Gig Harbor Invitational

2018 — Gig Harbor, WA/US

Summer Ash Paradigm

I did LD for 3 years at Gig Harbor HS. I am the British parliamentary team captain at PLU.

- Run any case in any form or style of argumentation you are comfortable with and I will try my best to fairly adjudicate the round

- It is the debaters’ jobs to determine conditionality and order of offs if that is applicable to the round

Role of the adjudicator/burden structure - Debaters can provide new adjudication models or burden structures in the debate, but if this does not happen I will default to the model described below

I tend to view “ought”s and “should”s as operative terms in LD resolutions. In this sense it usually the aff’s burden to explain when something ought to be done and then show that the resolution is such an instance. The neg burden is to disprove this, not just to provide competing offense.

Of course, this is not the way that every resolution is structured, but with any resolution I will default to a similar truth-testing model. But please don’t make me do this and just tell me how to adjudicate the round

Framework - I place high value on the functionality of frameworks. Each contention level argument is only acceptable insofar as it works in cohesion with the framework, otherwise it has no place within the round and I have no way to evaluate it. It is therefore crucial that you recognize the purpose of your framework and make that as distinct as possible throughout your speeches.

Theory - I’ll evaluate/vote off of theory args.

Topicality - Similar to theory. I’ll evaluate/vote off of T args.

Speed - Speed is fine, i’ll say “clear” if clarity is a problem. Slowing down for tags or otherwise important or easy to miss arguments is advisable.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round or the debate space more accessible to you.
Before each round I will provide time for debaters to share their pronouns, if they would like to.


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.

Jay Busch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danielle Canfield Paradigm

LD 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!

Joseph Dokupil Paradigm

I weight the round primarily on the framework debate. Don't be afraid to attack the philosophical presuppositions of your opponent or grapple with the moral fiber of your subject matter. I like to see a strong clash of values and clear, robust, analytical reasoning. I also like to see you asking precise and meaningful CX questions, rather than just using CX to banter, argue, or make statements.

Chris Emig Paradigm

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Riel LaPlant Paradigm

Real world application

Samantha Lilly Paradigm

8 rounds

Just debate well.

I debated for four years at Bingham High School in Salt Lake City, UT. I am no longer affiliated with any school. It's been awhile since I've judged rounds. The quality of my flow will not be the greatest, but that does not mean that I'm not following you.

I think I do a good job being indifferent to the framing/vantage point of whatever argument you run, so... do you.

I am currently in the process of getting a degree in Philosophy, if you're gonna run a common framework, you better know what you're talking about. I get the nuance of many policy arguments and have likely heard most theory/policymaker frameworks. I am also comfortable with quite a broad range of philosophical/anti-philosophical/theoretical authors.

I don't care about dropped evidence; I care about dropped arguments.

Counterplans: you should probably have a solvency advocate. Affs should make an issue of counter-plans that are net beneficial but have no solvency advocate—I think it's cheap.

Critiques: Just remember it's been awhile for me.

Case Debate: Why not?

I'm a huge fan of voters: make it clear to me why you've won the round. The best debates to me are one's where the final 2 minutes or final speech (if AFF) is just voters.

Please enunciate clearly your tags/analytics and please slow down when reading them.

Casey Lin Paradigm

πŸ—ΏπŸ€‘πŸ‘ŒπŸ€ πŸ’―πŸ’―πŸ’―




Akhil Mandala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Colin McKay Paradigm

8 rounds

GHHS '17

I debated for four years in high focusing in LD. I am comfortable judging progressive or comm rounds. I think that the best debate is one where you read the arguments you want to read and articulate them well. Speed is fine, please ease me into though and slow WAY down for author names/tags. The person who does the best weighing in their final rebuttal is probably going to win. Feel free to ask me any questions in round.

Aidan Moran Paradigm

Don't talk fast

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.

Gehrig Pfeffer Paradigm

I like framework clash the most

Kira Rosenlind Paradigm

pop off children

Please enunciate tho

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.

Ellison Roycroft Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate Experience:

-2 years Lincoln Douglas participant in high school

-1 year Lincoln Douglas coach

-1 year British Parliamentary debate participant in college

Debate Philosophy:

I value tech>truth in almost every instance, but I'm unlikely to vote for positions that only take advantage of a debater who doesn't know how to respond to them.

I value creativity and ingenuity and I won't just drop a stock case for a novel one, but I will like the more creative one more. If we're honest, nobody is truly objective and the way to get me to like your side is to run a case that I will remember.

I'm flexible on the roll of the judge and ballot.

I don't really like T, but if you run it very well, I will vote on it.

If something is said/argued in round that is blatantly problematic, you will lose and get bad speaks.

In-Round Logistics:

I'm okay with flex prep, off-time road maps, and I do not count flashing as prep time. If there's an email chain, I would prefer to be included in it.

I'm okay with spreading up to about 400 wpm, and will say "clear" or "speed" if I can't understand.

I will keep time, but I don't want to be responsible for keeping you in time. If you go over time too much, I will dock you speaker points.

If a round boils down to evidence and isn't settled by the end of the 2AR, I will read and evaluate it myself before determining the ballot.

Greg Stevens Paradigm

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I still work for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum and judge LD practice and tournament rounds. This year I became an assistant coach for Puyallup High School. I'm working with the LD team at Puyallup.

I judge LD and PF, though the past three years I've judged more LD than PF. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. With the new three minute summary, the summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus.

LD I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions, and I will work to find a way to not vote for them. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Hong Ta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matthew Tilden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laila Tobias Paradigm

8 rounds

Show me:

- Framework clash/debate

- why I care

- if i cant understand you then it wont be flowed

Wang Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lisa Weber Paradigm

LD Paradigm

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm


1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Martin Wheeler Paradigm

Please signpost.

Identify drops.

Use your evidence. Show me your prepared.

Alex Williams Paradigm

Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs

Personal History:

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.

All formats:

- 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".


**Gendered language**

- If you say problematic things I will almost 100% drop you, or at the least reflect it in speaks.