Hello! Best wishes for your rounds!!!

I am a parent lay judge. Requesting you to speak at a conversational rate

Have a strong framework supported with arguments and evidence.

Have fun!

Parent Judge

Please be respectful to opponents and the judge.

Speak clearly so that I can follow and please do not spread.

Please don't run theory or abusive arguments.

Off-time roadmap and summarizing is always appreciated!

As a parent judge, I appreciate signposting, clarity, and persuasion. Please stay on topic.

Please do not spread, if I can't understand you, it's impossible to judge in your favor.

Please be respectful and avoid any inappropriate language or behavior.

I'm looking forward to judging your debate.

I am a 4th year parent judge.

Please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying I will tell you to speak slower.

Please don't run anything progressive (theory, k's, etc.)

I like clear persuasive arguments and evidence.

Please be respectful in round.

Third Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate.

50 + rounds judged last season (mostly in LD and PF).

What I like to hear is a well-laid out case, clearly articulated, as well as solid and clear responses to the elements of your opponent's case. Additionally, extending your own arguments and weighing are important.

Spreading?? Generally, I'm against spreading. Talking fast is fine, but it's important for me to hear and understand your case, as well as taking an accurate flow. Without a good flow, it's hard to judge the round. Spreading, especially if it inhibits articulation and clarity, is hard for me to follow.

I'm also not opposed to K's, as long as they are articulated well, relevant to the topic, and that the debater has a nuanced understanding of the K. Being able to answer questions about your K in cross is key.

I will do my best to provide useful feedback, but forgive me in advance if the feedback seems short. Tournaments move fast, and getting ballots out fast is key.

Thank you for participating in Debate. It's a ton of work, so congratulations on being here.

Good luck!

Chris Goodson

I prioritize debaters who establish a clear value and criterion and effectively communicate throughout the round. Logical, well-structured refutations carry more weight than surface-level rebuttals. I value strong logical reasoning and evidence along with presentation skills. In cases where both debaters are exceptional, I weigh the side that provided stronger impact analysis and controls the framing.

New to Speech & Debate, please slow down (Don't recommend spreading with me) and time yourselves.

My vote will go to the side that best defends their case.

Please also end with the side you are defending.

I was a policy debater in high school but that was a long time ago! Best to think of me as an "advanced lay judge".

This means I will be flowing and keeping track of arguments, but don't assume a technical point wins the round. You should always try to do your best to convince me of why your arguments sum to a win. Speed is ok, especially in evidence, but don't unleash a full spread.

I'm pretty simple: make good arguments, support them with evidence and/or reasoning, weigh them, and build a coherent framework to tie them all together and sum them up. I won't frown on occasional humor if it supports your arguments. I hope you have fun with your round!

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.

Parent Judge

Please go slow (slightly above conversational speech is good) and articulate

Please don’t run or Ks

Be respectful to everyone

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

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

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!

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Depth

———

Breadth

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.

I am a parent judge. Please keep rounds civil and polite. During your constructive speeches please speak clearly and try not to talk too fast so I can flow the important details in your case. Stay within the respective time limits and signpost as well. Off time roadmaps are alright with me as well. Have fun and good luck with your rounds!

Hi! I'm a lay parent judge who is not familiar with judging debate. Please speak very slowly and clearly- if I can't understand your arguments. I can't vote for you. Be nice to your opponent and have fun!

I’m a new judge. Explain your points. No spreading. No speed.

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 . . . .

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.

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

I am a parent judge, but did policy debate in high school:
• It's fine to speak at a fairly fast pace if you speak clearly, but wouldn't recommend spreading. I will only vote on what I am able to flow. If you speak too fast or aren't clear, I can't flow it and hence won't vote on it. Feel free to do a 10 second speed test before the round starts.
• Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) before you start your next tag. Off-time roadmaps are also helpful.
• Give me clear voters and use framework to weigh your impacts. Your 2AR/2NR should be writing the RFD.
• I am *much* more likely to vote for traditional LD/policy-style arguments over debate theory/technicalities. CP/Perms are fine, but assume I'm a bit rusty there (so avoid CP jargon and take the time to explain how they connect back to why I should affirm/negate the resolution, if you want me to vote on them).

Hello I am a first time parent judge, please speak clearly with no spreading. I will evaluate your arguments by the logic and reasoning you use with minimal application of my own biases.

My english is not perfect but I have extensive knowledge on AI because that is my full-time job.