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 and try your best.

Hi! I am Laxmi and this is my first year judging debate and speech tournaments. I am extremely new to the competition, so I will probably be the most lay judge that you will meet at the tournament. I will definitely try my best to understand your argument and judge fairly, but in order to do that effectively I have a few requests.

• When you are delivering your arguments and speaking in general please make sure to speak loudly, slowly, and clearly.
• I will take notes on your initial case so I understand the rest of the round, however I won't necessarily be "flowing" your entire round.
• If you use any jargon I likely won't be able to understand it, but if you do please make sure to describe what you mean.
• Be respectful to your competitors and team members
• Have fun!

This is my second year judging speech and debate. My strongest experience is in extemp both domestic and international. I have past real world experience in public policy and follow the news closely.

A couple points to bear in mind:

1) For all events, please speak at a conversational rate. If you speak too fast, I will not be able to follow your argument and might miss the most salient points.

2) During the event, I will be taking notes on paper. Try to not be distracted; this helps me to pay full attention and provide you with feedback you might find useful.

3) Be judicious in your use of humor. I am more interested in the core structure of your speech and information than I am in jokes. Mocking people or ideas is never appropriate in this setting.

4) Remember to cite your sources especially when quoting statistics.

5) Thank you for participating!

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.

Current Assistant Coach. Keep with this activity—it will take you far! I'm about to start my career in foreign policy with the Department of State, and I attribute so much of my preparedness for the field to my time in debate/speech. This activity will take you wherever you want to go!

SPEECH:

I'm a former competitor who has learned and/or competed in almost every speech event from middle school to college with national collegiate awards in Extemp, Impromptu, and Interp. I do not let you time yourself, but can modify time signals as needed.

DEBATE:

As a former competitor (from middle school to college—with a state championship in PF, national quarterfinalist in NPDA, other national, state, and local awards in LD, PF, and NPDA), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech.

LD:

• LD is also known as Value Debate and is one of the most unique forms of debate for that reason. You will not win without a value (and hopefully also a vc). The value is also a built-in weighing mechanism, and the goal of LD is to weigh what we OUGHT to do. The best debaters will pull their V& VC through to the end.
• Plans and counterplans are not explicitly banned in WA (though if you really like them you should consider policy debate), however, the NSDA LD Textbook (pg 3) says the following: "The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle." I rarely find people who try to get into the weeds with P/CP can do this. Also, if you really want to run it, it had better be detailed and laid out in the first constructive. This includes: plan/cp text, solvency, ads or dis-ads, and possibly harms & inherency. CP should state competitiveness. Good Ads/dis-ads should have link, uniqueness, & impact. Each of these things should be verbally labeled clearly.
• T & K: NSDA Textbook (pg 3) "The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented."

PF:

• NSDA High School Manual (pg 32) explicitly mentions no plans or counterplans allowed in PF

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

I am a lay/parent judge without any personal speech/debate experience. This is my second year judging, and my first year judging word schools debate. Thanks

I am a teacher; I have high expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been involved with and learning about debate for the last 10 years.

Most important to me:

Debaters: Argue the topic, not each other. Personal attacks will leead to points being severely marked down.

I despise the use of K arguments. When I have seen it in rounds, it has been used to avoid a debate and the reasons have been weak. In my opinion, that's not the point of debate competitions. If you choose to use K and want to win, you should make very sure you can convince me of your reasons for not engaging with the other team.

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. I will not tell you if you are speaking too fast. You have practiced your speeches and 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 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.

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.

Depth

———

Breadth

Speech:

Please let me know if you need any hand signals on timing. Otherwise, I will assume you are managing your own timing.

PF:

I am a new judge to PF .Speak slowly. If I don't understand you, I will unfortunately not be able to evaluate you accurately and that could impact your scores.

Clearly articulate your contentions and sub points. Please interact with each other's arguments.

Hold yourself and your opponents accountable on timing.

Hello! My name is Sarath Oruganti (he/him). I'm a parent judge and this is my third time judging a tournament. I'm an Interlake parent and I'm pretty new to judging so here is my criteria.

The four main things I will look for in any given speech are as follows:

Organization - I look for a clear introduction and conclusion, and smooth transitions between topics. I also look for a well-thought out main idea.

Content - I look for a well-presented thesis backed by evidence that is showcased effectively

Time - I look at whether or not you use your time wisely in round (by this I mean wasting time with filler words vs actual content)

Communication - This is the main one. Are you loud and clear? Is your language appropriate for the topic? Are you audible and direct with your audience? I also observe whether or not you seem passionate about your own speech. If you don't seem interested in your own speech, I'm more likely to take off points.

Mechanics - Are you using hand gestures to put your point clearly? I especially look for eye contact. This is the main contributing factor to your speech. Do you look at the audience, maintain eye contact with them?

Overall effect: Did you inform or persuade me well about the topic? Did you develop your speech well enough to hold your audience's interest throughout?

Unprep events (that's all I'm judging at this tournament):

Impromptu: For this I will judge your speech's structure, how seamlessly you move from topic to topic, and how well you speech is developed and progresses. I will also judge if you directly address the question and your justification and reasoning, your volume, expressions, confidence, movements, eye contact, and voice.

Extemp: I will look at whether or not you have a clear understanding of the topic, if you have clear reasoning and justifications, and if you are directly answering the question posed. I will also take into account your evidence and sources - how many you have, how credible they are, etc. And lastly, I will judge you based off your confidence, posture, hand movements, eye contact, and expressions.

As a lay, I don't really know much about speech or debate, but I promise to grade you leniently and take into account the fact that we're all learning here.

Hope to discover the world of speech and debate alongside all of you!

DEBATE:

Do not run extinction impacts on me. Do not run a k, theory, or framework. I likely will ignore it. DO NOT SPREAD. Speak concisely and clearly, and loudly. Know your case. I need judge direction - give me voters. Signposting is a must - especially if you are going off the flow. It will only help you. Off-time road maps are much appreciated. I will time your prep, but it is a good practice to time your own prep.

I judge you by your perceptual dominance during cross. Yes, during cross.

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

5th time judging PF but I'm pretty interested in debate and I took all the judge tests blah blah and I researched this topic. Tech > truth (unless it is very obvious that you are gaslighting)

LAY JUDGE - be nice, no isms, DO NOT TALK QUICKLY talk like you are talking to someone in a slow-paced conversation points

I judge based on flow and presentation. BE VERY CLEAR W/ SIGNPOSTING! (Signposting helps me flow, which helps your offense and winning) ALSO WRITE GIVE AN OFFTIME ROAD MAP and follow it!!!!!

I don't flow cross but I use cross for speaks and if u bring up cross in speech, I will evaluate.

I will flow rebuttle line by line, so try ur best to respond to each argument etc, esp key things

WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS. and signpost when you weigh eg (our impact is blah blah and our opponents is blah blah which proves we outweigh in blah blah blah)

In final focus, make sure to say offense and extend. will be looking for words like "we win bc" but make sure u have warrants for it. if u don't extend, I most likely won't evaluate it, unless u brought it up like a thousand bajillion times in summary and rebuttle.

time yourself, and cross and dont take up a hundred years giving a response, use cross for questions dont yap, aint no bodys getting younger here.

I like funny analogys but make sure it makes sense

IMPORTANT: I don't give VERBAL RFDS pls don't ask for it. i will write it all out in tabroom!!! I also don't disclose in locals unless nat circuit

-written by Judge's daughters

Experience level: 2 years of judging
I prefer moderate conversation rate of speech that gives me time to understand the arguments.
While I value argument more, I am also persuaded by an empathetic style.
I am persuaded by arguments grounded in real-world impacts and verifiable facts

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.

As a seasoned global leader in Solutions Strategy and Sales, I am driven by innovation and value unique perspectives supported by objective and thought out approaches. I appreciate the art of storytelling, the artistry in execution, and the depth of messaging.

For speech and debate, I prioritize intentionality, design, and intensity. References should be used tastefully to support objective reasoning and create impact.

I judge every contestant equally, ensuring each has an equal opportunity to rise to the top and stay there.

I am thoughtful in my scoring and the feedback I provide, aiming to offer recognition and motivation for improvement and progress.

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.

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 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.