Hi, I'm Pepper Berry, and my pronouns are they/them.

My email if you need it: pberry@seattleu.edu

I've been a debater for five years and I am currently a debater at Seattle University doing British parliamentary.

I have done four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate, about a year of Policy debate, and a tiny bit of public forum. as well as Informative, Impromptu, and Poetry slam.

I am okay with speed within speeches, but you need to be clear. If you are not clear, I cannot flow it. I would much prefer the quality of arguments over quantity, especially for complex arguments.

I will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, counter plans, framework, theory, etc. as long as they are explained well.

4 Year LD National competitor, 4 year state Congress competitor (made finals and placed in top 10, 3 of those years, made semis the other year), 2 year NIETOC Extemp competitor. Current WWU debater in CARD/PNW debate. I debated traditional, even in circuit debate, so it is my preference but I will judge whatever you present to me with an open mind.

This is a communication sport, I need to be able to understand you without reading your documents.

Be kind to each other, I don't tolerate unnecessary aggression.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

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.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

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. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

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 All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

As a judge, I value heterodox thinking and fundamental debate over merely rearranging ideas. I encourage students to express their thoughts and ideas openly, without self-censorship or conformity to perceived expectations. No one should be shamed for holding an unpopular opinion; it is through the free exchange of ideas that we can approach truth.

Coming from the entertainment industry, I appreciate lively and engaging presentations. I enjoy when students speak with enthusiasm and ensure clarity in their delivery (eg. project your voice and enunciate clearly). Given my lay judge status and limited experience, I appreciate when speakers take care to speak slowly and clearly to ensure understanding.

I like to reward those who:

Cite sources

Call each other by name and are polite

Have good rebuttals

Have good hooks

Don’t rehash or repeat

Have good listening skills

In summary, I prioritize genuine expression, spirited debate, and effective communication. I believe that embracing diverse perspectives and encouraging free speech principles are essential for fostering intellectual growth and discovering truth.

It’s always an honor to be of service to the NSDA :-)

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 am the Speech + Debate Team Coordinator for St Luke School (Middle School) in Shoreline,WA (speechteam@stlukeshoreline.org)

For Speech Events:

First and foremost - enjoy your experience! It's commendable that you're at the tournament and willing to try!

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

For Debate:

I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I appreciate a well-thought out argument with spot on cards that prove your point. A sharp cx/crossfire with corresponding follow up arguments is a great technique that will also earn higher points from me.

Speed is OK, but clarity is of the utmost importance. I often find some high school debaters value speed too much, in turn sacrificing clarity and emphasis. Speaking quickly is a strategy, just as selecting which arguments or case you present.You may know what you're saying, but if it's unintelligible, it's not going to be a determining factor on my ballot.

Do your best to organize your speeches - indexing/signposting makes it easier to flow and follow your speech path. Please don't just read a bunch of cards and expect me to organize them for you, nor determine where they go.

I will listen to almost any argument and weigh it based on the scales that you - the debaters - create for me in the round. I may not personally like it, but if you win the argument, I'll consider it in the context you've defined.

I expect everyone to be respectful and considerate. Everyone wants to win, but it should also be fun. Really!

Couple of notes.

*It is okay to pause to take a deep breath.

*Try to stick with 3 or 4 points that bolster your case. For me, judging is about having thirst for knowledge on a topic. Blasting me with a firehose of data doesn't necessarily quench my thirst.

*I am currently working in a high school library, which I love. Yay books!

I am active in the competitive storytelling community -- like The Moth, for example. In fact, I have won six Moth story slams. Prior to moving to the Seattle area, I lived in New York, worked on Wall Street and hosted The Dawn Patrol, a financial news show in Times Square.

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.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

trad parent judge.

truth > tech to some extent, i don't vote for obviously untrue or undeveloped arguments. this doesn't mean you can drop a whole contention and win.

no tricks, no incomprehensible spreading, speed talking (think podcast on 2.0) is good. kritiks, theory, and phil are fine if you can explain them in a way a toddler would understand and be extremely persuasive while doing it. very few debaters are capable of this, so i would suggest just not running them.

i'm fine with theory that i think is warranted. be warned that i have a very high bar for warranted (think 'went two minutes overtime for prep and dropped my entire case' rather than 'actor spec'). predictability > education >>> fairness. i need you to thoroughly explain which layer of the debate i should evaluate your theory on and how it should be weighed against substance. i default to dta and it's very difficult to convince me otherwise.

responding to theory-- i don't need a counter-interp. the majority of theory shells can be defeated via a twenty second explanation of reasonability.

i'll vote on ANYTHING if you're persuasive enough. if you can convince me that spreading six conditional counterplans and a floating pik against a novice at their first tournament is predictable, educational, and fair, i'll vote on it.

confidence is key, talk well and there's a decent chance you'll have my ballot. in speaks, i usually give 29 to the winner of a round and 27-28 to the loser.

i make a point to put my full effort into every round. i think this is an activity that takes a lot of effort and you all should be proud of yourselves for even showing up to tournaments.

Hi! I'm Chase (He/Him), senior and co-captain of limited prep at Newport

Speech events can be nerve-wracking, but it gets better with time! Try to enjoy the process and remember the other competitors are also new and probably stressed out. Feel free to have fun with your speech! The most fun speeches for me are the ones where you can tell the speaker is also having fun. Although, make sure to keep things tasteful: any misogynistic/racist/homophobic remarks will not be tolerated and will be taken into consideration for ranking.

Ranking factors (I wrote these thinking about Impromptu, but they apply elsewhere!)

• Structure: Is your speech easy to follow, well-paced, and well-put together? How well do you transition from to and from each idea?
• Content: How detailed are your examples? Do your points build on each other? How does it all tie together?
• Presentation: Are you making eye contact? Using your hands effectively to convey your ideas? Refraining from using filler words? Are you projecting well enough to be heard clearly?
• Theme: Does your speech have an idea you are working towards? A central idea or message you can convey to the audience while still having unique non-repetitive points? (This one can be tricky!)

15 is my base-line for speaker points. Additional points will be added for clarity, variety in tone, and confidence.

Extra: You get a digital cookie if you can do one or more of the following

• Reference an animated series in your speech
• Make an unexpected connection
• Encourage other competitors

You've got this and have fun! Don't be too hard on yourself after a round, speech is a learning experience and you usually did better than it feels like!

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

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.

As the assistant coach of the Eastside Prep debate team, I am new to judging Upper School/High School debates, but I have consistently been judging PF and Speech this winter. During the debates, I pay close attention to each speaker and team, taking notes on the contentions and refutations presented and supported with evidence. It is crucial to explain your contentions and their refutations in a way that anyone can understand. You should speak as though you are convincing someone else, not yourself. Speaking faster and louder does not necessarily make you more convincing. When judging debates, I appreciate it when debaters explain their points and how the evidence relates to the overall position. Off-time roadmaps are unnecessary if your statement is well-organized and presented clearly. It should be evident that you understand your side, the contentions, and the evidence, rather than just referencing sources or reading from cards. During the debates, it is essential to demonstrate consistent communication with your teammate and build off each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite and respectful, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to explain the sides of the topic, engage in the arguments, and seek understanding through a clear explanation of the evidence and the significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Hello.

I am Avery Horton, and I use she/they pronouns.

I did LD for 3 years and policy for 1. I'm a Freshman at Willamette University, and I'm part of the debate union doing parli.

put me on the email chain: ashorton@willamette.edu

I promise I'm not a K hack, despite how this paradigm reads.

Pref (this is just over what I like to see in round, I'll vote off anything):

K - 1

Performance/K affs - 1

Theory - 1/2

LARP - 1/2

Phil - 1/2

Tricks - 3

tech > truth

I'll vote on basically anything, just run what you're best at.

General:

Just run whatever case is strategic against your opponent as long as the strategy isn't JUST outspreading them.

Please put your framework at the top of your case -- I won't dock you for having it at the bottom, but its pointless and it bugs me.

Ks

I love K's but I don't hack for them, especially since a lot of (TOC) debaters don't know what they're doing and don't actually understand the arguments they're making.

Theory

I'll vote on basically any theory if its not directly violent

LARP

Be interesting. I'll vote for larp, just debate well and know your case well.

Tricks

I'm most likely to vote off arguments that are really towing the line between tricks and friv theory, like make sure you have actual warrants that can be contested. I'm most prone to buying moral a prioris (especially when in the framework and not an underview).

I hate tricks walls and think they're abusive. Don't run more than like 5 tricks args in a speech, and even then its iffy.

Good luck.

I would consider myself a traditional speech judge. I am very comfortable judging all interp, public address/platform, and limited prep events. I have competed, judged, and coached at all levels (middle school, high school, and collegiate) and am open to the many styles of interp/performance.

As a judge, the thing that matters most to me is that your performance choices are intentional/purposeful. I want to feel like the choices you make are driven by the text. While I appreciate super cool tech/transitions and visually interesting blocking BIG TIME, I also don't like blocking for blocking's sake. If you are incorporating sound effects, etc. in your HIs and DUO/Duet transitions, they need to make sense and have artistic purpose.

Intros matter.

In all speech events, I am looking for the performer to truly CONNECT with their audience. This is just as true (perhaps even more so) for virtual performances. I like polished/clean performances that also feel conversational and authentic. I should always feel as if this is the first time you've spoken these words.

I am pretty picky about clean binder technique in binder events. Your binder tech (sloppy pages turn, etc.) should never pull my focus. This does not mean I don't LOVE cool binder tricks/additions to enhance POI/PR/POE performances. As long as they are clean/polished/purposeful, bring it on! :)

For Platform/Limited Prep Events, I am looking for solid structure (intro, preview/roadmap, conclusion, etc.), good variety of current sources, depth of analysis, and clean/fluent delivery. While delivery is certainly important, a few small fluency issues in limited prep won't bother me - I would ultimately prefer a speech with a strong analysis of the topic that isn't canned.

Overall, just try to have fun, take pride in sharing your stories, and I will have fun with you! :)

Hi,

I'm a new parent judge without much experience. English is not my native language, so please do not spread and speak clearly. I prefer clear organization, strong evidence and good summary.

Thank you

Experience - 2 years coaching/judging, debate in high school, Civics/government/history teacher (law and government classes/debate in college)

Look Fors - In-depth understanding of evidence being presented and of topic, respectful and scholarly approach to debate tactics and ability to explain yourself throughly without having too much repetition. Also - limited to no historical inaccuracies.

EXPERIENCE

I'm a parent judge.

I will likely vote down on you if you run a bunch of arguments using fancy terms that I'm not familiar with.

LD

I have some knowledge of what LD debate is.

From my understanding, LD debate should a traditional debate that mainly argues the morals/ethics of a resolution. DO NOT run a progressive case or a policy case, if I hear a Plan, CP, DA, or a K, I will vote against you. Keep that in Policy realm.

Speed should be at a conversational rate, DO NOT spread in LD round. If I can't understand you because you spoke too fast, I will vote against you.

I prefer debaters sharing their cases before the speech so that I can follow, but if you are going to speak clearly and slowly, I don't mind.

Provide a clear framework and weighing mechanism in the round as to why I should vote for you! I especially enjoy the round that are heavily packed with the observation and analysis of ethics/morals of the resolution. Don't just spend all of your time reading cards, actually make an argument!

Feedbacks will be provided on tabroom, instead of giving it verbally. And I won't disclose my ballot after the round.

High speaker points go to a debater who give me a clear and convincing voters and arguments that I can comprehend and follow.

Reasons why I will vote for you:

• Gave me a well constructed argument with valid warrants that has credible source.
• A clear framework that tells me why I should vote for you.
• Structured rebuttals-I prefer you not just reading cards and not explaining why it is important.
• Good impact or framework clash in the round.
• Arguments were logical and backed with evidence + warrants with credible source.
• Some things for you to keep in mind:

*Roadmaps/signposts are helpful

*I am more likely to vote for a smaller number of coherent/well-explained arguments over a multitude of rapidfire/scattershot arguments

*Speak at a speed suitable for a parent judge. If I can follow your opponent's arguments, but not yours.. then I will vote for your opponent.

*Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) when you start a tag

Reasons why I will vote against you:

• Spread in the round.
• Was disrespectful to judge/opponent.
• Arguments were disoriented and muddled.
• Presented logical fallacies and made contradictions to your own argument.
• No clear framework for a debate.
• Aggressive and yelled during the speeches.
• Ran a policy case, DA, K, CP, Plan, etc.

I'm a parent judge.

I understand that as one debate judge, I need to convey the significance and importance of competitive integrity to all members of our community, in the interest of maintaining the high standard of conduct. I will try my best to support your interests in debate.

A Little About Me:

My name is Mike Liu, being in the Bellevue High Class of 2024. My main event is Congress (which I went to state for) and I have also qualified to nationals in International Extemp. While I do understand LD and PF, I have not competed in either style of debate (asides from one tournament in PF).

Congress Paradigm

-Try to not rehash. If you quantify with evidence or further the argument of a fellow senator on your side, I'd be glad to hear your argument. Please just don't give canned speeches 5th cycle into the round.

-If you are making first aff/first neg please refer to solvency (what will this bill do?)

-Don't be pretentious and condescending to your fellow competitors

-Neg shouldn't make the argument "this is a resolution so no solvency" or "this phrase in article I section a is badly phrased" or "where we get the money", these stock arguments, while valid, become repetitive and boring. Debate on the bill itsself

-Don't spread (needless to say, but I've seen people do this in congress rounds regardless)

-Walk around the room and engage with your fellow senators while speaking (like in extemp)! This will drastically improve your speeches

-Don't ask evidence-checking questions in CX (this is lame, exception is if their evidence seems waaayyyy too sus)

-Gauge the chamber

-refer to ur fellow senators in your speeches

-Give roadmap in beginning/end

-I won't necessarily dock you points for not making as many speeches as other competitors, especially if you have great arguments and bad recency. However, if you make bad use of your recency and don't speak when given the clear opportunity to do so, I will ding you slightly

PF Paradigm

-Reminder I don't have deep knowledge of your topics, so please introduce the topic in a way that I can understand

-Consider me a flay judge but smol brained and with the same knowledge as the slightly-above-average educated American

-Don't spread unless you are able to do so without sacrificing clarity (but still don't go the speed of natcirc policy kids)

-Card checking eats into prep

-No new cards in summary and final focus

-Trad judge pls dont run Ks and DAs

-Not a big fan of extinction/nuclear war impacts, if you run this with a weak linkchain (which is often the case) I will probably drop you

-If your opponent de-links you then thats a massive oof

-Give me voters in Final Focus

LD Paradigm

-pretty much same as PF

-Don't spread at all really in LD, even more so than PF because of my small congress brain

-Makes ur values clear

-idk i havent dont ld befire

They put me in SPAR sometimes and fyi i judge on a mix of entertainment value and also PF style weighing (I think its funny)
(I dont flow cross in SPAR but it is very funny)

Hello, student judge here. I've been competing for the past few years in both speech and debate, so I know the events pretty well. I've also judged before so I have some judging experience.

I hope that this goes without saying but please be kind and respectful to all your opponents/judges, and do not be discriminatory, disrespectful, or rude in any way.

Debate:

• I don't mind if you spread, but please speak clearly. If I can't understand it, I probably won't consider it, and neither will your opponent. I prefer quality over quantity, and having one or two strong points is better than several scattered ones.
• Please make sure to cover all your and your opponents' points in your final speeches/rebuttals. There should be lots of clash, especially during cross and rebuttals.
• Please, at the end, state why you think you should win. Voters are very helpful.
• Framework is very important so be ready to explain why your framework should win/is better.
• Please keep your arguments reasonable and realistic, especially when it comes to impacts.
• Roadmapping and a well-organized argument are very helpful both to me and your opponent.
• Don't bring up new arguments in rebuttals.
• Please explain your arguments well and with reason; don't just throw out a bunch of information without tying it together and back to the resolution.
• I'll vote on most things if they're well-backed by evidence, reasonable, and explained well.

Thank you, and have a good round!

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

I competed in high school at several events and went to the state tournament in Idaho at Boise. I love to judge IE and take it very seriously. I make an effort to decide my rankings and give very detailed feed back. My husband is the Mercer Island coach.

The key to explaining your reasoning to me lies in precision and continuity.

1. When you state facts or provide evidence, ensure you have sufficient granularity to make your point. Eg. “Half the world is male. Therefore, half the students in computer science can be safely assumed to be male.” Insufficient granularity to make the assumption. I consider this a "leap of faith."

2. Once you have established a fact, show me why it is relevant - without link it might look like "data salad" to me. I might not see what you feel is obvious. So state the obvious to make sure we are on the same page and path of reasoning.

3. Ensure your argument is closely reasoned. Well reasoned descriptions go a lot farther at convincing people than a tirade of random bits of evidence.

4. Cross & Grand: Your cross should cover all points raised in opponent's contentions. I have little choice but to favor contentions that are not refuted unless I believe them to be outright false. Listen to your opponents so you can surgically refute or challenge opponent's arguments. If you can’t cover all contentions due to time, then I will take that into consideration as well.

Remember, we are all here to learn. My goal is to be fair and give you feedback, not as criticism that cost you points - chances are it didn’t - but as a way to help you broaden your thinking, sharpen your focus, or help you articulate a position more effectively. Enjoy. This is a great journey you are on. I hope with my feedback you are able to discover how to better leverage that great factory in your brain.

My name is Robin Monteith and I am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my 7th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture, but with enough specifics to understand the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

Briefly, I tend to be a tabula rasa judge. Overall I favor evidence, and prefer speech clarity to rushed speech.

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

Hello, I am a parent judge and have judged for a few L.D. tournaments, started judging in 2022. New to Public Forum.

Please speak slowly and clearly, I appreciate road maps.

Please avoid Kritiks, Theory, PICS, if you do, I may not understand.

Thank you and good luck.

Hello. I am a lay parent judge with no prior judging experience. English is my first language.

Please speak at a reasonable/slow pace so I can actually track your arguments. If you speak too fast for me to understand something, I will not write it down. Please do not be rude to me or one another. No debate jargon. Be clear and confident. Speaking matters.

Make your arguments make sense to me. Explain the logic of your argument and exactly why I should vote for you over the other team. If I do not understand an argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

I highly encourage offtime roadmaps, as they make it easier for me to track your speeches. Please signpost as well, so I can tell which point you are responding to.

Have fun!

I am a parent judge so I am new to doing LD and Debate.

In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech. Off time road maps are helpful as well as signposting.
I don't prefer speed at all, always quality over quantity..
As for different types of debates such as traditional, theory, K debate etc. Just make sure to explain what I should be looking for as I am not familiar with most types of progressive arguments. Also, I don't have any preferences for arguments but I will require more tech for arguments such as nuclear war compared to arguments such as recession.

Finally, during Cross X you as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.

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.

Experience:

Rising Senior at Interlake High School

I am a flow judge.

Debated for 4 years:

- 4 years in public forum on the local and national circuit (Qualified for Nationals and TOC)

- 2 years in parliamentary (wasn't that good)

Preferences:

Speed:

I don't care how fast you speak as long as you are clear and what you are saying makes sense. If you intend on spreading, check with your opponents and be sure to send me a speech doc @ ishansinha2004@gmail.com

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, I don't have a preference. Give analysis on why your weighing mechanism is more valuable because it makes it SO EASY to sign my ballot i.e. severity is more important than magnitude so even if they win their entire case we still outweigh.

- If there is a specific policy being implemented i.e. UBI or Price Controls, I prefer a two worlds analysis. If the resolution does not specify a policy i.e. Increase Nuclear Power, I prefer a voters analysis.

Things I HATE:

- I love giving feedback and talking with excited debaters, but I am strongly against post-rounding/ pre-rounding. If I feel like you are trying to influence my decision after or before the round, it will result in an instant loss and 20 speaks.

- Debate is inclusive, everyone should have fun! I am strongly against sensitive issue cases i.e. anything to do with domestic violence, sex trafficking, etc.. It makes it sufficiently more difficult for your opponents to refute without looking like an ahole. HOWEVER, if you check with your opponents and they are okay with it, I will flow it normally.

- I HATE miscut evidence. While bad evidence may not completely sign my ballot, it will be reflected with a -1.5 in your speaks. I will call for evidence if 1) I feel that it may be misrepresented 2) If someone asks me to

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

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.

I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.

I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.

As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 25 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.

Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.

I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.

I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.

I am humanity-centered. I know you will be running theories, hypotheticals, and extrapolating a significant amount, but remember, these topics affect real people. If you run cases that dismiss the humanity of the topic or dismiss the humanity of any specific group of people, your score will reflect omission.

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

consider me a flay judge, I'll flow but I most likely won't catch everything

- I have to write feedback, I'll flow constructive on paper, don't worry I'm still listening when I type feedback after constructive speeches

- please be kind in cross, but don't let the other team walk over you. I like a heated cross, but no insults thrown pls ????????

- I don't flow cross, but I'm listening

- no Ks or anything crazy, I'm not tryna work my brain too hard

- NO MUMBLE RAPPING or else I will start crying and throwing up in round and make ur speaks 0

- please interact with the opponent's case, don't assume I know everything you're talking about, and WEIGH

- truth>tech

- be kind and have fun, bring me food or compliment me every time u start prep for +1 speaks (u can tell me my hair looks nice or smth)

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.

My name is Astrid (they/them), and I did speech (info and extemp) all 4 years in High School in the Montana circuit, did 2 years of college level NPDA debate, winning Novice Nationals in 2018, and now coach all events at the high school level. I'm excited to judge!

All Events: Avoid gendered language when possible or addressing the crowd. Let me know if you have any time signals you'd like. Have fun, and respect yourself and others. Self advocate for acommodations when possible!

Congress: In a congress debate, I am looking for adaptability and cleverness. A good congressional debater is one who can play the room, find incisive questions that make speakers sweat, and understand the motions that control the pace of the debate space. Congress is best when it's about the details, both of the arguments and of the procedure. Debaters should be able to expand upon their prepared material AND approach new materials/bills with excitement.

In other debates, there is a skill called telling the "story of the ballot." In congress, that is giving a clear and cohesive summary of the argument about a bill and trying to tell the room why it's best to vote the way you're advocating for. The best congress debaters do that with ease.

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESOLUTION AND A BILL. Please.

I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm pretty good at speed, I've spread-ed my fair share in my day, but I'm a slow writer. For the sake of detail and understanding I may call out "slow" or "clear" when I need it. Please go slower when you're not reading a card so I can keep up.

I'm a big fan of FW debate, impact calculus, and interesting/lesser known philosophy. Watch yourself on colonialism Ks and anything to do with disability/marginalization; I love love love hearing these arguments, but often debaters end up speaking on behalf of marginalized people in unfortunate ways.

In your final speeches, give me clear voters with a story that carries me throughout the flow so I know what the heck is up. Throughout your speech, signpost WHERE we are on the flow.

I weigh theory debates about accessibility and basic respect (misgendering, accessibility around speed, disclosure/wiki etc.) are weighed very heavily for both sides. Evoke them VERY carefully. I care a lot about access to the event. I weigh procedural arguments first unless given a reason not to.

Run stuff you love and what you think is fun.

if you must email a case, email it to alecwillis00@gmail.com

All Speech Events: Move around! Explore the space! Don't get happy feet (shift from foot to foot as if anxious), but don't plant yourself in front of your phone. I value a kind of energy that takes up the whole space. I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Extemporaneous: I count sources and it contributes to my ranking. I generally like to hear the "out there" questions I know less about, but remember that I might not of heard anything about the topic! Give some preliminary info (which is a great place to stuff in more sources).

Impromptu/SPAR: Explore the space! Have fun! You're in a funny event, make jokes and smile. I love a nice, concise lesson that ties your points together. For Spar, I love having a passion or conviction that is far outside of what is normally considered for such funny topics. I want to feel like you care more about the topic than anything in the world (for both events).

Informative:I will be counting puns and it will contribute to both my ranking and my speaker point allocation. Most puns = 20 speaks no questions asked

• I flow

• Im okay with speed, I am not okay with mumble rapping

• run wtv u want just keep in mind I will unlikely vote for tricks or frivolous theory

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

Rabula Tesla, BS>truth>tech, I define BS as any words that come out of my mouth so please quote me to win.

Second re-bundle must line-front and first summary must extend deed feces.

I will literally be weighing your arguments in a round by bringing in a scale. Print out your cases and put them onto the scale. Whoever’s arguments weigh heavier are the ones I will look to first. The same applies to extensions. Every time you extend an argument, please stretch the argument on the piece of paper or else it will not be evaluated. Longer extensions win rounds. As for collapsing, sadly the tournament told me I cannot encourage kids to faint in rounds. Sorry. No collapsing in my rounds or else I will have to report you to tab for my own safety.

Speed:

Unfortunately, with my debate experience, I have developed a fervent dislike of normal speed speeches. If you don't go over 300 wpm, i will give you very low speaks.

Progressive:

As a flay congressional debater, I do not understand Prog. However, I do understand Pog, so if you can yell pog as many times as you read your progressive arguments, I will vote on them. (Example: a is the pog interp, debaters must not poggly paraphrase. B is the pog violation: they paraphrased poggly.)

Speaks:

I believe everything in life has to be earned step by step so speaks start at a prompt 0 and go up .01 for everything you did that I liked. If you have ever done the wonderful art known as congressional debate, your speaks will start at promptly -1. This is a simulation for the real world in which nothing will come easily.

Cross: Debate is an activity that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you WILL have people who yell at you when they ask questions. So naturally, you MUST be louder to win those confrontations. Thus, whoever yells louder in cross will get +5 speaker points.

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

Speaker points:

26 - below average

27 - average

28 - better than average

29 - get into elimination rounds

30 - one of the best debaters at the tournament.

Honestly anything is fine