UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I 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. 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

RESPECT and DECORUM

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.

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

TL;DR

Please run cases that took more effort to make than simply copy-pasting from the most recent briefs, ugh.

Stuff I like

Kritiks, Plans, Performance, Narratives (find me on Goodreads!), Creativity, Friendship.

Stuff I dont like

Spikes, theory (Run theory only if theres an actual reason to)

Misc

I give speaker points based on how organized you are; creativity is a plus, so is a sense of humor.

About me

My favorite stuff to run included Anarchy, irony, Biblical narration, space warfare, and poetry. Psychoanalysis is fun. Not familiar with postmodernism lol

Contact

Feel free to email me at Ld4DavidB@gmail.com

I like a traditional, value-centric debate. The clash of value / criterion is critical, and supporting contentions should be clearly linked. I do not mind unique approaches to the topics, but I prefer the focus to reaming on the value clash and ability to show its influence on the contentions and evidence chosen. Extended analysis can include social impact, both pro and con.

I will judge on content, civility, presentation and format. I ask for an off-timer roadmap at the start to give me a view of what you plan to cover in each of your statements. This allows you to pick up the pace but be aware that going too fast will result in mental overload and you'll lose me.

Please signpost all of your contentions throughout including rebuttal and summary.

Overall be clear, concise and succinct. You'll undoubtedly know a lot about your topic but if I can't follow, it doesn't matter if you have the best argument in the world.

I am a big proponent of making the connection between data, insights and needed action. Don't just reiterate facts and figures to me. Show me the insights you're finding from this information that justify your position on the action you should take.

Lastly, show me the human impact of your contentions.

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

I like a cordial debate, and I weigh the content slightly more than the framework, but they're fairly close. Proper analysis matters and every contention should be thoroughly analyzed – not just stated, and then you move on, (a surprising number of competitors do this, so don't just count yourself out like, "that's not me"). Make sure that analysis is backed up by good evidence. I try my best to weigh each round with only the information you give me (table rasa) but you know no judge is truly a blank slate.

Pragmatic over Philosophical.

Debate coach at Sedro Woolley, 3 years.

Background

he/him

uw'23

add me to the chain if u want @ fageeriomar@gmail.com

Be Kind :)

First and foremost, debate is an activity where at the end of the day, you are debating topics that influence real living people so understanding the weight of what you're saying is something that should go without saying. This activity is meant to be a safe environment where you can grow as a debater but also be inclusive to those who do this activity with you. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates, offends, or is abusive to their opponent regardless of whether it was to "prove a point". Anyone who does this will drop instantly with very very low speaks ❤️

Each and every one of you has something valuable to contribute and no one should have the opportunity to minimize those contributions :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR:

take risks, have fun, and try your best!

all events //

larp >> th >> k & lit >>

weighing mech

impact calc

cp // remind me what the status of the cp is throughout the round

condo good

very high speaks if you make me laugh

signpost! :)

tricks are fine --> your burden to get it on my flow

theory --> reasonability > competing interps

drop arg > drop debater

preferences:

LD PARADIGM

speed// slow down on tags but be realistic with speed. I am not going to tell you to slow down, you should be able to assume that you need to if I am not flowing what you are saying. Also, online debate means dealing with mics so let's acknowledge that. Also, acknowledge who is in your judge panel. When you have parents, volunteer judges, and people with no experience judging and you decide to default to prog, that is horrible. Adjust to lay and win that way. This activity should be accessible to all judge ballots not just the ones you think are more experienced.

roadmap// off-times are dope after constructives if you are gonna collapse to any t's , da's, etc. —otherwise no need—. Usually I can navigate fine without em so they wont matter on my ballot but people with them can expect high speaks for organization :P Dont run what you think I want to hear because I dont really care as long as you make it digestible (again online means i need it to be understandable. Run whatever you are most comfortable with.

K// do it if you want but structure is pretty important here (ie. on my end your goal should be to concretely outline for me what is epistemologically / ont. wrong bad/violent/evil/idc about their case or how they are presenting their case / addressing the resolution) I guess this is usually done in peoples link and impact but I think the K's I vote on or find value are the ones that 1. clearly frame the round under their K (ie. what should the ROB be given the impact behind what your opp did that you see as inherently bad) and 2. outline for me the extent to which the ballot is an alt how it addresses some of your impacts there. Also, your tags best be very slow when introducing all of that (link,imp, alt, rob) lol.

TLDR: I don't resonate too much with K's because I feel like most people deviate from the actual abuse they are arguing on but if you do, just be really clear with what I said earlier I guess ( practical args on case will make it easier to sway me nevertheless!)

T// These annoy me sometimes bc they get messy at least where I have seen them. Similar standard as above, give me a comprehensive interp of the resolution, the stand. they violated I guess and in voters why I should care. Especially with everything being online, imma need this to be digestible when you're reading it as well! I usually default to reasonability unless opp offers a c.i in which case I will default to competing interps

another note: rvi's are cool and on t debate, 1ar's that collapse to them will more often than not pick up. i buy that winning a c.i is enough to win the round and rvi's are the only drop the debater arg i will probs ever buy.

tech > truth.

dont deviate entirely from case debate. if you read the tldr, you know i like larp debaters largely because thats what most people can do well and more comprehensively in a way that I can evaluate. Impact calc is still vital and the side that does the best job of winning on case flow will more often than not be the side that picks up a ballot (all of this include exceptions those being obv what I have talked about earlier).

voters!!!

CX

Respect your opponent!! You don't have to pretend to love them but respect everything they have to say :) You can be aggressive but don't be abusive (... they are different!). Concessions in cross should be on top case in the 1NC and 1AR

PF PARADIGM

*first time judging this topic (12/11-12/12)

fw in pf is dope imo. otherwise just weigh and we'll be chillin

I will vote purely off the flow. stop trying to extend deadweight args and just collapse to the ones your winning on and weigh. that tends to be the best strat to get my ballot bc it saves you time and makes the debate a lot less messy on the flow. I rarely call for evidence because defaulting to cards on an rfd is wack but if it ends up being something thats carrying you on the flow prepare for that.

summary // make it clear what arguments still matter in this round, which ones you're winning, and which they're losing. i would much rather see you collapse to the ones your winning here as opposed to spend hella time defending the ones you know you're losing.

ff// spend these few minutes with an overview, why you solve for any weighing mech / fw, and which arguments I need to vote on to make my ballot.

I dont want to hear cards in your ff, at this pt you should be focusing on what links, straight / solv turns, etc you have already made and telling me what you're winning and why those are my cleanest voting issues in the round.

I feel like a lot of the time in PF, teams are really hung up on empirics with like zero internal links--> so have those.

Voters are really important here! (Only args fully extended through ff and summary will be considered)

^this doesnt mean you necessarily need defense on every arg to extend every arg to win a round. I vote on collapsed args a lot!

Give me a standard to vote on. This should be clearly established on top case in your first constructives and ff and tell me why you solve :)

I rarely see prog in PF but surprise me if you want!

CONGRESS PARADIGM

tldr: content 3/4 speaking 1/4 , rehash is dis cos tan, i hold authorships to a higher burden because they dont have an opportunity to refute (authorship cx is the most important cx on my ballot usually for every bill)

solid impact turns in congress are like an automatic top 3 for me

crystalization speeches are dope (overview --> flow --> weigh :))

Jokes are great!! if you make me laugh that makes it more tolerable for me and you will stand out :) Keep in mind we do have to sit there for 3 hours+

**This event is called congressional debate. As often as it appears that people who do get ranked are great speakers, I will weigh content more regardless of how pretty you sound. Clarity is obviously important, but it is more beneficial to have clarity AND a comprehensive case

po's // generally will get ranked top 6 unless you make tons of errors. best po's are the one's that make me as a parli feel as if I could leave the room and never come back and everything would still feel the same. own the room. cross check what rules (nsda , wsfa, etc.) you're using and make sure the statutes actually exist (ie. the "no three aff speeches in a row" is a tradition more than it is actually documented in any rule book).

rehash // will automatically place you in the bottom half of my ranks at best (w/ exception to crystalizing)

If you repeat an argument that was just run in the speech before you, I will flow everything you say under that speaker and assume you did not give that point. The reason congress is rarely seen as the debate is that a lot of competitors try to go the easy route without contributing to the debate. If you do not have a new point, crystalize, tell me the most important args, give me missing links, weigh, and clear up any messiness in the debate. That in my opinion can actually end up being a better speech than most constructive ones.

Unique arguments are preferable but don't give me bad efficacy arguments w/ no int. links. (in other words, I am not gonna believe your card if u dont have a warrant).

evidence //

This is your opportunity to pretend like your source is doper than it actually is. Look up who wrote it and how they came to their conclusion (that adds to your warrant and makes your case more substantive) . I should be able to fact check you with the citation I hear even though I probably will not lol. I don't just want to hear what your evidence is but also why it is important i hear it. If there is an area in your argument that can be quantified, I want to see empirics.

impact calc//

Just mentioning what someone says and reading a card after is not a refutation. If you cant explain why their argument is uniquely bad, that is not a refutation. Reference other senators in the room but also make sure you are giving me material reasons

cx//

WA circuit doesn't do direct cross but I still weigh it in my rankings. Also, tbh it seems like people suddenly lose their hearing when the round starts

ie. "I did not understand/hear your question"

I can tell when someone is trying to avoid the question and that doesn't reflect positively in your ranks. If you do not know the answer to the question, I would much rather see you try to explain why that question is irrelevant or how regardless of the answer your case wins bc ____. Also please don't answer with " I do not see how that is relevant to my speech". You are debating on the bill either in support / against, just because you didn't directly mention it in your speech does not mean you are not capable of answering the question (After-all you only get 3 minutes).

Those who know their cards well in questioning and can respond with comprehensive answers are those who will get ranked high regardless of speeches. The #1 pref is making cx valuable. If your question doesn't move clash forward.. dont ask it :)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

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. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. 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. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, 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, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

I consider myself a classical/traditional LD judge, though I do flow arguments as part of my evaluation of the round in order to minimize intervention.

When judging public forum, I look for how well a team weighs the arguments to help make my decision.

***Ticky Tacky Stuff***

-No I do not care where you sit whether you are aff or neg. Aff can sit on the right or left... I don't care.

-If you have similar questions, like whether or not I care if you time yourself, take prep time, etc., the answer is I don't. I have been in debate rounds where the 1AC was a freestyle rap and poetry. There are no rules in debate besides time limits.

-Maybe instead of asking everyone in the room individually if they are ready, ask, "is there anybody not ready?"

-Don't start with your speech with "starting....my time.....now..." Or any variation of this. I don't know how this became a thing.

-Read impacts to things: tell me why economic collapse is bad instead of assuming I know.

-If you only have a lay case, which includes a variation of evidence and analytical arguments, do not speed unless you are super clear. I listen for tags/claims, the author, and date. I then wait until I hear another tag, author, date. I don't flow analytical arguments in fast rounds when they are mixed in with cards. I don't think that's even fair UNLESS you file-share/give your aff to the neg because they can't tell when the card author ends and your analytics begin. Ask about this if you don't get it!

***Rant Over***

LD has basically become policy, which is where most of my experience has come from.

Here is my experience, and I'll let you decide what you would like to read, I'm fine with anything you want to do.

High School:
4 years policy
4 years LD (NFL 08, 09)
4 years speech events

Wichita State Univ:
2 years policy

Kansas City Kansas Community College:
1 year policy (NDT 2011, CEDA Octos)
1 year LD (PRP National Chmpnshp)

Univ of Kansas:
1 year policy

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years. 

I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.

Other aspects to keep in mind:

I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework. 

I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework. 

Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed. 

I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.

I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.

Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.

Tabula Rasa: If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Framework arguments do not automatically get flowed on my ballots as a priori unless you outline them as such and explain why they are a priori voters. Additionally, I will not do work for you on the ballot, meaning that if I find an argument you have made convincing but you do not reiterate it or bring it up as a voter I can't vote on it. Finally and most importantly: clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. If I say "clear" or "slow" you MUST abide or lose the round. I ask that you show your opponents the same courtesy.

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot. I don't believe in civility politics (It's not taboo in my book, for instance, to call your opponent out as racist if they say something racist), but I do believe in basic common courtesy and dignity. Treat your opponent respectfully like a human being and we'll have no issues.

TLDR: Flay judge but zero topic knowledge. I'm not kidding. I have very minimal topic knowledge so make sure to put that 'public' into public forum lol

The most frustrating thing as a debater was not knowing how judges made decisions. It makes the activity more unpredictable than it already is.

How I make a decision:

1. Who is winning the weighing?
2. If team A is winning the weighing, I look to their argument(s) first.
3. If team A wins their argument(s), gg, I will not evaluate the rest of the flow
4. If team A is not winning the weighing, I look to team B's argument(s)
5. If team B is winning their argument(s), gg.
6. If team A and B are not winning their argument(s), I presume to the team who is winning the weighing debate (I have my reasons for this), unless other presumption arguments are read

General things:

• Preflow before the round. Delaying the round is the quickest way to lose speaks from me.
• Evidence exchange must happen in <1min or else it is discarded from the round
• Don't steal prep. Call your opponents out if they are.
• Let's skip the handshakes - germs are scary.
• I am not experienced with progressive arguments. You are free to run them, but don't expect me to make an ideal decision.
• I will call for cards at the end of the debate if (1) you tell me to (2) I need to clarify something
• Good analytics > unwarranted cards

Debate related:

• Weighing is cool but meta weighing is cooler
• Second rebuttal should frontline turns at minimum
• Don't be afraid to drop case and go for other pieces of offense on the flow (make sure it's still weighed)
• Fully extend arguments - I will not do any work for you
• Speed is usually fine, but because I'm not familiar with this topic, please go slowww
• Comparative analysis > more blocks

Hello!

My name is Neelam and although I have judged before, it was some time ago. Thank you for being considerate towards my needs during this debate.

My main needs are for you to:

Speak clearly - if you mumble or speak too quietly, I may miss the strength of your arguments and be unable to give you credit for them;

Identify your arguments - this will provide me with a helpful overview of the structure of your debate;

Avoid using jargon as far as possible. If you do use unfamiliar or overly technical terms, please explain them.

In addition, please try to be aware of the following points:

Please introduce yourselves before you begin speaking;

I will be making notes on paper so if I'm looking down it doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention to you;

I will also be utilizing my phone as a timer. I will allow a 5-second leeway if you go beyond the allocated time and after that will inform you that your time is up;

Finally, I look forward to observing you demonstrate sportsmanship, respect and integrity during the tournament.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Updated Yale 2018

On Ks

Don't read them. I've been robbed of too much education through listening to non topical and or critical cases. If both you and your opponent read Ks I will flip a coin and reflect my displeasure through appropriate minimization of speaks.

Background

Debate is a game and it's a game I really like which is why I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Sammamish High School in Washington State, debated Policy for three years at NYU, and coached on the side. I'm a recent graduate and currently work as a consultant in DC which means 1) please ease into your spreading speed slowly and 2) run cool new arguments in front of me if you're testing something new and still working things out. Debate is a learning community; having me as a judge means I can give you as little or as much feedback as you like and we can bounce off as many or as little ideas as you like too. That being said, often times, running a solid stock case is often more impressive and more strategic than a shoddily thought out new idea, so choose wisely.

Judging Preferences:

General Advice:

Use blocks. Don't suspend logic when using blocks. Spread out your opponent with arguments from many different angles. Be strategic. Debate well.

ROB/ROJ/Theory:

I see debate as a game. I buy that everything can and should be justified because I presume nothing walking into the room.

This means, when reading a standard like "reducing xyz" or "maximizing abc", you need to justify why reducing xyz/maximizing abc is good. Don't get lazy with your warrants and don't assume I will know 1) that xyz/abc are what you think they are, 2) why they are what they are.

This goes double for extensions; even and especially if your opponent drops your argument, you need to extend claim, warrant, and impact of your argument or else you've dropped it as well (notice the and <--). Second, this means I will likely not be persuaded by ROB/ROJ whose premise or internal link is assumed or largely relies on a justification outside of the debate room.

Voters:

I think debate is a game. This means in order for me to vote for your ROB/ROJ/theory shell, you need to explain the actual abuse in the round and how your strategy specifically was affected. E.g. why is "fairness" a voting issue, what is it and what does it mean in the context of this actual room? Will new recruits really hear about this round when considering whether or not to join debate and after hearing that this debate round was unfair, decide not to join? Is it more about the principle of fairness? I've found that the most persuasive justifications tend to be those most closely linked to the very debate you've having and the very strategy you're employing (e.g. I couldn't read my nuke waste disad and that destroys my education because nuke waste is being voted on in XYZ county and we need to test out the implementation mechanism so we're better informed and I can be a more informed voter. I am very persuaded by such intelligent and contextualized arguments.

T:

I am very persuaded by good T args. I largely agree with Scott Elliott's paradigm on T which you should definitely read here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6943.

Speed:

1. If you're spreading, please don't lower your voice; I will yell "louder" and this generally means "clear" but indicates you need to speak up too

2. I'm more impressed by debaters that speak at 60-70% of their actual speed but fill that time making good responsive arguments.

3. If you read incoherently in order to jam in more args I will not be able to flow your args, I likely won't be able to vote for you, and will reflect the argument presentation's incoherence in your speaks.

Plans/Ts:

There is not a position/argument I'm not comfortable with you reading, that being said if I haven't heard your argument, or even if I have but it's especially dense, slowing down and explaining it to me like I'm 10 will only help you (and your speaker points) in the long run.

Speaker Points:

I award speaker points based off your entire debate performance meaning your speeches and cross-examination and general demeanor. Masters of cross examination are generally great debaters because they see the cross ex as a performance and use it to set the tone of the rest of the debate.

Fun:

This paradigm sounds serious only because I want you to understand what my expectations are in order for the round to proceed in your favor, but if you're not having fun, you're not debating properly. :-)

Email:

If you have any additional questions or are including me on your email chain please use email esk378@nyu.edu. Thanks!

Cohesion, logic, organization, politeness... These are the traits I prefer to see in the debate.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

My paradigm for Lincoln Douglas is very traditional. I am looking for a straight debate over the resolution from both the Aff and Neg side. I do not entertain plans and counter plans, rather I am looking for a value and criteria followed by contentions supporting the argument. As to spreading, I am not a fan as I think it detracts from the quality of the debate.

My paradigm for Public Forum is that this is Public Forum and there should be no paradigm. Keep to the resolution, with supporting contentions and evidence. You can offer frameworks, but I will not require your opponents to accept the framework, nor will I give it much consideration in the final analysis.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

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

Hi, my name is Christine Pyle

I am a coach and participated in debate in school many years ago.

Fast talking(spreading) is fine, however clarity is key.

Signposting is preferred - organization helps not only me but you

If you are utilizing impacts to enhance your case, follow through with those impacts in your case to the end of the debate.

I'm looking for good case structure, compelling arguments, good use of crossfire, and that arguments with weight are flowing through to the end.

Hello, my name is Joey Ribera (he/him) and I'm a former PF/LD debater (3 years pf/1 year LD).

My Paradigm:

- Speed is fine

- Whatever contentions/argumentation you view relevant to bring up in the round, I will flow + consider in my decision. The only thing I encourage is making the impacts and the weighing factors you'd want me to evaluate them from really clear within the round.

- Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before round!

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

The topics that we consider are far more complex than you are going to be able to legitimately convince me, one way or the other, in a single round of debate. Thus, I will not ask you to change my mind. Instead, I will judge the round based on who argues their side more effectively. If you happen to convince me in the process, then all the better. But I will attempt to set my preconceived notions aside at the start of the round, and the decision will go to the team/person who's arguments outweigh.

In addition, I will flow, but it is your responsibility to present your arguments in a way that I can understand and follow. Failure to do so is a fault in the debate and will inevitably result in me not weighing an argument that I did not follow.

Note: This is a paradigm for my local circuit. For nationals, i still judge similarly.

Background: I competed for a couple years with no particular accolades. I judge Congress a lot. If you see me as a judge in a debate event other than Congress, consider me a smart lay judge with little to no understanding of conventions of your event.

Frankly, Congress is not as complicated as other debate events. You only get three minutes, and there aren't a ton of different ways to argue compared to other debate events. That said, this is how I will judge you in Congress:

Preferences:

-Content matters a lot to me. Lots of judges say they don't like rehash, but I really mean it. If you are the 5th speaker you should probably reference what other speakers are saying. If you are the 15th speaker, please don't pretend your points are new. Flow the round, weigh the values of both sides and argue why the values of your side are the most important of the round. If you have evidence that suggests that your side should win a value that the other side has tried to claim, explain why your side should get that claim over the other, rather than just stating that you do and expecting that to be undisputed. If your speech would work as an authorship and you are not the author, you're not debating. You're giving a 3-minute oratory. If you don't understand how to do that, go watch any PF round and you'll probably see a higher amount of debating than I see in Congress.

-How good of a speaker you are will matter. I probably value your speaking ability less than most Congress judges in Washington, but it still will play a factor in how high you score and rank. Even though we are (supposedly) debating legislation, you're doing it in the form of a persuasive speech, and so all speech conventions apply here.

-Ask good questions. It's by far the easiest way to recognize who is paying attention and understands what's going on in the room. Any question that will be really obviously answered with either a yes or no answer is probably not contributing much to the debate. Ask lots of why questions, especially when speakers should be answering them in their speeches and failed to do so.

-Don't just read off a piece of paper. At least try to make eye contact. I understand why novices do this. I don't understand why open competitors do. It doesn't really feel like you're paying attention if your "contribution" to the round is reading a prepared statement. If speaking from bullet points makes you stutter or lose your train of thought a lot, practice your speeches until it doesn't. I would rather you be a little less polished but be more adaptive and open to your chamber, as long as I can still understand what you're arguing.

-Don't try to be too smart. I see lots of debaters try to be smarter than everyone with their "unique" points that have minimal impacts and/or don't make any sense at all. There's plenty of room for imagination in Congress, especially considering how interesting flaws in legislation can be, but run your point by someone smarter than you before you give it in round.

-Don't be a jerk. I'm a pretty informal judge because that's who I am as a person. I think there's value in making your participation in this event reflect who you are and what you believe. But don't be so loose that you insult people, make racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/any kind of hateful or derogatory comments. I do believe there is room for debate to be fun and also to not be insulting. Don't attack people, attack arguments.

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

First of all, from my time in this program, Speech and Debate has always been a positive and supportive community that promotes both great sportsmanship and etiquette among competitors. Based upon this, I will be looking for professionalism and a positive attitude in and outside of rounds.

I mainly judge Open Interp IE's (DUO, HI, DI). The most important things to bring to each and every round is energy. The more energy you have during your presentation, the more likely I am to remember you.

Based upon past experience, I see any movement and blocking to be vital and important to the story and how it advances the narrative. Because this is open division, I am looking for mastery of enunciation, volume, tone, and development of characters and plot. One thing that many of interps forget to include in their piece is making the audience and judge feel like they are in a physical space or setting where the story takes place.

Have a great tournament, Luke S.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth 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. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

The best way to win my vote is to be the one who provides the most compelling case, and to be a strong technical speaker.

Assume I know nothing, the burden of information is on you.

~Clear signposting, make sure I can keep up with your mode of speech as I try to follow along.

~Limit spreading, if I can't understand you I cant judge you.

~Please watch your tone, you don't need to shout.

~I tend to favor philosophical arguments.

*Please disclose if at all possible.

I’m fine with speed, and just make it an interesting debate, don’t drop contentions, and have fun during cross !!

I am primarily a communications judge and vote based on the debater's overall argumentation and persuasiveness. Be aware that I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to understand speech that is significantly faster than conversational speed. If requested, I am happy to let the speaker know when they are going too fast through a hand gesture.

First and foremost, speak properly, I need to understand what you are talking.

i like it when you are expressive.

As it’s online. You take care of your time.

I take notes during your debating/arguments. I give points the way you start, end, type of questions asked and how it is answered. I normally depend on the way your speech is given. If I feel you are confident point will be on top.

Try to stay on the topic.

I will try to give you feedback immediately so that you can improve yourself for the next round.

and above all be confident and all the best.

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.

I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.

1. I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc. 
2. I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
3. I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
4. If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing.  You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
5. If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.