I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

Lauren Gardner (Hillard)

LD: My origins are as an LD debater but I debated in the early 2000s. Because of this, I am a fairly tradition LD judge. What this means for me: Weigh everything through the framework and link arguments back to the value and criterion. Prove to me why you win based on the framework. I do not love the debate strategies that are traditionally policy debate (Kritiks, things leading to nuclear war etc). However, if they are argued clearly and well, I won't let that affect my decision if you clearly win based on those points.

Both LD/Public Forum:

While my origins are in LD, I have been judging Public Forum for 16 years.

I do not flow cx/crossfire. Bring up any arguments based on what happened in cx later in your speeches.

Speed: speed is fine within reason. Make sure that you are clear and enunciating properly.

Be respectful of your opponents.

Be clear.

Judging paradigm up at https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kelly%2C+Chalen 

Currently judging mostly Student Congress and Public Forum because the numbers work better for our team. However, I still love LD, so I still pick up a ballot when tournaments need coverage. 

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

• I did public forum for four years in high school, so you do you!
• I would prefer if the debate would be more focused on ideas than pulling a ton of cards. If you spend a long time debating over one piece of evidence, I will be annoyed.
• I can understand you if you go fast, but I don't think you have to go fast to be convincing. I will award points to teams that can be persuasive in a succinct way.

Good luck!

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.

BACKGROUND: From 1988-1992 I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at a reasonably successful level. I LOVED it and still do personally prefer it to other types of debate. That said, I respect all forms of debate and try to honor the essence of the form when judging any debate. I have been out of the Debate world since 1992 until now, as new coach in 2016-2017. During my two years as coach, I have been judging Policy often. I think I'm really starting to get it. The plus side of me being somewhat new to Policy is I don't come with the usual biases/preferences as a more experienced judge who competed in Policy might. I have taught Literature and Writing for 17 years as of this moment, and I write and edit fiction.

GENERAL PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa. I won't do the thinking for you, for the most part. I like depth of knowledge on the topic. You should be reading up on your topic, not just finding evidence cards. I want plenty of clash. I want solid reasoning and analysis. Explain your arguments.

STYLISTIC PREFERENCES: You don’t have to be nice, but you should always be respectful. I’m not terribly fond of the overuse of debate jargon and I find that it can supplant reason. I always prefer reason in that case. And by that I do mean overuse. One should be able to call things what they are. Label and articulate the labels of the parts of your case. Use those labels in your following speeches. I like a good debate where you take on the resolution and defend that position and am less impressed with trying to side-step or avoid clash.

SPEED: Not personally a fan because I love good rhetorical style and believe that words matter, but I can follow you if you articulate and slow down on the important points. I find I’m less hindered in understanding by speed than I am by poor articulation and enunciation.

KRITIKS: Sure, if well-argued and not frivolous.

KRITIKAL AFFS: Sure, but same as above.

THEORY: Yep. Also same as above.

TOPICALITY: Also same as above.

COUNTERPLANS: And again. I’m open to different kinds of arguments, except solvency arguments in LD (that annoys me unless you argue why it’s appropriate--it’s not a given). It’s not so much the type of argument that matters, it’s HOW YOU CONVINCE ME IT MATTERS. You have to do that work.

SPEAKER POINTS: Yes, I give 30s. Good rhetorical and style and attitude matter.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: I don’t flow CX, so you need to bring it up in your speech if you want me to flow it and I’m not a fan of “flex” CX.

FLASHING/SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Arrive prepared with paper copies or be seamless with your technology. I am annoyed when time is lost because lost because of technology glitches.

UNDERVIEWS/OVERVIEWS/OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS: Sure, but be quick about it.

DISCLOSURES: I will not disclose unless I am instructed by the tournament to. I think mystery about how you’re doing is a good thing.

****Updated 3/17/17

Check out this Tumblr blog: http://tinyurl.com/debatememes - its amazing and needs more followers. It has sick debate and philosophy memes.

Prep time:  Open CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES count as prep.

Novice CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES NOT count as prep. (As long as you are reasonable with the time you are taking

Out Rounds – I will likely defer to the other judges opinions

I would suggest you use the USB button it automatically saves the doc to a flash drive connected to the computer. The button is right next to the timer app.  I pay attention during the time in between cx ending and your speech starting. If you are talking to your partner at this time and it isn't obviously about something other than your speech, I will start running the timer on you. Stealing prep is a pet peeve of mine and if I notice you doing it, it will likely reflect in your speaker points. I am more lenient on this for novice, but I still notice it. TL;DR - Don’t steal prep

Tag team in CX is fine, but keep it to a minimum. A question or two doesn’t hurt, but whoever’s CX it is should be speaking for a majority of the time. I am harder on novice teams for this than open teams.

My experience: I have been doing policy debate for 5 years and am currently in my second year as a member of the University of Washington debate union. I also have experience judging all other forms of debate, but policy debate is my specialty, as it is the superior debate form.

General thoughts:

I have done some minimal amounts of research on the high school topic, and I am now starting to get used to what debates look like. I don’t know all the affs on the topic, so be sure to completely explain your aff case and how it functions. This means that at some point earlier in the debate (by the end of the 2AC) you need to make sure I understand what your case does. Also, I believe in tech over truth in debates, and unless I am convinced otherwise, arguments must be present throughout the debate round for me to vote on them out of the final rebuttals. I also believe that the only real rule in debate is that there is some kind of speech time limit and prep time limit, and that in order to receive speaker points each debater on a team should speak. Otherwise it is your responsibility as debaters to tell me how debate should function in your speeches. If I am not given a way to weigh the round, this is how I default:

Speed – I debate with people that are much faster than you. Go as fast as your little heart will let you go, but if you are not clear I will say clear once, and if you aren’t clear after that I simply will not flow what you are saying. Disclosure – yes in open, maybe in novice. In novice it depends on what round it is and if the teams want disclosure.

Cross-x – I consider cross-x to be a kind of speech. While no arguments that are made here go on the flow, you can extend arguments you make in CX into your immediate next speech. Flex prep – totally okay to ask questions, but the other team doesn’t have an obligation to answer the questions

K’s - No K is too out there for me, but what is important is that you explain the impact and alternative and link VERY well. While I am familiar with most kritiks, if you do not explain the K well enough that I can understand it, especially the alternative, then I cannot vote on it unless it goes completely dropped. Part of tech over truth applies here. While that statement is true to me, part of tech for me is a warranted explanation of why they link, why there is an impact, and how your alternative solves this. I ran D&G my senior year of high school, and in one round I ran the Mao K, so really, no K is too out there for me. K bias – I have found myself voting for “cede the political” arguments a lot, but that is less because I super believe the argument and more because often K teams don’t articulate any kind of answer to cede the political

K v K debating – these can be strange simply because you sometimes touch on issues I care a lot about, I try and keep my biases out of these debates, but please be sure to clearly explain your impact and your solvency in relation to the other kritik, giving me a clear reason to vote for you is key to getting my ballot in these debates

T – I like T debates, I am very tech over truth here. In order to win T you must be able to prove why excluding their aff and/or why your interpretation is uniquely key for debate. I prefer limits and grounds arguments, but education and other impacts can be winners. Just make sure you explain which T impact is the most important and why. I can vote for RVI’s, but it is a steep uphill climb.

Theory – I have never voted on theory as a reason to reject the team except for one time on conditionality, and I voted there because it was a dropped argument. You have a steep uphill climb to convince me that a team running one kind of argument is enough for them to lose. That said, reject the argument is something I could vote on all the time. As long as you execute theory correctly, it is totally possible to convince me. The only exception to this rule is when the other team does something especially abusive, like being in novice and not running a novice aff or not following tournament rules in open. That said, it just being a "rule" isn't enough to convince me that you should win the round because they broke the rule, you also have to prove either that having rules is good or that the rule itself is good. If you have any questions on this please ask before the round.

FW – I think framework discusses the rules of debate and is therefore an important part of debate. That said, I do have one bias. I tend to have a hard time voting for frameworks that exclude certain types of arguments from debate. That said, it is totally a winnable argument, just know that if no framework argument is made I default to all arguments are legit and I weigh all impacts against each other.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts!

I apologize for the inconsistent fonts, but I am not getting paid enough to fix it.

Contact information: tautek@uw.edu

Feel free to contact me in the halls after a debate or by emailing me there. I am always happy and willing to help debaters, and can also email you or your coaches specific notes on your debating if you would like, just email me and request it. Emailing judges is a good way to get better at debate, and what do you know maybe I will give you some files if they are relevant ;)

The gamble – if you make any good puns during your speech, I will give you .1 speaker points for each one. However, if you make any bad puns or over used puns, I will take away .1 speaker points. Hint: Don't use the word "pun" as a pun.

I pretty much just follow my heart...

But... I`m sure both sides have some very compelling reasons for why I should decide in their favor. However, the most important factors are the WORDING of the resolution and the INTENTION of the resolution. The WORDING of the resolution is static and doesn`t leave much room for strategic interpretation. The INTENTION of the resolution can be freely explored by either side to their advantage. The only reasons that will be weighed for the decision will be those that are consistent with the WORDING of the resolution and it's INTENTION (... whatever that is.)