My background: I competed in Public Forum and Original Oratory from 2005-2008, and in university-level Parliamentary Debate, Informative Speaking, and Persuasive Speaking from 2009-2010.

I place a lot of weight on arguments that demonstrate clear, compelling, realistic impacts. Carrying a line of argumentation out to thermonuclear war or the heat-death of the universe reads to me as hyperbolic (unless the topic at hand is specifically about those things), and will generally to diminish my confidence in your case as a whole.

Tell me the story of your case. I will flow your arguments, but I don't generally view the winner of a round solely as the team that "scored the most points" on the flow. Both teams will likely have some arguments that they "win" within the round, and it's up to you as debaters to persuade me that the cumulative impacts of your successful arguments are more significant and should be weighted more heavily than those of your opponents.

Cases that are defended holistically as multifaceted examinations of the intersecting and interconnected issues surrounding a topic will generally read as stronger to me than those that present siloed or disconnected contentions. Similarly, I expect teams to provide defensible reasons for dropping contentions as they move through a round rather than carrying them across the flow if they go uncontested or minimally-contested by your opponent. If you decide that one of your own contentions is no longer worth defending I will generally read that as a concession of that point to your opponents unless you make it clear why I should think otherwise.

I don't expect full verbal citations, but the weight of your evidence should be made clear through your argumentation if you choose not to fully cite. Assume that I have not read any of the specific evidence you will be presenting and that I have no idea who your sources are. "Anderson 2021" could be a peer-reviewed scholarly article from well-respected academic in the area being discussed, or it could be a blog post from a layperson with no credentials to support their expertise. Unless you tell me why a piece of evidence matters I won't be able to effectively weigh your analysis of it or understand why it contributes meaningfully to your argument. This cuts both ways -- highlighting the dubious credibility or reliability of your opponent's sources or analysis only works if I understandwhy I should doubt them.

Please do not spread. I will indicate in my RFD if there were any arguments I couldn't flow accurately or understand because of delivery speed.

Regarding Public Forum specifically, I am not a fan of highly technical, jargon-y, theory- or framework-based debate. I will judge the round based on the cases presented, but generally am more willing to award high speaker points to competitiors who focus on persuasive argumentation that doesn't treat the round as a numbers game.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. Hyperbolic butterfly effect linkchains are not a winning strategy. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Long and complex link chains are not usually part of a case that wins with me. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. Refuse to adapt to the format's standards at your own risk.

CONGRESS

Guess we're doing paradigms for Congress now. Please be sure you're contributing new material and argumentation to the debate. If you're rehashing the same points that the previous speakers have done for the last 45 minutes, it might be worth preserving your recency and just moving on to the next bill. I value clear, eloquent, and persuasive speaking over the technical aspects of a speech. Any use of jargon or concepts from other forms of debate e.g. Solvency, Framework, etc. is incredibly inappropriate for this format of debate and will result in a significantly lowered ranking in the chamber.

I did congress, worlds, extemp at MVHS

Currently an ESCI student @ WWU

Congress:

Please don't rehash.

I want to hear refutation and a continuation of the overall argument throughout the debate. If it's got going anywhere, we should move on to the next bill.

I value quality of arguments (originality, use of sources and reasoning, etc), speaking ability, question answering/asking, and congressional procedure, roughly in that order.

For POs: be efficient in the chamber and courteous to your fellow congresspeople. Assuming you're in the range of an "average" PO, I'll judge based on your non-PO session if possible.

Worlds:

This event is called Worlds. Thus, I should hear arguments, evidence, and examples that aren't focused on only Europe/America/"Western" nations.

I consider quality of arguments (originality, use of sources, defense against refutation), speaking ability, POI use, and worlds-specific procedures and norms, roughly in that order.

Worlds has been around for a few years now, so I'd hope that everyone is up to date on the norms.

No new refutation in the 4. New evidence should be extremely limited in scope and scale in the 3 - elaborate and defend the existing arguments.

Speaking speeds approaching LD or Policy is a no-go. Time management is part of the game in Worlds.

Pufo:

I am a flow judge for pufo. I won't flow stuff from cx unless you bring it up in round.

Keep evidence sharing minimal and only for stuff you genuinely think is misused/etc

LD:

If it wasn't obvious already, I'm not used to speed. You can talk fast but policy speed is a no-go if you want me to flow accurately. I'll be less familiar with the super technical arguments (Ks, T, etc), but I shouldn't have an issue following unless you word vomit at me. I also expect a level of real-world impact demonstrated by those arguments (Ks especially).

Speeches:

Calm, clear speaking. Well-researched points. If you believe you know what you're talking about, then I will too.

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

FOR LD DEBATE

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

I won't vote on tricks.

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

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

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

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

FOR POLICY DEBATE

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

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

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

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

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

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.

Second year out judge, I study biochem at UW Seattle :)

If there's a speech doc email chain, please send it to caitrinw@uw.edu.I don't need to be on evidence chains, if I need a card I'll call for it.

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, please self time. I'll keep track loosely alongside you just to make sure nothing egregious happens

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory:Not a huge fan of theory in PF. That being said, I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

If you're running Ks, Perms, Plans, etc etc, please explain it to me because I don't really know what it is.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well.

I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them, only to suddenly ask me to vote on them at the end.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

I have experience judging Congress Debate at a few tournaments. I don’t have direct coaching experience, but I stay informed on current events and enjoy following argumentation on various topics. I approach each tournament with a fresh perspective and a desire to see well-reasoned debate. I prefer debaters to deliver their arguments at a moderate pace, allowing the audience to follow their reasoning and take notes. If debaters use technical language or jargon relevant to the topic, I expect them to define and explain complex terms to ensure that their arguments are accessible to a general audience.

I generally value content over style. The strength and logic of the arguments are the key to determine their success. I appreciate debaters who can present clear, well-supported, and logically-sound arguments, even if their delivery is not overly polished. However, I do recognize that effective communication and persuasion are essential skills in debate, and I reward debaters who can balance substance with style.

My name is Astrid (they/she), and I did speech (info and extemp) all 4 years in High School in the Montana circuit, did 2 years of college level NPDA debate, winning Novice Nationals in 2018, and now coach all events at the high school level. I'm excited to judge!

All Events: Avoid gendered language when possible or addressing the crowd. Let me know if you have any time signals you'd like. Have fun, and respect yourself and others. Self advocate for accommodations when possible!

Congress: In a congress debate, I am looking for adaptability and cleverness. A good congressional debater is one who can play the room, find incisive questions that make speakers sweat, and understand the motions that control the pace of the debate space. Congress is best when it's about the details, both of the arguments and of the procedure. Debaters should be able to expand upon their prepared material AND approach new materials/bills with excitement.

In other debates, there is a skill called telling the "story of the ballot." In congress, that is giving a clear and cohesive summary of the argument about a bill and trying to tell the room why it's best to vote the way you're advocating for. The best congress debaters do that with ease.

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESOLUTION AND A BILL. Please.

I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

If anyone attempts to amend a bill or anything else similarly fun with motions, I will give u high speaks. Promise

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm pretty good at speed, I've spread-ed my fair share in my day, but I'm a very slow writer. For the sake of detail and understanding I may call out "slow" or "clear" when I need it. Please go slower when you're not reading a card so I can keep up.

I'm a big fan of the FW debate, impact calculus, and interesting/lesser known philosophy. Watch yourself on colonialism Ks and anything to do with disability/marginalization; I love love love hearing these arguments, but often debaters end up speaking on behalf of marginalized people in unfortunate ways.

In your final speeches, give me clear voters with a story that carries me throughout the flow so I know what the heck is up. ROBUST JUDGE INSTRUCTION is fantastic. Throughout your round, signpost WHERE we are on the flow. Say it slowly, at a different pace, so I can hear it.

I weigh theory debates about accessibility and basic respect (misgendering, accessibility around speed, disclosure/wiki etc.) very heavily for both sides. Evoke them VERY carefully. I care a lot about access to the event. I weigh procedural arguments first unless given a reason not to. I will not vote on "no theory in the [x speech]" arguments, but i will vote on "this should have been run earlier" arguments. Sorry. If there's a unique violation in your speech, I will let theory in the next speech, even if it's the 2ar.

Run stuff you love and what you think is fun.

if you email a case, email it to alecwillis00@gmail.com

All Speech Events: Move around! Explore the space! Don't get happy feet (shift from foot to foot as if anxious), but don't plant yourself in front of your phone. I value a kind of energy that takes up the whole space. I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Extemporaneous: I count sources and it contributes to my ranking. I generally like to hear the "out there" questions I know less about, but remember that I might not of heard anything about the topic! Give some preliminary info (which is a great place to stuff in more sources).

Impromptu/SPAR: Explore the space! Have fun! You're in a funny event, make jokes and smile. I love a nice, concise lesson that ties your points together. For Spar, I love having a passion or conviction that is far outside of what is normally considered for such funny topics. I want to feel like you care more about the topic than anything in the world (for both events).

Informative:I will be counting puns and it will contribute to both my ranking and my speaker point allocation. Most puns = 20 speaks no questions asked