I am a lay judge but keep doing what you have been doing all year. Make sure we converse respectfully and professionally throughout and make sure we rebuff the other team's arguments while providing further and relevant support of our own. Good luck!

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.

I am a senior and I am in my 2nd year of debate for LD.

When I am judging, please speak at a decent volume and at a well-paced speed. However fast you're speaking, I should be able to hear you annunciate each word clearly. Try not to look down at your speech the whole time. It's fine to occasionally look down but eye contact with the judge is a factor in being a good speaker. Make sure that your arguments are clearly showing the benefits of what you're advocating for and make it clear on why I should vote for aff or neg. Lastly, use formal language in rounds please.

I'm a sophomore who has been doing LD for 2 years.

Main things that will be judged in this round will be based off argumentation and rhetoric

Rhetoric

-Stay respectful, but still make it clear that your side is the one that I should vote and show confidence that you are winning this debate

-Don't exactly make the other side look bad, per say, but make sure it's clear to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for me to vote for the other side (your arguments greatly trump and defeat theirs)

-Cross Examination: Instead of just clarifying questions, try to put some in that "poke holes" in your opponent's contention

Argumentation

-Clear and concise argumentation is greatly appreciated

-Clash: Show how your argumentation directly defeats theirs

-Dropped: Show what they didn't respond to and how that affects the debate as a whole

-Framework/Value: Point out how yours works better as a framework or whatever flaws theirs has

I generally will value tech. If something is unresponded to or doesn't fit the standards of LD, I will generally give that point to the person who made the argument. Truth still matters, obviously. Don't say anything obviously false, and you're good.

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not spread. If you are used to spreading then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

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 since 2017. Currently, I most frequently judge speech events, LD and Public Forum. My email iseastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during rounds; 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. I also may eat in rounds. Again, if this is a distraction to you, please let me know.

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 a little slower 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 sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape, disabilities, immigration and interracial relationships 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: When judging policy debate (not too common anymore) I default policymaker. In LD, I will likely default Util but I welcome 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 at least 2-3 minutes of your final speech.

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. Saying the tagline of an argument in the final rebuttal is not enough for me. I will not vote for "nuclear war" if you do not extend the entire link chain. I need a reason to vote for an argument.

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.

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.)

high school debater at newport, 10th grade

tech > truth

run basically anything as long as you know what you're talking about

do the basic stuff - weigh, extend, signpost, give good clash

dont clip, dont be disrespectful etc - auto L for any of that

generally i find unextended points, shifty/unresponsive refutations or anything that jumps around the flow and drops things left and right very irritating. be organized please

whatever you think is best im willing to evaluate, but i am from newport and i like trad. if you're running phil/any ks that are not cap/setcol please explain them like i am a lay judge. i wont vote on anything i dont understand

if you spread send files (ynguo512@gmail.com)

i like a good theory debate (i may or may not have been a theory hack at one point), but if you run theory and want me to evaluate it, collapse. it better be the only thing you go for (4 minutes of 2n at least and all of the 2a) or i wont vote on it. also please run a legit grievance if you do so.

tell me why you're winning ie give voters

good luck!

Hey there! I’m Lunna, I have two years debate experience so far. I did PF last year and I’m in LD this year. I’d consider myself flay, and I have a lot of knowledge on the novcember 2024-2025 topic. In general, for novice, don’t worry about the technical aspects if you don’t know them. For me, a clear argument that I think you understand is way more important than if you weigh. However, if you do know how to do the more technical aspects, please do. It makes my job way easier. In general I’m a pretty chill judge, so please don’t stress. (I’m nice I promise, I won’t bite.)

Overall, my judging criteria is this: What matters to me is framework. LD is a moral debate. Whoever’s case fits under the winning framework best wins.

I’m mostly a tech judge. However, there are limits. If I find out you’re lying in CX or speech, or that you’re fabricating facts, there will be consequences.

SIGNPOST!!! I can not stress that enough. If I don’t know what you’re responding to, I will not flow it. I also have dyslexia which is a language processing disorder, so I struggle to keep up with what card is what. If you’re using a card, you can’t just say the card name and not give me a tagline. You don’t have to read the whole card again, but give me a couple of words to summarize the card so I can refer to the flow.

I do not flow cross X. I don’t even pay attention to it, I’ll be playing solitaire. It’s for the debaters only. If something is said in cross that you want to flow to a speech, SAY IT IN THAT SPEECH. Cross can be used to understand each others cases, try to make them contradict yourself, accidentally concede their framework, or whatever. But that’s for you guys, not me.

self time, please. As in, I’m not tracking your prep. I’m not tracking your speech times. If you want to know how long a speech is, that’s fine. But I won’t time that speech for you.

I don’t care if you share cases. If you do, I need to be included in that as well and we can do email or tab. If not, all good. I personally don’t share my cases in round unless my opponent asks, I have no expectations either way.

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

Hi there, I'm Matt! Look forward to meeting you!

About me: I graduated from Blackfoot High School in Blackfoot, Idaho in 1996. There I debated for one of my heroes - Coach Leora Hansen for four years and earned two State Championships in Lincoln Douglas Debate. I joined the Newport High School (Bellevue, WA) Speech and Debate team in October 2024 as an assistant coach.

Paradigm: I've been away from Speech and Debate for a long time so I should be considered primarily a lay judge. Even when I competed, I prioritized persuasiveness, effective argumentation, and delivery over the more technical aspects of debate. For LD I have a trad bias - I want to see clash over values and criteria rather than a focus on plans and harms. I expect competitors in the rounds I judge to treat each other professionally and respectfully. I don't put weight on frivolous arguments and expect evidence to hold up to a test of reasonableness and to be well supported by facts.

I do not typically disclose decisions at the end of rounds - I need some time to myself to complete my ballot and put together my notes. I will provide feedback if you ask for it and I have something useful to share.

More about me: I worked as a Software Developer and Engineering Manager for 25 years before becoming a High School Computer Science teacher in 2023. I am an avid ultradistance and marathon runner and coach High School Cross Country.

I did policy debate in high school and college 20+ years ago.

I'm a middle school teacher now, and have been coaching middle school parli debate for a number of years.

This year I'll be judging some LD for the first time in a long time.

I look forward to listening to your arguments.

A critical part of debate is listening to what the other side says; I want to see "clash."

I will appreciate clear "voting issues" in your rebuttal speeches as you crystalize the issues in the round.

Good luck. Have fun. Learn lots!

High school sophomore debater from washington

weighing is a must

be organized, don't just jump around the flow

Judge Instruction - Literally write the ballot for me, tell me why you are winning

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

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. I would be very appreciate if you could send me your script to me before debate round, my email is: isnicoleli90@outlook.com,

Please speak slowly and clearly, articulate your points well and tell me why I should vote for you. Good luck!

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

Junior debater at Newport. Run whatever you want but if it's progressive please explain the argument well. You can talk at a faster than conversational pace but if you want to spread please set up a email chain(andyluoyx@gmail.com) or speechdrop. Tech>truth. Focus on the arguments that actually matter, also please weigh and/or give voters. All prep is running prep.

1-LARP/Trad

2-Theory

3-common K's like set col and cap

4-Tricks(extra speaks cuz funny but idk how ill evaluate them)

5-Phil/other K's(please explain really well) and talk slow

If you ever get to see this paradigm it's prob going to be an out round but in prelim rounds I'll give between 27-30 speaks(extra speaks if you do something interesting/funny)

Don't be sexist/racist/ableist etc. or else it'll be an auto L20

The most important thing is to remember to have fun and treat your opponent with respect. Good luck!

Parent lay judge, please try to speak clearly and not too fast

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 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!

Depth

———

Breadth

My name is Robin Monteith and I am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my8th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories, more recently I have coached and judged WSD, Big Questions, and Middle School Parli. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school year. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture, but with enough specifics to understand the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me: both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

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.

Parent, communications degree, professional - Operations manager. My daughter calls me a Flay judge, in between a Lay judge and Flow judge. Will understand the arguments but you will need to speak more slowly, clearly, communicate and persuade me. Be polite, be smart, sign-post. In rounds I like more straight forward debates, alternative plans need to clearly relate to the resolution.

**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!

Primarily did Policy but judge/coach it all so be as progressive as you'd like.

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

STOP RUNNING YOUR CRITERION / FW AS MAXIMIZING WELLBEING IF YOUR JUSTIFICATIONS ARE ALL CITING UTIL- JUST BE UTIL or run better justifications that actually apply to MXB and NOT util THEY ARE DIFFERENT you COWARDS.

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about and can actually explain it- dont assume your judge knows your super specific k aff/criterion.

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

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 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.

Experience - I did Public Forum as a freshman and then switched to primarily doing Policy. I also have some minor experience doing Lincoln Douglas and Big Questions. I have judged many practice debates and a few rounds at tournaments.

Policy Paradigm - I like to think of myself as tab, however realistically I'm not perfect at fulfilling that position. I will vote on anything if it is run well and explained enough that I can understand it. I won't rule any arguments immediately and try to vote solely off the flow.

Case - Not much to say here, in general I like a case with some degree of framing.

K - I am not the greatest at comprehending large amounts of postmodern terminology strung together and read extremely fast. The simpler your Kritik, the more likely I am to vote for it. Having an overview on more complex Ks would be greatly appreciated.

Stock Issues - I love stock issue debates. I have a fairly low threshold for solvency and inherency. Please don't only go for stock issues, however, I'd like to see some offense. That being said I will vote neg on presumption unless a valid argument is presented otherwise.

DA - Obviously I like and will vote for DA's. They're kinda the stock issues of the neg and should be present in most neg cases

T - Kind of fits in with stock issues. I do consider reasonability a good argument, and have a slightly higher tolerance for T over other stock issues. Please don’t run T to be abusive because I will vote on theory against clearly abusive T if given any reason to do so.

CP - I will vote for competitive and non-topical counter-plans so long as the neg sufficiently proves the CP is such and that it's a better policy option.

Theory - I don't like to vote on theory, although if there is clear abuse I don't mind it. make sure you do a good job of explaining why your interp is good for debate.

K-Affs - I'm likely to vote against K-Affs as long as there’s enough for me to vote off of.

Will all of this in mind, I will vote off of what I see on the flow at the end of the round. I also generally prefer smaller higher probability impacts but that doesn't usually end up changing the decision in round.

LD Paradigm – I’m not the most progressive judge when it comes to LD. One of the reasons I like LD is because it specifically avoids the mess of lingo and technical understanding that is policy while covering similar ground. That being said, I won’t immediately vote against progressive case ideas, however I am less likely to. As with policy I vote off what’s on the flow. Please don’t speed, I can handle it but I don’t like seeing speeding in LD, unless you’re reading the content of your cards. I will cover my opinion on some arguments I have weird opinions on below –

Util frameworks – I hate util, especially if both sides run util. I don’t want a debate solely about who has the better evidence and I want to see some framework clash. I won’t vote you down on face but I won’t enjoy the round.

CPs – If the topic isn’t over a recommendation of policy, I don’t want to hear a counterplan. If you don’t frame it right, I will vote down CPs on non-policy topics (for instance the wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance topic) on face. Generally be careful running a CP, because poorly run CP’s will annoy me.

K – I don’t particularly mind Ks in LD and won’t get annoyed if they’re run, although they must be run well. I don’t want a weak link that just barely gets the job done, you need to prove that your Kritik is relevant. I will err on the opponents side if there is any significant risk of not linking.

K aff – Just don’t please. I’ll buy just about any argument against K-Affs if you don’t affirm. I will intervene with personal beliefs regarding the RoB unless you completely convince me otherwise. This means I won’t buy arguments about the morality of voting for your side.

DeOnt – I prefer DeOnt to Util but I still don’t like seeing debates in which both sides read a DeOnt framework. It gets a bit too stale for me.

In General, I want an interesting debate with lots of framework clash in round. I will vote for any argument run well enough although how good is good enough varies depending on the argument and context.

PuFo Paradigm

I want to hear interesting arguments. I like good framework. I don’t like really deep evidence debates, please minimize how much time you spend arguing evidence, If you have one really good point about why their study sucks just say it clearly and move on. I don’t care about how y’all behave in Cross-Fire and will vote you up in speaks if you can successfully get answers, as long as your methods aren't outright offensive. I vote off what’s on the flow at the end of the round. Because of that, having a strongly structured case with policy styled cards will help a lot because I’m never really sure what to flow with uncarded PuFo cases.

Big Q’s Paradigm

Once again, I will vote off the flow. Once again, I want y’all to be intense in cross-fire, that’s what makes the round interesting. I will say that I prefer a more passive-aggressive approach when it comes to Big Questions. Please define words that are in the resolution, particularly the ones that are important to your arguments. I don’t mind hearing the NSDA cases, however I highly encourage y’all to come up with your own cases.

Tl;Dr

I will vote off the flow to the best of my abilities. I like to see well executed cross examination/ cross fire.

I judge debates with a traditional philosophy. I value argument over style but do take style into consideration. I take extensive notes and will use them for rating. Please don’t speed talk.

Experience: This is my second time judging.