This is my first year judging debate. I'll do my best to honor all the work and dedication you put into preparing for this. My background is more in public speaking, so I'll try not to let that slant me too much.

What I look & listen for:

I appreciate an appropriate speed and volume that helps me not only understand your point, but in particular for you to deliver it effectively. This means sometimes faster is better and sometimes slow and clear serves your point better.

I definitely want to see you refer back to your opponents points - show that you're listening and debating them, not just waiting to speak and to exclusively share your points. If any new points/data are presented during crossfire, plan to reinstate them during the Speech section for me to consider it.

It would help to provide a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I wish you all the best and look forward to hearing and learning from you!

I don't mind if you talk fast, but make sure it is understandable (rapid/conversational)

I don't flow during cross, if you want me to take something from there into consideration, bring it back into your argument.

Avoid using general/open wording such as "stuff" and "things", be specific in your argument and evidence, I will not try to assume and build it for you. Specific, concrete evidence and data is something that I look strongly at.

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Head Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 7 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

Hello there, my name is Matt Embick. I did LD Debate and Impromptu speaking for the Gig Harbor High School team up until I graduated in 2023. my email is matthewembick@gmail.com, feel free to send any questions or case documents to this address. For your convenience, I have split my paradigm into different sections. Good luck, and have fun!

Debaters:

As I primarily competed in and judge LD, my paradigm is written for this format. If I am by some freak accident judging Policy, PF, or any other format, I will let you know my paradigm in person before the round.

TLDR: respect the competition, respect the judge, respect the format and you will win. Treat the round like a joke and I will treat your case like one.

Basics: Please treat your opponent with respect and courtesy. Follow the golden rule and play nice. If you don't, your scores will tank at best, and at worst you could be dropped from the tournament entirely. It's not worth the risk to be a butthole.

Flashing: If you are going to flash your opponent the case, please flash it to me. If you are going to flash me your case, please flash your opponent as well. Flashing is typically a courtesy and is not required, but I STRONGLY recommend it. The only time I will require flashing is if you are spreading.

Spreading: please don't. I will dock points if you decide to do this without at the very least flashing your case. There is a difference between this and talking fast, and I will try to respect it, but I prefer a more methodical approach rather than throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks

LARPers/Policy cases/Performance K's: this is LD, not Policy and certain not some kind of joke even though you apparently want it to be one. best case scenario for you is that your speaker points drop, but normally I will just straight up give you the loss. (this also applies to SCUM manifesto, Time Cube, or anything else you decided to pull from "A Troll's Excalibur")

Framing: Please provide a framework. If you do not, I will default to your opponent. If neither of you provide framing, then I will default to the most absurd position I can find. If I am supposed to think about the round a certain way, please tell me what it is and don't complain if I don't know.

Flowing: A point in your case does not flow over if you do not talk about it. Don't extend arguments by simply saying extend (x), give me a reason why I should flow it through. If the argument is important, you should be able to tell me why

Speaks: Speaker points will start at 25, i will add/subtract points as necessary. Low Speaker point wins are highly unlikely, so please put some effort into your presentation.

Plagiarism/Lying in round: immediate drop. I have zero tolerance for this.

Racism/Sexism/any -ism: immediate drop, there is no argument here.


(A good way to show you have read this paradigm is to come up and shake my hand before the round. If you aren't a fan of handshakes, just tell me. Do this and I will give you extra speaker points.)

I have participated in forensics as a competitor and judge for a total of seven years.

I would describe myself as a fair judge but can understand if that does not come across at times. It is well documented that my focusing face can look very mean but I can assure you I am giving you my full attention and am here to support you as a participant of speech and debate. My note taking is going to look very random but you can think of it as an attempt to collect key arguments or aspects of a piece being given or debate taking place.

When I am judging a round I will be paying close attention to the use of emotion, clarity of speech, and meaningful uses of movement during speeches that are given.

My expectations for both students competing as well as those in attendance as audience members is that of respect. It is not acceptable for students to be on their phones during rounds when their competitors are presenting. Neither is it appropriate to be talking amongst yourselves when in the audience of either a speech or debate round. There should be equal respect to all competing which I will encourage.

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

hi im jiadong

Congress

• For me, Congress is 30/70 speaking and argumentation.
• I'm more of a speaker myself, but ultimately it's thecherry on top. What makes Congress so great (keep congress great!!!!!) is interacting with the round.
• Don't be afraid to run arguments late into the round unless its rehash.
• Rule of thumb?
• POing:
• Hot take, but I'm not the most massive supporter of POs. I appreciate that someone is willing to keep the round running, but I will rank good speakers over POs anytime, anywhere. However, if you do PO, expect to be ranked anywhere from 4-6, unless you do badly or do exceptionally well.

Extemp

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

I am in college. 3 years of debate experience.

I am fine with speed, just tell me beforehand and slow down for cards and have good signposting.

Be respectful, I don't tolerate sexism, racism, ableism, or any discriminatory language.

I don't flow cross, so bring up anything from cross in one of your speeches.

You can win if you present good impacts and links, I value quality over quantity so have a few well-presented contentions and evidence cards rather than multiple poorly written contentions. Debate on content, rather than fighting over cards; I want to hear good, logical arguments.

Rebuttals should cover all contentions and points, if you drop a point, and your opponent points it out during round, I will flow that for your opponent. A weak rebuttal is better than no rebuttal at all.

No new arguments in second summary and final focus.

Signposting in summaries.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate should be enjoyed.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

A little about myself:

I go by Mike, and I'm currently a finance major at the University of Washington. In High School I mainly did Congress and Extemp, with a bit of impromptu and PF as well. I've qualified to the UKTOC in Congress and semifinaled nationals- I'd like to think that I have at least somewhat of a grasp on my main events lol

Do feel free to point out any standards I use for judging that you believe to be unfair though

Congress:

Argumentation

-~3 cycles of constructives max, and please focus on addressing actual arguments after that

-Try and extemp your speeches, using taglines and such. This goes a long way

-Why does your argument matter? A random impact about how a bill will cause parrots to go extinct is not enough

-Unique arguments are great, but please try and progress the debate. If the main issue is "will this bill save American lives??!?!?" please dont jump in with a "unique" argument about how the bill drives up the price of kiwis which causes the collapse of the New Zealand agricultural economy. I will always rank people who can weigh their impacts higher than those who can't

-I've probably heard every piece of canned rhetoric on the face of this planet. Please refrain from using canned rhetoric unless you like getting dropped. Same applies to reading other people's speeches verbatim- I wouldn't even consider that debate. ***It's completely okay to brainstorm ideas with others/prepping together

-I like debates that go deep instead of wide ,if that makes any sense. I'd prefer a 4th cycle speaker who can cut to the central issue in the debate, weigh the impacts of the aff v. neg, and tie arguments back to the bill over a beautifully given 1a speech. Remember- it's called Congressional Debate for a reason

Delivery/Presentation

-I don't typically care what mode of delivery that you use. Ipads, notecards, legal pads, are all fine by me. Holding anything up to your face and reading off of it, however, will not earn good ranks from me.

-Bulky gaming laptops are just a.... no, when it comes to delivery. While I won't auto-drop you just for using a bulky laptop for delivery, you probably won't earn good ranks from me. I also recognize that accessibility in debate is important, and not everyone can afford an ipad/tablet just for debate, but using a legal pad is both sleek and affordable. You can buy them as loose units on amazon for 1-2 dollars apiece

-Memorized and entirely extemped speeches are w aura. Never been able to be completely independent from pads myself, so I'm impressed by impromptued speeches (if they fulfill the criteria that I've listed out above)

Miscellaneous

-I give POs between 3-6 (IF it is a chamber in which one competitor POs for the entire session), unless I think you're exceptionally great or extremely inefficient as PO. I don't require you to memorize the entire 200 page book on Robert's rules of Order, but a good PO should be able to gauge the chamber, and be able to tell if a chamber is ready for a recess, or ready to move the previous question. If I dont give feedback for POing you were chill

TLDR: the less i have to intervene, the higher the PO is ranked

-More speeches doesn't necessarily mean better ranks. I will pref 1 brilliant speech over 2 speeches that's just repeating previous arguments. If you have an opportunity to speak and decide not to, only to give less speeches than other people in the round, however, I will dock points from you.

-Please don't say "principally", it's a pet peeve of mine and adds nothing to the debate, and it doesnt make you sound like an intellectual. Same applies to "on my first word" or anything similar, as I feel like it ruins the vibe of the chamber, and is not in accordance with Congress decorum

-When questioning in cross, don't hog the time and make a speech of your own. Questions should be concise and cut to the chase. Questions that relate to your speech, or will pave the path for your argument, are a plus

-Split between argumentation/presentation/cross is 60/20/20 for me. Points on speeches (Washington total of 6 points per speech) are 2 points evidence/citations, 2 points analysis/reasoning (why it matters), 1 point rhetoric, 1 point delivery/presentation. And yes, I weigh argumentation more heavily than presentation in what everyone perceives to be an over glorified speech event. Keep this in mind.

Extemp
-Pretty much same as Congress when it comes to delivery. Dont feel like you're stuck to the ground, move around a bit!

-use 4-6 sources and answer the question. A simple yes/no answer is perfectly okay if you have solid analysis. I'm also not a stickler when it comes to citing the time of publishment for sources- citing the year and month is fine by me.

-Don't abuse the grace. I anticipate your speech to be 7 minutes, so only use the grace to finish up if you need.

-The average middle schooler should be able to understand your argument and the reasoning behind it, as well as why it matters

Other IES

If they put me in for other events besides from Congress and Extemp that probably means they're desperate for judges. Yall r honestly more qualified than me in judging these IEs. Be swag and cool and chill and u r fine

oh yeah they seem to love putting me in pf a lot just treat me as a "flay judge".... i flow args on onenote and ill probably be on clash of clans during cross... weigh ur args and lmk why i should vote for u. also link n warrant your args

big big impact is okay but extend ur link or else nuclear war doesnt matter

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 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 - you have 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!

Hello! I am a spebater myself so I will do my best to judge the round fair and without bias.

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but be reasonable. I can only flow what I hear

Spreading: I don't like spreading. If you bring up so many arguments that the opponents cannot address all of them due to time I might drop some of yours. (within reason of course)

Off-time roadmaps: Yes please. I appreciate these as well as sign posting. It makes it much easier to flow when I know what you are talking about.

Feel free to ask about anything else in round.

Also, no card calling until after second constructive :)

Depth

———

Breadth

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

I am a traditional flow judge. That being said, if your opponent drops an argument and you don’t mention it, I may not flow you through.

My experience is in the Western Washington, Washington State, and national circuits. I have collaborated with the NYU and Hofstra University debate teams as part of Gig Harbor High School and Hofstra University speech and debate.

I have debated NSDA Lincoln-Douglas and IPDA parliament.

Framework

I will want to see some good framework clash. Do not disappoint me with a 1v1 public forum debate.

A strong framework win could win you the round if you’re careful.

If you are running a K or ROTB make sure it’s at least vaguely topical/applicable.

I don’t care about the subjective morality bias that’s tangible to the judge. If you won, you won. If you somehow manage to win by saying we should all die then good on you. You probably won’t and I wouldn’t try that. But it’s theoretically not impossible.

(I know some judges will just write you off if you make a ‘death good’ argument. You would need a really, REALLY strong framework debate to make this happen and really, really dumb opponent; but I won’t write you off for trying.)

Debate

If you are going to try and spread please make sure you are good at. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow. If you think this will be an issue, consider sharing documents.

Humor and witty remarks will not win you this round. Weigh your impacts, watch out for non-unique and off topic arguments, watch your semantics. etc.

It’s not that I don’t love theory, let’s just not spend the entire round on it. That would be lame and not what theory is for.

Speaker Points And Timing
If you do not say something like “does the judge stand ready/does the opponent stand ready” then start speaking while I’m still writing your name on the flow I will not only snatch your speaker points but dislike you as well. You should at the very, very, very least say “my time start now.” If your opponent isn’t ready, that’s their problem. If your judge isn’t ready, that’s your problem.

I will be timing you on first word and if you need me to give time signals I’ll accommodate. You should have a timer but it’s ok, my phone has died too.

If you start shouting I will take off 1-2 speaker points. You don’t need to get angry in here, save that for outside the round.

Back in my day, it was against NSDA rules to directly address your opponent (exc. cross) or refer to them in any gendered manner. Their name was ‘the opponent’ and their pronouns were either aff or neg.

Times have changed so I will not take off speaker points but if you adhere to Ye Olde LD Procedure I will consider 30 points for professionalism’s sake.

If you run something other than the basic util/deont/structural violence/etc I might give you one (1) extra speaker point for creativity.

Basic Obvious Rules
If you want to accuse your opponent of some heinous crime against NSDA rules I will make both of you share cases. I have the jurisdiction to that.

Theory is not the same thing as NSDA rules. Why would you look me in the eye and say ‘drop the debater, they didn’t share in the case wiki’.

No one is getting dropped unless it’s proven they broke an actual hard written rule.

That being said, I think it’s a little funny when you say stuff like that. ‘Drop the debater, they used a google doc!!’ That’s insane but I appreciate your bravado.

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

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

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

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

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.

Background: Congressional debate is the main portion of my background with multiple years of experience; however I have spent extensive time watching and participating in other forms of debate. Consider me a experienced debater and feel free to take complicated positions on topics, don't always expect me to understand jargon but as the researchers I expect you will often have a higher level of knowledge than I do on a particular subject. overall take me as a judge based in argumentation, while for speech focused rounds mainly on affect.

Congress: For congress, I like to see argumentation and I want you to specifically clash with other speakers. I don’t like seeing repetitive points, if someone has made your point and you say it again with different words, then it's rehash. If you can deliver your speech without reading off a page that's great bust the most important portion is the evidence and compelling argument you present. I appreciate the decorum that comes in congress rounds. It is totally fine to be firm especially as a presiding officer, or to have aggressive/passionate refutations, but at all times you should be treating each other as respected colleagues, and be careful to attack arguments and not opponents.

Best of Luck!

Hi Speech / Debaters,

I'm Joe from Bellevue; joepham206@gmail.com

Every speaker is at the same level when I evaluate, I have no clue what your social-economic status is, nor do I care, I just want clear, concise points of influencing topics in your persuasion.

Individual Speeches:

I'm looking for a clear Opening, make your opening catchy, tie in your personal experience with topic, then tie that into the topic. I like hearing 3 to 5 clear points about the topic, saying "my first point is".....my "second point is".....and "my last point is" and the conclusion should tie everything back in all main points, then tie back to the opening/introduction to close out the speech.

Dramatic Interp: The presenter that can use the largest spectrum of different voice, body, facial, best use of presenting space, singing (different pitch) will get high marks.
I encourage singing, expressing grief, happiness, laughter, using arms up and down, eye contact presenting a person standing next to you; looking down to their shoes, to their waist, up to their hair - as examples; use full body motions; fist your arm to show Power; being the most dramatic will win high points. If you are able to make me feel the emotional feelings that you are dramatically portraying, that's a win in my book!

Competed Open Forum, Impromptu, Extempt for 2 years in High School. Judged Senior year in High School. Now involved judging now my child is involved in speech / debate.

Speed is fine, but clarity and good arguments/refute is what I'm looking for. Ideally you have hard copies of the Aff/Neg policy flow, but send me your policy to joepham206@gmail.com

LD / Open Forum: I'll focus on your last speech more closely, you need to tell me what the other team left out or did not refute, tell me why I should consider you to win and be specific with clear Point #1, Point #2, Point #3, etc... All parts of round will be evaluated but last speech is heavily weighted to the winning speaker / team.

I appreciate Pre-Flow of Aff and Neg Policies, just write the main contentions, sub contentions, it will help me in my flow for both Aff and Neg policies that will be deliberated. All I'm looking for is a blank sheet of paper with the main arguments you will propose.

Ask any questions in the round, I'm flexible and looking forward to your speech!

Joe-

**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 currently a practicing attorney in Washington, but prior to that I competed in speech and debate for three years at the high school level (Eastern Iowa District) where I competed in primarily congressional debate, original oratory, and occasionally competed in public forum. I also competed for 4 years at Simpson College where I participated primarily in congressional debate, parliamentary debate (a combination of LD, Policy, and PF), job interview, and original oratory, informative, and occasionally participated in public forum debate as well.

In all forms of debate, I put a high value on clash and the debaters' ability to adequately address all points of contention. Overall, I value what I see being important in the courtroom - the ability to throughly understand and frame and issue, understand the target audience/decision maker, discuss the impacts of potential actions and make a persuasive argument for your proposed course of action.

In Policy, I will vote on a T or K, but only if it is properly and throughly laid out with support. I can handle speed, however, I will also vote for a T on speed if a well made argument against it is made, so use at your discretion.

In congressional debate, I value speeches that specifically address how the bill's impacts will function in a way that is persuasive and pushes the debate on the issue forward (i.e. not rehashing points that have already been thoroughly discussed).

Note: This is a paradigm for my local circuit. For nationals, i still judge similarly.

Background: I competed for a couple years with no particular accolades. I judge Congress a lot. If you see me as a judge in a debate event other than Congress, consider me a smart lay judge with little to no understanding of conventions of your event.

Frankly, Congress is not as complicated as other debate events. You only get three minutes, and there aren't a ton of different ways to argue compared to other debate events. That said, this is how I will judge you in Congress:

Preferences:

-Content matters a lot to me. Lots of judges say they don't like rehash, but I really mean it. If you are the 5th speaker you should probably reference what other speakers are saying. If you are the 15th speaker, please don't pretend your points are new. Flow the round, weigh the values of both sides and argue why the values of your side are the most important of the round. If you have evidence that suggests that your side should win a value that the other side has tried to claim, explain why your side should get that claim over the other, rather than just stating that you do and expecting that to be undisputed. If your speech would work as an authorship and you are not the author, you're not debating. You're giving a 3-minute oratory. If you don't understand how to do that, go watch any PF round and you'll probably see a higher amount of debating than I see in Congress.

-How good of a speaker you are will matter. I probably value your speaking ability less than most Congress judges in Washington, but it still will play a factor in how high you score and rank. Even though we are (supposedly) debating legislation, you're doing it in the form of a persuasive speech, and so all speech conventions apply here.

-Ask good questions. It's by far the easiest way to recognize who is paying attention and understands what's going on in the room. Any question that will be really obviously answered with either a yes or no answer is probably not contributing much to the debate. Ask lots of why questions, especially when speakers should be answering them in their speeches and failed to do so.

-Don't just read off a piece of paper. At least try to make eye contact. I understand why novices do this. I don't understand why open competitors do. It doesn't really feel like you're paying attention if your "contribution" to the round is reading a prepared statement. If speaking from bullet points makes you stutter or lose your train of thought a lot, practice your speeches until it doesn't. I would rather you be a little less polished but be more adaptive and open to your chamber, as long as I can still understand what you're arguing.

-Don't try to be too smart. I see lots of debaters try to be smarter than everyone with their "unique" points that have minimal impacts and/or don't make any sense at all. There's plenty of room for imagination in Congress, especially considering how interesting flaws in legislation can be, but run your point by someone smarter than you before you give it in round.

-Don't be a jerk. I'm a pretty informal judge because that's who I am as a person. I think there's value in making your participation in this event reflect who you are and what you believe. But don't be so loose that you insult people, make racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/any kind of hateful or derogatory comments. I do believe there is room for debate to be fun and also to not be insulting. Don't attack people, attack arguments.

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

I have background in PF

Wait until after 2nd constructive to call for cards.

Don't ask me if I "want an off-time roadmap" either give me one or don't, I do not care.

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.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 50 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 six 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.

Please don't go for every argument. The final half of he round should focus on the important issues and expand the debate there.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past five 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.

Mandie Swainston - Former high school speech/debate competitor. I have been coaching speech/debate over 5 years. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast that 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. In LD when it comes to framework I want to see it's connection to your case. If there is an obvious side that does a better job supporting their framework and how it is the best use to break down the resolution then you need to show how your case is the best for that framework. Just because you make it out on top for framework doesn't mean you will win. I am a big fan of the old ways of doing LD. It's about morals. It is not about getting as much evidence in as possible. Do NOT spread. You can absolutely be direct in your cross x and get as many questions in for your opponent but please be friendly do not cut each other off but also don't obviously take up all the time that your opponent doesn't get any questions in. I'm not judging the content or what is said so much in cross fire so you better put it in your next speech. Tell me what you got your opponent to agree to or concede on but more importantly show. me how it degrades their case and/or supports yours. What is the impact of what they said. Don't just tell me to flow something through. Tell me why it's important and what the impact is.

• I am a flay parent judge.
• Please speak at a conversational speed.
• Signposting is helpful.
• Please don't be rude, especially in crossfire.
• Quality > quantity
• Please remember to weigh in FF.

If you're struggling mid-round, don't give up. You can still learn from the experience. Whether you win or lose, I'm aware that everyone's still learning, and I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect. Go out and try your best!

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.

My experience: I have only done Congress, so if I am not judging you for Congress, I don’t really know what’s going on

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

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

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.