warrants still need to be extended

pet peeves:

- pdfs, google sheets, speechdrop

- counting down

- excessive flow clarification

- stealing prep

- splitting the 2nr

theory:

no such thing as friv theory read whatever you want, default c/I, dtd, no rvis

t:

i like these debates, impact weighing = good

plans:

good, higher threshold on 1AR/2AR extensions than most judges

cps:

equally good for cheaty cps and cp, good competition debate = higher speaks, judge kick unless told otherwise

da:

better than most judges for spin on politics DA, ok for intrinsicness debates

k affs:

been on both sides of the debate, probably slightly neg leaning on framework

ks:

dislike "you link you lose", rep ks, word piks, good for anything else

phil:

never read it in debate but familiar with kant, hobbes, levinas, hegel, etc in academic context

tricks:

err on over explanation, will be annoyed if long underview is read but not utilized well, meaning don’t make me flow your 11^th point on eval theory after the 1ar if you don’t extend it when conceded

Include me in the email chain: dwbomberger@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

In round you can call me Daniel, Judge etc. I don't really care.

Proudly have not sat yet (knock on wood).

I debated for 4 years at Interlake and am currently a sophomore at Emory University. I am comfortable with speed but have never been the best with flowing so if you are going to spread analytics I would recommend either A) slowing down to like 50% of your speed or B) send the analytics in the speech doc.

I'm happy to flow off the doc if you are genuinely too fast for me. I will not flow off the doc if you are unclear.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. in round you will receive an L and the lowest speaks I can give.

Don't clip. I may be bad at flowing but I'm not that bad. You will be caught and will similarly receive an L and the lowest speaks possible.

All arguments need a claim, warrant and impact. If I feel I cannot explain the claim warrant and impact back to your opponent in my rfd, I will not vote on it. This means I would appreciate some handholding in really dense debates.

I really appreciate judge instruction. Your 2AR/2NR should be writing my ballot. If you don't tell me what do to it is likely I will have to think a lot and possibly end up doing something you aren't happy with. So if you give me judge instruction it's a win-win.

Have fun! Debate is a game and if you don't enjoy the arguments you're reading, you're doing it wrong.

In terms of arguments, I'll try my best to fairly evaluate any argument presented to me. As a debater I mostly read Ks (Setcol, Wynter, Racial Cap, Deleuze) and probably enjoy these the debates the most but also know bad K debate when I see it. Affs definitely don't need a plan to be legit but also probably should be more than an impact turn to T. I also read a lot of topicality, moral philosophy, and policy based positions so I'm comfortable with these debates too. I can't flow fast analytics so dense tricks is likely not what you want to read in front of me (especially if there is no doc) however, I will do my best to evaluate these debates just like any other.

I don't think that the aff and neg have roles that are set in stone. If you can justify why debate should be a certain way then go for it. However, debate is an activity that I have found incredibly valuable and has had profound impacts on the way I view the world. This means that, in broad strokes, I don't think debate should be a monologue and reading/contesting assumptions is a valuable way to learn about the world. Idk what the implications of this are but I felt like writing it.

I am a parent judge. I competed in speech and debate all through high school and college. I did some LD debate and some CEDA, but I focused a lot of my time on platform speech events (original oratory, informative, communication analysis, extemp, impromptu, poetry, and duo). I am a lawyer by profession and currently serve as a justice on a state supreme court. So, I evaluate arguments on their merit, but I also value communication skills. I’m not a huge fan of topicality arguments and certainly do not see a topicality as being jurisdictional in the sense that it deprives a judge of authority to judge a round. Someone would have to be taking some serious liberties with the resolution for me to vote on topicality grounds. I am also open to evaluating plans and counter-plans, and taking conflicting positions (when done clearly and when well-warranted) does not offend my sensibilities.

Parent Lay Judge

Please speak slowly and clearly, english is second language so please avoid jargon.

please keep the debate simple and slow and make your points clear.

This is Venkat Chennareddy. I received Masters in Computer Science from IIT. I work as an engineer in AIML at Apple!.

For LD:

Here are top 5 things i values the most.

1. Clear, Concise arguments with logical links and impacts
2. Strong framework along with good arguments to decide who wins or loose.(Winning framework usually means you win the round)
3. Understand the material - should be able to explain it to someone
4. Be nice- we are here to learn and have a fun
5. I am parent judge so please don't spread. Try to convince me why you should win.

For Speech:

1. Talk clearly

2. Be engaging

3. Be nice

Provide summary at the end of the speech.

I prefer speech pacing that is easily understood, as opposed to talking too fast, in an effort to get out as many arguments as possible. To that point, I value quality over quantity. Above all, I expect everyone to be respectful to each other.

I typically don't tell who won a debate during the qualification rounds, but happy to provide feedback upon request.

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.

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.

I will decide the winner mainly based on who has persuaded me more towards their position. Please speak clearly, the more organized your argument the better. Be respectful to me as well as your opponents. Quality over quantity. Creative arguments are appreciated, bonus points if you can make me laugh.

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.

trad parent judge.

truth > tech to some extent, i don't vote for obviously untrue or undeveloped arguments. this doesn't mean you can drop a whole contention and win.

no tricks, no incomprehensible spreading, speed talking (think podcast on 2.0) is good. kritiks, theory, and phil are fine if you can explain them in a way a toddler would understand and be extremely persuasive while doing it. very few debaters are capable of this, so i would suggest just not running them.

i'm fine with theory that i think is warranted. be warned that i have a very high bar for warranted (think 'went two minutes overtime for prep and dropped my entire case' rather than 'actor spec'). predictability > education >>> fairness. i need you to thoroughly explain which layer of the debate i should evaluate your theory on and how it should be weighed against substance. i default to dta and it's very difficult to convince me otherwise.

responding to theory-- i don't need a counter-interp. the majority of theory shells can be defeated via a twenty second explanation of reasonability.

i'll vote on ANYTHING if you're persuasive enough. if you can convince me that spreading six conditional counterplans and a floating pik against a novice at their first tournament is predictable, educational, and fair, i'll vote on it.

confidence is key, talk well and there's a decent chance you'll have my ballot. in speaks, i usually give 29 to the winner of a round and 27-28 to the loser.

i make a point to put my full effort into every round. i think this is an activity that takes a lot of effort and you all should be proud of yourselves for even showing up to tournaments.

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I am parent judge. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I value consistent extensions, and your tags should match your evidence.

happy to be your judge, thank you.

email: guowenjian90@gmail.com

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Hello.

I am Avery Horton, and I use she/they pronouns.

I did LD for 3 years and policy for 1. I'm a Freshman at Willamette University, and I'm part of the debate union doing parli.

put me on the email chain: ashorton@willamette.edu

I promise I'm not a K hack, despite how this paradigm reads.

Pref (this is just over what I like to see in round, I'll vote off anything):

K - 1

Performance/K affs - 1

Theory - 1/2

LARP - 1/2

Phil - 1/2

Tricks - 3

tech > truth

I'll vote on basically anything, just run what you're best at.

General:

Just run whatever case is strategic against your opponent as long as the strategy isn't JUST outspreading them.

Please put your framework at the top of your case -- I won't dock you for having it at the bottom, but its pointless and it bugs me.

Ks

I love K's but I don't hack for them, especially since a lot of (TOC) debaters don't know what they're doing and don't actually understand the arguments they're making.

Theory

I'll vote on basically any theory if its not directly violent

LARP

Be interesting. I'll vote for larp, just debate well and know your case well.

Tricks

I'm most likely to vote off arguments that are really towing the line between tricks and friv theory, like make sure you have actual warrants that can be contested. I'm most prone to buying moral a prioris (especially when in the framework and not an underview).

I hate tricks walls and think they're abusive. Don't run more than like 5 tricks args in a speech, and even then its iffy.

Good luck.

I’m a parent judge and mainly focus on LD. To win my vote, please keep in mind:

1. I value clarity more than quantity. Try to make your points clear and concise. Do not rush. If you usually speak low, please try to raise your voice a little.
2. Make yourself comfortable. As long as I can hear you clearly, I don't care whether you stand or sit.
3. Try to find your opponent's weak spots and use every chance to attack it. This will lead to good arguments.
4. Have data (numbers), and evidence ready.
5. Be polite in debate. I like solid arguments but do it in a respectful way.

LD is a hard debate, you might lose today but you will learn something and will come back later. Good Luck!

I'm a parent judge with IT background. I do not have a lot of judging experience. I wouldn't mind if you treat me as a brand new judge.

I've watched many LD debate rounds so have some level of understanding about debate but not a ton. You may assume I know nothing.

I'll flow the round. Email chain goes to kurthuang@outlook.com. Highlights on your doc will help.

Don't spread as I can't follow. When I can't follow, I won't stop you but will rely on your doc to get as much as I can (no promise).

I vote for the debater that best upholds his/her/their side of the resolution through effective analysis, evidence, delivery, reasoning and refutation.

Please respect your opponents, listen and respond accordingly.

Enjoy debating!

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. In the past year I've judged at 6 tournaments including Berkeley, Bronx and Apple Valley

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

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 parent judge and not a native English speaker. I will do my best to keep track of different points made by each side. I prefer a slower pace of talking and being able to see your cases. If you are speaking too fast and I miss any important point, there is nothing I can do about it.

Things I will look for in a round:

• Clear and strong contentions
• Effectively attacking the opponent's points in rebuttals
• Voting points that show why you should win

I prefer traditional debates over progressive but I will try to understand those arguments.

I will probably not disclose after round.

Have fun in the debates!

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.

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional LD/lay policy-style arguments.

Add me to the email chain: elissalu6@gmail.com

Please do not spread. If I do not understand you, I cannot accurately evaluate you. Please avoid topic-specific jargon, or be sure to explain it, and signpost your arguments in a well-structured speech.

Have strong warrants/explain the connection between your claim and evidence. Be sure to do clear weighing and give voters. Utilizing cross-ex well is smart to establish weaknesses in your opponent's case.

Be respectful and have fun!

Back when I was a kid in the good ole days.........

Yep, I am a Dad who debated CX in High School. I prefer well-explained logical arguments, don't use words you don't understand.

Talk as fast as you need, as long as it is clear. Respect your opponent; personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Communication style is almost as important as the content. Stand up(if possible), and acknowledge your opponent and the judges. Confidence counts.

Stay topical.

Hello Debaters!

I competed in both LD and Policy while I was in high school; two years of both at open level. Ever since then, I've been judging both formats when available for quite a while, and as of late have begun picking up Policy, LD, and Public Forum ballots.

Due to my history, my judging style is still heavily based upon how I acted in round as a competitor. I rely predominantly on the flow, but I still strongly look to any well-constructed policy/case arguments in round.

Philosophy-wise, I am first and foremost a Tabula Rasa judge. Playing against a clean slate with your opponent (and with your partners) creates the most pure form of debate; it is in my mind that entering the round attempting to meta-game the debate by over-analyzing what your judge is biased towards butchers the debate itself. I will try my hardest in round to be as impartial and accepting as possible to begin with; however, I am human, and all humans have biases. If you can glean these (hopefully small) edges in round, then all the better for you!

The only other major factor of debate that I feel necessary highlighting is my perspective on K's/ Theory arguments. To put it bluntly, I will be having a much harder time accepting these arguments as compared to my judging peers. I've seen K's used almost exclusively as a method to steer the round toward a certain argument, regardless of resolution, as a form which are designed to be a lot less preparable than anything actually topical. I've had far too many negative experiences as a judge to accept any of these as a strategical decision; Anything short of a K being used for in-round insults is strongly discouraged.

1AC K's are right out.

As far as speed is concerned... It probably won't be much of an issue? I wasn't the fastest debater in the world, and I am a touch rusty, but I should be able to keep up with the speed of most standard debate rounds that I'm operating in. What may be an issue, however, is clarity. I will try my best to warn any and all debaters who are not speaking clearly in round, and if said warnings are ignored, your speeches will simply not be flowed.

One final note - I'm a judge, and judges like things easy for them. Concise, clear, and signposted speeches (especially towards the end of a round!) make it a lot easier for me to follow arguments without having to apply too much mental horsepower after the round, and it makes my life easier to make yours better. Please don't just blindly signpost covered arguments as dropped, however - I'm not quite that lazy!

-Eric McCormick

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

2nd time judge for LD. Speak clearly and be respectful.

Appreciate if you can send cases to ongcs100@hotmail.com so that I can review it before hand.

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.

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

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2024):

Yearly small note addition before I judge my one-ish tournament of the season, content of last year's note is all you really need to know (but my hearing has improved dramatically).

JanFeb 2024 is a topic that concerns several rapidly-developing global crisis. Evidence that describes the behavior of states a decade ago is probably really questionable. Evidence the describes the relations between countries in the region more than 6 months ago is probably pretty questionable. You should ask your opponent these questions.

** I am going to be very willing to accept reasonable analysis made by a debater about current states of affairs over outdated evidence. **

Brief note for LD Debaters (2023):

Every year I stray further from meaningful investment in debate. All the things below are probably still true, but I have spent even less time involved in the activity than previously. Be gentle. I can hopefully still flow your speed but my sound discrimination is completely shot so make sure you are exceptionally clear at whatever speed you debate.

To summarize the decade of rambling that follows, the process to get me to vote for you is:

a. explain what you are defending.

b. explain why that is different from the other side.

c. explain why that means you win.

I will probably laugh if you structure every argument with each of these three points but based on a lot of the debates I've judged in the past few years it would probably also result in the easiest ballot of my life voting for you.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate for the last 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

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’m a freshmen in college and I did 3 years of LD debate.

During rounds I prefer clear speaking, don't speak too fast where I cant flow what you say. I also vote on standard value/criterion and enjoy when the round is weighed. Make me believe that your value is the best for the round.

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 . . . .

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.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

Email: ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

The debate will be decided based on the arguments on my flow at the end of the debate.

Do not be rude, exclusionary, or bigoted. You will not like your speaker points. Consider an alternative extracurricular if your strategy requires you defame your opponents.

Callouts, character assassinations, and screenshots are an auto loss---no exceptions.

I will not evaluate evidence written by competitors, arguments about your opponent's identity, or personal anecdotes.

I flow on paper. I will not be following the speech doc during the debate. Cards should be clear. If you're unclear, you'll get two warnings. After that, I'll play solitaire on my phone.

CX is binding. I don't flow, but I will pay attention.

If your speech docs look horrendous, so will your speaker points. Sending a PDF caps you at a 27.

I am conservative with speaker points. Asking for a 30 gets you a 25. 28.5 is average.

No music. I have chronic migraines.

Policy

Conditionality is good. I have not yet heard an objection to condo that is not resolved by getting better. Other theory args are reasons to reject the CP, not the team, and better phrased as competition args.

No insertions. Debate is a communicative activity. It is deranged to consider pointing at something an argument.

The AFF does not get "intrinsicness tests"---those are called counterplans. You are not the NEG. Stop being a coward and cut cards.

Evidence matters a lot to me. If you are slightly ahead on spin but they have vastly better evidence than you do, you are in an awful position.

I don't share the same disdain for process CPs, riders DAs, or anything of the like that most people do.

I default judge kick unless the AFF says otherwise.

Zero risk is possible, but usually only when a blatant concession has been made (ex: the NEG concedes impact d). You can get close enough to zero for me to assign it functionally "zero risk".

Permutations don't have to be explained in the 2AC (1AR in LD). Competition is a NEG burden.

I am unlikely to be persuaded that CPs require solvency advocates.

Your vague CPs will not be received well.

No-Plan AFFs

I personally believe that debate is at its best when the AFF reads a plan that is topical and the NEG attempts to disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or an alternative is preferable. I can and have been convinced otherwise.

Equally fine for both fairness and skills---both have their advantages against particular methods/theories of power.

I'm kind of annoyed by the generic criticisms of topicality. No one was hurt by the fact the 1NC said you should've read a plan. Topicality is not policing. That does not mean I cannot be convinced topicality is a bad model, just that your impact turns should be nuanced and researched instead of shallow and generic.

I am terrible for K vs. K debates, minus Marxism. I am not well-read enough to understand the nuances and interactions between your theories.

Non-topicality strategies such as DAs, impact turns, and process CPs I find strategic and enjoyable. Heg good, cap good, tech good, liberalism, etc., are all very winnable, and their answers to those arguments are usually way worse than their answers to topicality.

Throwing around random voting issues in the 2AC/1AR will only serve to annoy me. I will likely reject the argument. 'Trigger warnings', screenshots of your author's social media accounts, etc., are unconvincing and obvious attempts at evading debate.

Ks

I like the K when it is debated as a DA/CP that can both turn/solve case and has explanatory power for the AFF's internal links---but I am fine if you just want to moot the case entirely.

The "middle ground" framework is obviously stupid, but has strategic value against NEG interpretations that are along the lines of "we should discuss epistemology/scholarship" instead of "discussing plan implementation is bad".

Absent a clear explanation about what the alt does that is distinct from the status quo, I am unlikely to find it persuasive. Creating "new ways of thinking" is useless. If your alt divorces itself that significantly from the real world, you should have a defense about why that is good.

Links must be to the plan. That does not mean it has to be to the literal mandate of the plan, but I should have a clear understanding of what is unique about the plan that makes X violence or structure worse.

Explanations about why the conclusions the AFF has come to are accurate, true, and robust are of way more utility than your generic state/IR good cards.

Please innovate---there are a plethora of highly intelligent and hard-working scholars formulating nuanced and creative takes about the world. Your generic backfile cards from authors people have been reading for over a decade will not impress me and is frankly lazy and disrespectful.

The arguments against extinction outweighs are bad. Most indicts of consequentialism are tautological.

LD

I am not interested in judging shenanigans, unserious arguments, or anything else designed to avoid debate. If that is your strategy, pref someone else.

Dispositionality is not "whatever you want it to be". It means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight-turned the net benefit.

I will not flow RVIs.

You will not convince me that the AFF does not get to read a plan.

Haven't thought about nor judged dense phil debates in a while, but I have historically been decent for it.

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 a lay judge.

Please speak clearly, slowly and NO spreading, I will not be able to judge what I can't hear.

Please be nice to each other and have fun.

Before you start your speech time (after prep/off-time roadmap), please ask me if I am ready.

I would appreciate if you gave me an off-time roadmap.

Please summarize why I should vote for your case.

Articulate your points clearly and do weighing. I like clash and if both sides have evidence saying opposite things, tell me why I should prefer your evidence. Do not make new arguments if you’ve already dropped a point, and if you don’t extend your own arguments I will count it as dropped.

I am a novice judge and have only judged 1 weekend of debates. Word salad and word vomit is not what I am interested in hearing. I prefer debaters clearly present their views. Think MEASURED, THOUGHTFUL, INTELLIGENT when presenting.