Updated 3/20/2025

For sending documents, evidence or questions, please use: speechteam@stlukeshoreline.org

Background. I am a former high school and college debater. I also participated in Extemp/Impromptu as my time allowed. Currently, I am the Speech & Debate coach for St. Luke Middle School in Shoreline.

For Speech Events:

First and foremost - enjoy your experience! It's amazing that you're at the Washington State Championship tournament!!!

I appreciate poise and confidence in speaking events. Take your time to articulate your speech, emphasizing words, phrases and emotions in your piece - don't rush. If you're having fun doing it, I will enjoy it equally!

I generally understand the rules and protocols involved in individual events.

For example, Storytelling is NOT Dramatic Interpretation. It's intended to be a reading with expression, not to scare the daylights out of the audience!

Duo Interpretations should be somewhat balanced between the two participants.

I will give time signals if requested and allowed.

For All Debate Events (PF, LD, C-X, Worlds)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Yes, I flow. I'm not a lay judge, but even flow judges appreciate good signposting and clear warrants, and not a machine gun output of seven or eight assertion arguments just to inundate opponents. Importantly, I won't flow off a document. Fundamentally, this is an oral activity

You can expect me to have a reasonable knowledge of the topic. Yes, I also prepare in advance. However - you should know your case, like you did the research, wrote the case and researched the arguments yourself. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistics and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card. I won't fill in the gaps for you - that's your job.

Signposting/numbering your arguments is crucial. If I don't know where you are, things can get messy, and I may end up with a decision you won't like - off time road maps are appreciated but should be direct and short. (e.g., AFF case, NEG case, weighing, etc.) Just tell me where you'll start and signpost well.

Most important ->Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines for emphasis. Debate is an oral exercise; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. Read full sentences instead of randomly highlighted words. Your arguments should make sense without a doc.

Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Allow your opponents to answer your questions in C-X. Attack arguments and not the people you debate.

Post Rounding. I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

EVIDENCE

Read evidence. Evidence is the backbone of this activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. Read a tag and then quote the card. That allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author. "Furthermore, And so" and other transitions are NOT tags.

Have your evidence ready. You should prepare in advance and always have your evidence/cards/blocks within easy reach to share. If an opponent asks for a card, you should be able to produce it in less 60 seconds.

Please exchange evidence for 1AC/1NC before your speech if possible. It will undoubtedly speed things up! It's not a disclosure thing, but rather it saves lots of time in between speeches when people would be calling for cards.

Quality of evidence matters. Avoid paraphrasing. Cards should be cut (highlighted) and contain at least: descriptive taglines, relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

I'll explain most everything from my viewpoint as a judge. In preliminary rounds I will take more time explaining how I understood the round to help from an educational perspective and likely write a more extended critique. In elimination rounds, I'll do my best to explain my reasons for decisions, time permitting.

Please understand - You don't have to win EVERY argument to win the debate - just enough of them. How much is enough? Read on...

Extending Arguments. An argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant. Repeating arguments doesn't help - extend them! Answer the opponent's argument to yours!

Collapse. I value quality of argumentation over quantity, especially in rebuttals/summaries. You can't cover EVERY argument from constructives in rebuttals. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, and weigh your arguments.

Weighing. I don't just care that your impact is big, I care about how big it is relative to that of your opponent. And you must tell me WHY it's more important that your opponent's.

I start every RFD with an evaluation of weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions about what to cover in your rebuttals/summaries and how much time to spend on it.

I'm a 47-year old speech and debate parent who works at Amazon. As I flow, I look for thoughtful engagement with the other team's arguments, ideally reaching a Hegelian synthesis.

Email (add both to the chain): garepishollandd@bsd405.org and interlakepf@googlegroups.com

Head coach @ Interlake

PolEcon + Urban Planning @ UW

PF @ Palo Alto 2019-23, GTOC + CA state finals in '23

See also: Fiona Li's paradigm

General

First I will evaluate the highest layer of offense that is extended in every speech after it's read

If both teams have offense in the highest layer, I will look to the fw/weighing debate and the link-level, and vote for the team has the least-mitigated link into the most important impact.

If neither team have offense left I will presume neg unless given a reason to do otherwise.

General PF Specifics

Tech > truth

Nothing is sticky. All offense/defense must be extended in every speech to be considered

These are my preferences for sending evidence: speechdrop w/ Word docs > email chain w/ word docs > full docs body of email > card requests in body of email > looking over at people's computers. Please don't paraphrase

If you want defense to be counted as terminal I would implicate it as such

High-level circuit rounds: slow down from top speed maybe 15-20% during the back half so I don't miss anything

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense and turns at least briefly or they're considered dropped

Collapse and be clear what arguments you are going for. Avoid going for more than 1-2 pieces of offense please or the round will be difficult to evaluate and the decision may not go your way

Prereq and link in weighing are great. Probability weighing is just link-level analysis, which is valuable but do other things as well

Please warrant things, warranted analytics > unwarranted cards. Do not respond to a warrant with only an empiric

New weighing in first FF is probably OK, but I would prefer weighing to be in summary

Running extinction impacts does not exempt you from having a strong internal link or defending it. Good work on the IL will be rewarded in flow substance rounds.

Theory

Theory defaults: no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, text > spirit, DTA, and theory players substance. Also I will generally err towards disclo & round reports being good, cut cards > paraphrasing, OS > full text, and bracketing being bad.

Extend the interp in all speeches including rebuttal (only applies to theory not sub)

I will evaluate any theory argument – it's not up to me what is frivolous or not

K

I am definitely more comfortable with theory than the K, but I am happy to evaluate it - however I will not vote on what I don't understand.

K: I have evaluated sec, setcol, and cap. K-aff: have evaluated fem identity & fem IR.

I will probably not understand tricks enough to vote for them

Anything else is new to me but I will do my best to evaluate it

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

This is my first PF debate. I appreciate being able to understand what you are saying, rather than how quickly you can say it. I will be taking hand written notes. I value both argument and style. I don't know many of the nuances of debate, so I will tend to be judging based on what makes sense. Try to avoid too much jargon and acronyms, or at least make an effort to define them. Don't get too stressed out, and try to have fun.

I am a parent judge who has a handful of judging experience. Show me you understand your arguments through clear speaking, logical connections, and strong evidence - I'll enjoy content and confidence over speed.

I am a parent judge and have judged a few public forum debates. I like to weigh the impacts of the contentions and arguments. I'm not very technical, but I will try to my best to weigh whether teams have negated each evidence presented or whether the arguments tie together effectively. What's helpful for me: (1) Clearly articulate your contentions, including the contentions that you are arguing for/against; (2) I find the off-time roadmap helpful in knowing how it will flow. Please keep your own time as I am not very good at keep track of time - e.g. when teams are using their prep time or not or whether they have gone over, etc.

im a uw architecture major, no debate experience

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

I have judged for a handful of tournaments. Both my highschooler kids do debate so I am familiar with the format and rules but not very proficient with detailed technical requirements. I prefer speeches that are not super fast and logical and analytical arguments.

Hello, debaters! I'm a parent judge and excited to contribute to the debate experience.

I have been judging off and on since 2020 and participated in Parliamentary and Congress debate formats.

Here are some of my personal preferences and what I'm looking for in your debate round:

1. Focus on the topic

Please make sure your arguments align closely to the resolution and your position. It may be helpful to provide your definitions and more detailed explanation from which point of view you are coming from. Don’t assume I know what you’re thinking and talking about.

2. Make it really easy with clear, logical structure and signposting.

A well-organized and obvious flow with explicit signposting helps me quickly evaluate your argument. Tying in support, evidence and analysis are very helpful. Make sure it supports the argument.

3 Take into consideration the entire argument. Advance the discussion.

If you can leverage another point shared by prior speaker, be sure to incorporate it into your argument. Try to add to the discussion rather than only repeating what a prior speaker said, and agreeing or disagreeing without providing the rationale and/or additional evidence.

4. Please speak loudly and clearly. Try to present your debate, rather than read from computer.

Keep in mind the speed and articulation, especially when you’re trying to make a key point. It can be hard to track if I can’t hear you.

Try to make eye contact with the audience. Pause and take a breath if you need to.

Debate is a collaborative learning experience. Be respectful to your peers, listen actively, and avoid distracting the speaker and judges.

Good luck! Look forward to seeing you soon and hearing your great presentation.

-Eunhee

(ooo-knee)

Parent Judge

Speak slowly and clearly

I am looking for evidence that supports a big picture.

I want enough specific examples (such as statistics) to persuade me that the big picture is true.

Don't forget to tell me why you think you won the debate in the last speech.

I will be taking notes, so having a strong organization will help me.

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.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23 and '24, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain all your arguments. If you use any abbreviations or acronyms specific to the topic please explain them.

Speaker points:

26 - below average

27 - average

28 - better than average

29 - get into elimination rounds

30 - one of the best debaters at the tournament.

I am a current undergraduate student at the University of Washington. I don't have prior professional debate experience. I have taken public speaking and I am in Communication. I am a lay judge and a non-native speaker so please speak at normal speed!

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, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. This includes noting verbally when your opponent has not successfully responded to your arguments. Thank you.

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING:

Speak concisely. I will not flow your case or information if I cannot understand it. Additionally, teams that spread or speak too fast will automatically not be eligible for a high speaker score. If you want to win or get good speaks, make sure you speech in a way that allows me to actually hear your information.

2.

I will not flow anything that isn't extended into summary for voting. If you want me to consider it, make sure you talk about it in summary. Additionally, I will allow first summary to have some frontline if it's short (under a minute) and generally is not completely new information for fairness.

3.

I would recommend that you think about what you want to focus on in final focus. FF is not summary part 2 it is intended for debaters to focus on things that really matter. If you do decide to use FF as summary part 2 it won't really hurt your speaker score or your debate flows in any real way but remember that all of the cracked teams collapse.