Gig Harbor Invitational
2018 — Gig Harbor, WA/US
Jeanne Blair Paradigm
Jim Burwell Paradigm
PF: I welcome close inspection and evaluation of evidence to determine validity and weigh evidence on both sides of the debate. I will absolutely consider impacts but don't consider them the "be all and end all". Be original and clear, provide clash, and don't over complicate.
LD: I am an advocate for classic LD. I prefer clear delivery and at least a modicum of effort to have effective verbal and non-verbal communication. Please provide values clash and establish what you believe to be the best standard for weighing the round. Make clear connections between the resolution, value, value criterion, and your contentions. Feel free to delve into the philosophical. I do not believe the format of LD is well suited to spreading nor do I think the conventions of the framework lend themselves to solvency, kritiks, plans, and counterplans. If you would like to debate policy, find yourself a partner. Having said that, I will do my best to understand all arguments, get them on the flow, and judge the round on its merits.
Danielle Canfield Paradigm
I would say that I tend to prefer "traditional" LD debate, so I really enjoy rounds with good framework debate. However, I am also okay with running Kritiks or more "progressive" cases.
I cannot stress enough how important signposting is for me. This makes it SO much easier for the judge to flow your case well, so PLEASE do this. Additionally, off-time roadmaps are great, as it gives me some direction with my flow.
I look to framework debate, my flow, and contention-level debate when deciding the round.
I'm okay with some speed, but please do not spread. If you're going to spread anyway, please know that if I can't hear it or understand it, I won't be able to flow it. You must speak clearly and slowly over all of your contentions and cards so I can get them down.
Voters are great, I like for you to tell me why you think you've won the round.
Ask me any questions if you need to!
Will Churchman Paradigm
Grayson Doane Paradigm
Caitlin Donnelly Paradigm
Kaelyn East Paradigm
Yzylle Esiong Paradigm
Jessica Finnsson Paradigm
Sadie Frady Paradigm
Anna Frisk Paradigm
Kaitlan Harbaugh Paradigm
Experience: 3 years of policy, one year of Congress lol. This is my third year out of high school and judging and stuff.
Speed: I’m fine with speed (rusty af tho so bear with me), but if you don’t slow down for the tags and authors I will most likely have trouble flowing your evidence. Go slow, or I probably won’t be able to evaluate your argument.
If you're going to be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. please save everyone the pain and just concede the round at the start.
Topicality – I have a very high threshold for topicality. Unless there is obvious abuse, I find it difficult to vote neg on T. That being said, if the aff does not handle topicality well, then I have no problem voting neg. I don't really buy RVIs.
Kritiks – I love kritiks; I wrote a kritikal aff for the China topic. Unfortunately, I am very dense when it comes to lit that I am unfamiliar with, which is going to be most Ks (except for cap, fem, and orientalism). As long as you have good analysis/OVERVIEWS, I shouldn’t have too much trouble properly evaluating the K vs. the aff.
Framework – Bottom line, I need you to tell me why to accept/reject FW, and how that affects my evaluation of the round. Without framework/without clash on competing frameworks, I default impact calc.
Counterplans – If you’ve got a net benefit and prove competition, I vote for the CP.
Theory – I usually won’t view theory as a reason to vote down a team; I will more likely reject an argument. You have to prove actual abuse, or I probably won’t vote on it (unless it's dropped).
Tl;dr – I don’t like judging debates that are super heavily evidence based. I need good analysis and argumentation in your own words why you should win the debate. Also I'm hella rusty so bear with me.
OVERVIEWS - Please use overviews. Especially if you're running a vague argument/K. If I'm still unclear at the end of the round what you're running, I'm probably not going to vote for you.
@ Varsity CX (and really every team tbh): I really want to understand all of your super kritikal and advanced arguments, but honestly sometimes I struggle. So if you want me to evaluate your case accurately, you've gotta have some pretty sick overviews by your second constructive or you've probably lost me.
Catherine Hinson Paradigm
If I ever judge you in Congress if you read the bee movie script I'll give you first place in the round. But if multiple people read it then best performance wins!
Kyle Kendall Paradigm
Meera Krishna Paradigm
Riel LaPlant Paradigm
Real world application
Chandra Le Paradigm
Kevin Liu Paradigm
George Means Paradigm
Noelle Merclich Paradigm
Ken Nichols Paradigm
Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for 6 years and work in the tech industry.
Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)
Criteria: I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. (I'm not generally a fan of progressive arguments, but will consider them if the position can be debated without applying abusive burdens.) I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.
Chris Price Paradigm
It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what I hear so watch your speed and clarity. Communicate ideas in an organized and professional manner. You WILL NOT win by trying to confuse your opponents.
Looking for solid evidence-based logic, reasoning, and depth of analysis.
Clearly state contentions, your own and your opponents, both in constructive and rebuttal
Elizabeth Ramirez Paradigm
Carey Rockey Paradigm
Steve Rowe Paradigm
Last updated on 1/10/20/
For Public Forum, go to the bottom.
Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org
CX / Policy Philosophy:
If you are a policy team, I am probably good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, read below.
First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.
I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.
I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.
Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.
My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be hit.
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.
I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse.
I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.Kritikal Affs
It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.
This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.
I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.
I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.
Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.
I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.
I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.
If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.
Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.
I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.
Public Forum Judging Philosophy:
I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.
The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.
A few points that might matter to you:
1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.
2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.
3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.
4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.
Keegan Ryan Paradigm
Liz Shine Paradigm
BACKGROUND: From 1988-1992 I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at a reasonably successful level. I LOVED it and still do personally prefer it to other types of debate. That said, I respect all forms of debate and try to honor the essence of the form when judging any debate. I have been out of the Debate world since 1992 until now, as new coach in 2016-2017. During my two years as coach, I have been judging Policy often. I think I'm really starting to get it. The plus side of me being somewhat new to Policy is I don't come with the usual biases/preferences as a more experienced judge who competed in Policy might. I have taught Literature and Writing for 17 years as of this moment, and I write and edit fiction.
GENERAL PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa. I won't do the thinking for you, for the most part. I like depth of knowledge on the topic. You should be reading up on your topic, not just finding evidence cards. I want plenty of clash. I want solid reasoning and analysis. Explain your arguments.
STYLISTIC PREFERENCES: You don’t have to be nice, but you should always be respectful. I’m not terribly fond of the overuse of debate jargon and I find that it can supplant reason. I always prefer reason in that case. And by that I do mean overuse. One should be able to call things what they are. Label and articulate the labels of the parts of your case. Use those labels in your following speeches. I like a good debate where you take on the resolution and defend that position and am less impressed with trying to side-step or avoid clash.
SPEED: Not personally a fan because I love good rhetorical style and believe that words matter, but I can follow you if you articulate and slow down on the important points. I find I’m less hindered in understanding by speed than I am by poor articulation and enunciation.
KRITIKS: Sure, if well-argued and not frivolous.
KRITIKAL AFFS: Sure, but same as above.
THEORY: Yep. Also same as above.
TOPICALITY: Also same as above.
COUNTERPLANS: And again. I’m open to different kinds of arguments, except solvency arguments in LD (that annoys me unless you argue why it’s appropriate--it’s not a given). It’s not so much the type of argument that matters, it’s HOW YOU CONVINCE ME IT MATTERS. You have to do that work.
SPEAKER POINTS: Yes, I give 30s. Good rhetorical and style and attitude matter.
CROSS-EXAMINATION: I don’t flow CX, so you need to bring it up in your speech if you want me to flow it and I’m not a fan of “flex” CX.
FLASHING/SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Arrive prepared with paper copies or be seamless with your technology. I am annoyed when time is lost because lost because of technology glitches.
UNDERVIEWS/OVERVIEWS/OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS: Sure, but be quick about it.
DISCLOSURES: I will not disclose unless I am instructed by the tournament to. I think mystery about how you’re doing is a good thing.
Ryan Smith Paradigm
Melissa Smith Paradigm
Mary-Kaye Soderlind Paradigm
Jennifer Strachan Paradigm
Amanda Swainston Paradigm
Former high school speech/debate competitor. Second year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case.
Tom Wiley Paradigm
I pretty much just follow my heart...
But... I`m sure both sides have some very compelling reasons for why I should decide in their favor. However, the most important factors are the WORDING of the resolution and the INTENTION of the resolution. The WORDING of the resolution is static and doesn`t leave much room for strategic interpretation. The INTENTION of the resolution can be freely explored by either side to their advantage. The only reasons that will be weighed for the decision will be those that are consistent with the WORDING of the resolution and it's INTENTION (... whatever that is.)
Tiffany Wilhelm Paradigm
I'm primarily a flow judge. I value argumentation and weighing those arguments during crystalization in rebuttals. While I generally do not have an issue with speed, don't go there if you can't do it with clarity. It may be the best argument you've given in your life, but if I don't get it on my flow, it doesn't matter. I'm generally regarded as pretty expressive so look up every once in a while. Finally, I want you to write the ballot for me in the final rebuttals; give clear voting issues and tell me why you win each point.
Janelle Williams Paradigm
Judging for over fifty years in CX LD and Pufo I am strictly a tabula rasa judge. Dont mind speed. If debater is too fast, I put down my pen.
Alex Williams Paradigm
I was a PF debater all four years of high school and do British Parliamentary debate in college (8 years total). I've also coached PF, LD and middle school Parli since graduating.
- Off time road maps are fine.
- Be spicy, not mean.
- Techy language is fine
- Voters: tell me what the most important things in the round where and why you won on them
- Clash, do it.
- Give me analysis and deconstruction of your cards.
- I like progressive debate.
- Framework debates are cool.
- If I can't understand you, I'll say "clear".
- If you say problematic things I will almost 100% drop you, or at the least reflect it in speaks.