UW'23

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

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

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

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

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

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

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

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

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

I like direct clash.

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

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

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

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

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.

I look for a well-crafted, logical argument supported by data, well-delivered with eye contact, at a normal rate of speech. Relying on anecdotes and speaking too quickly to be easily comprehended are not favored.

I am a parent volunteer judge who professionally works in medicine/science. I look for civil arguments with great logic, command of facts, and sharp minds who can find weakness in their opponents' arguments and further debate.

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.

     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.

Thank you for reading my paradigm. Taking the additional time to study and adapt to these suggestions will increase your odds of picking up my ballot, though doing so does not *guarantee* the result you are looking for.

I have organized my paradigm into blocks, depending on the event I'm judging, as follows:

All Debate Events:
0) I make mistakes. I'm human. You make mistakes. You're human. Grace, therefiore, is rule 0. Give it and receive it. Nobody here (myself included) has the right to consider anyone else as less perfect or otherwise inferior as human beings. Therefore, all the following statements are offered not to make you feel inferior, but to show you my thought process so you can adapt to it. Nothing more or less.
1) Decorum is the ultimate a priori voting issue. I expect you to treat one another, the audience, the facilities, and the judge(s) in your round with respect at all times. In turn, you will receive my full respect as well. We've all invested time into this contest, and to disrespect it with rude, discriminatory, bigoted, intolerant, or other disruptive behavior is an insult not only to those who sacrificed to be here to support you, but to all the people who came before you to give you this opportunity.
2) Speed is NOT your friend. In order for me to understand and apply your argument to the flow, I must first be able to understand it. If I've stopped typing (or put my pen down if using paper flows), I'm probably not following your argument. If I didn't flow it, it never happened.
3) Jargon is Speed's twin... also not your friend. Dropping a bunch of debate jargon in your speech isn't effective with me. Shorthand speak is lazy debate. Don't assume I know all the meaning behind your words. If I look confused, I probably am. So, take a second and explain things.
4) Sources must be cited properly. “Jones, '22” means nothing to me if I don't know which Jones and which article you are referencing.
5) For events that allow for prep time: Prep time begins within 5 seconds of the end of the previous speech. There is no stopping prep because your tech malfunctioned, or because you need to swap thumb drive evidence. Prep ends when you start speaking.
6) Mine is the only clock in the room that matters. You can time yourself, but if I say stop, you stop.
7) If you offer a roadmap, follow it.
8) After the round: Gather your things quietly and leave so the tournament can run on time. I do not shake hands (it's a germs thing). Do not comment on the round after it's over.
9) I do not disclose results in prelim rounds. Period. Full stop. Even if the tournament requires it. I'll take the fine/punishment. I don't believe it is beneficial to anyone. I will give oral feedback IF the tournament is running on time and if I feel the teams are in a proper mental state to listen to it objectively and accept it (same goe sfor my own mental state... I may simply be too tired to engage... don't take it personally). Oral critique, if offered is UNIDIRECTIONAL. It is not a time for you to argue your case further. Doing so will be considered a decorum violation (see #1 above). I reserve the right to change my vote in the event of a post-round decorum violation - including going to tab and requesting a change in person.

Congressional Debate:
1) I'm a Registered Parliamentarian, as in I do this professionally as a paid gig. If you're thinking of challenging my knowledge of Robert's Rules, the local rules for your tournament, etc., just don't. (Not perfect, but I get this right to 5-nines of accuracy). I always study in advance and ask for complete rules lists for your Congress.
2) As a Parli, I am looking for these things in order descending order of importance: Decorum, Participation, Appropriate Use of Procedures, Advancement of Debate, Good Analysis, and Solid Speaking Skills. You scorers are judging your speeches. I can't focus on the procedures and listen to every aspect of your speech or the flow of debate.
3) Conversely, as a scorer, I am going to actually flow the debate in round, tracking the arguments Pro and Opp and looking for you to advance the debate, not merely rehash what others have said. After the argumentation, I look to style and speech quality as a secondary voter.
4) I know many of you are being taught that 30-seconds of questioning is about getting in as many questions as possible. Please resist that urge. You'll score more points with me by letting the speaker address one or two questions fully than by blasting 5 rapid fire questions. If you need 30 seconds and 5 questions to make a point, then it belongs in a speech.
5) Be engaged during the session. Side-talk, playing on your phone/computer, ignoring the speaker... I notice these things and they're heavily frowned upon (see decorum rules above).

Policy Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the team who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your team up, and the ballot is yours.
1) By default, I am a Stock Issues judge - I debated Oxford (a slightly different form of what you do today), NDT, and CEDA formats in HS and College, all of which used this time-honored and tested framework: Topicality, Inherency, Significance, Solvency, Ads/Disads. Aff must win all five. Neg needs only win one issue decisively. (Assuming a priori voters don’t come into play, which is rare).
2) I give VASTLY more weight to on-case arguments. Inherency and Solvency are my most common reasons for voting NEG. I consider Topicality a time suck unless the case is grossly non-topical. I despise debates that become pure T or just K's (or only these 2 things), and the team I feel is most to blame for creating that problem will lose my ballot every time. Significance and Inherency are the two most overlooked issues in debate today - I won over 80% of my negatives on these 2 issues as a young debater, and I miss hearing those arguments. I LOVE a good counterplan that gives a clear, net-competitive alternative to the Aff case.
3) The sole exception to #1 & 2 above is that I accept Theory arguments IF they are clearly communicated, carried all the way to the 2AR/2NR, and have DIRECT link to the round. Example: I voted once at National-level outrounds on a performative K because it dealt directly with something that occurred during prep time between the 1AC and 1NC and had a clear impact on Neg's ability to debate the round. This is a rare strategy - risky unless you can prove both the immediate root cause was the opponent and the clear impact to the round. Additionally, Presumption belongs to the Neg. Aff has a burden to present a complete Prima Facie case in the 1AC or the round is over at that point.
4) I do not read evidence unless challenged directly under the NSDA rules of evidence, and then only to determine the validity of the challenge. If I didn't hear it clearly, it didn't happen. If you think it's critical to your case, make absolutely sure I hear it.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
1) I learned LD from Minh Luong. My camp study partner/roommate was Victor Jih (founder of Victory Briefs - and yes, I'm name dropping, Victor... if you're reading this with your student, :) ). I finished 3rd at NFA Nationals in college. I am likely what you would call "old school." I've also coached TOC outrounders more than a dozen times in my career. I understand TOC-circuit style, even if I disagree with most (or all) of it.
2) LD is Values Debate. It was created expressly as a counterpoint to Policy. I will reject plan text in LD. Period.
3) A Value is (I can't believe I actually have to write this) something that has inherent, intrinsic, or physical value to you or others. Morality isnot a value. We can be moral beings because we value X, and valuing X is moral according to Y framework. But we cannot value morality by itself. If you read this, and your case has "morality" as its value, take 5 minutes of pre-round time to think of something valuable that applies to your case and value that, please. I guarantee your case has something in it you can use this way.
4) A Criterion is the philosophical or logical approach/framework that, when applied to the resolution, establishes a hierarchy of values according to some logic or philosophical consideration. If you choose not to offer one, then you agree to be measured by the standard your opponent offers. If neither offers one, then you're subject to my chosen criterion for the round in front of me. This is an unpredictable place to put my ballot in.
5) In the end, I will vote for the case that establishes, in the context of the resolution, their value to be superior by whatever criterion is the best choice within the round, supported by the arguments in the contentions offered.
6) Kritiks in LD have to be directly linked to the cases offered, or the events in round. Tenuously linked arguments will be given little or no weight in round. Generally, K's need to be established as a priori for me to even consider them.
7) Theory arguments are rare in LD. Presumption exists, and I have voted on it when the AC is clearly not prima facie valid. Beyond that, you'll probably spend more time convincing me that your specific theory argument is a priori than you could spend on case in direct clash.

Fun fact: 80% of my RFD in LD are on Value/Criterion. It's rare that a decision has to go deeper than that in justification.

Public Forum Debate:
Overview: I was coaching when PuFo was created (Ted Turner Debate was its original name). It was patterned after a TV show called Crossfire... a 30-minute show around a single topic where 4 guests debate the merits of a single issue. It was intended explicitly to be an event judged by laypersons... a default audience sitting at home on the couch watching the show. My paradigm is strongly influenced by this framing of event intent.
1) I do not keep a rigorous flow of PF rounds. I will make notes about the performance of the debaters and their key arguments during the round. But since I don't flow debates on TV talk shows at home, why would I do so here? Frankly, if I can't track 3-4 main arguments per side in my head, with a few memory notes, then I shouldn't be judging debate. And if you are making more than 3-4 main arguments per PF round, then either you're going too fast for PF or not going deep enough into each line of argument you're making. Either way... flowing is not needed in this event. It's just way too short a round for that.
2) Because I'm not flowing, clarity and simplicity in your argumentation are key (as it should be in an event designed to appeal to a lay audience). The more complex your argumentation, the more likely you're going to lose me. And my ballot. Keep it simple.
3) This isn't "Policy light." Even topics that appear policy framed (i.e. - "The US Federal Government should...") are intended to be debated point-counterpoint. Not in a plan-counterplan format.
4) Theory, policy, jargon, frameworks, etc. have no place in this event. Again, this is point-counterpoint debate. There is no presumption. The burden of proof is on whomever is raising the point. The burden of refutation is on the opposing side. And you don't automatically win by your opponent dropping an argument. If an argument is dropped, you must prove how dropping it proves fatal to your opponents’ position, or benefits yours. It could be they dropped it in favor of a stronger response on another point that wins the round.
5) Clash is required. Because there is no presumption, you don't just get to win on Con if Pro doesn't make their case. "Two ships passing" debates end up being decided on my ballot by coin flip. I've decided PF rounds on the mere appearance of clash on a single otherwise irrelevant point because neither team wanted to engage the other. Make a good debate. Engage your opponent with direct clash please.
6) Crossfire is a freely-flowing exchange. It is not cross-examination with an examiner and a respondent. Statements are not only allowed, but expected, especially in Grand Crossfire. Show off your discussion skills in these periods. It is also NOT a screaming match. If I'm getting nothing from the screaming chaos, I'll end the Crossfire... better to keep the tournament on schedule.

World Schools Debate
Unlike every other form of debate, WSD is designed to be scored. Not judged as you might traditionally expect it to be. It is possible that a team could win the arguments, but do it in such a sloppy, inelegant, derivative manner that they end up losing the round. I do not believe in low point wins in WSD.

So, how do you win my ballot in WSD? By scoring points. Here's how you do that:
1) Content (40%) - Arguments need to be: Relevant to the topic; Substantive; Deeply constructed (I'd rather hear 2 substantive arguments in 8 minutes than 4-5 weakly built arguments with limited support or limited exploration of the concept). Arguments should be properly constructed (claim, warrant, impact). Refutation should be likewise relevant, on topic, directly contrarian, and properly constructed (claim, counter-claim, warrant, impact). Evidence, when offered, should be properly cited. Analytics, when offered, should be strongly correlated to the argument being made.
2) Strategy (20%) - A good WSD case has a goal, an objective, a purpose, an agenda, a cause... however you want to word it: You're all working toward a specific goal. This is not point-counterpoint debate. There isn't any theory that requires all arguments be made in the first speech and extended. Instead, each 8-min speech is supposed to be constructive in nature. This can be done many ways, but each member of the team should playa role in developing the narrative the team is creating (and defending) as a whole. I rate you on how well you define, serve, and complete that role. For example, in a case where "This House regrets the narrative that children are the future," a good Gov team might divide the work 3 ways. Speaker 1 offers how the narrative was formed, its flawed purpose, and how structural ageism played a part in founding that narrative. Speaker 2 might extend off that into three ways the children are directly harmed from the narrative (added pressure increases anxiety, leads to suicidal behavior, etc.), citing child development theories and experts in the field. Speaker 3 might then devote an amount of time to how resolving this narrative takes pressure off our children and let's kids be kids, building a better future for us through our children, but not by applying pressure to succeed or improve out lot as adults. This isn't the only way it could be done, but is a good example. In contrast, Speaker 1 giving 5 substantive arguments then having speakers 2 and 3 extend and add more evidence is a bad strategy (often seen in CX or PF). In WSD, it doesn't work. Bottom line: The strategy should be cohesive, interconnected, defining and advancing the narrative.
3) Style (40%) - How you conduct yourself in round goes a long way toward this style score: Is the team confident, but not arrogant. Is the team professional. Are they appropriately aggressive when needed, and deferential when not. POIs go a long way to scoring in this area. POIs should be relevant to the point the speaker just made. They should be a single point, not a series of questions or statements. POI is not cross-examination. They should be brief, but contain enough content to make the point clear. They should be just frequent enough to be relevant and just infrequent enough as to not disrupt the flow of the speaker. Barracking is heavily frowned upon and will be penalized. Also, how you respond to POI affects this score as well. Each speaker should accept at least 2 POI (preferably from different opposing players), and address those points directly and substantively before moving on. Most of all, Style scores are elevanted based on how well your team tells a story - each speaker is a storyteller as much as a debater - combining argumentation skills found in LD, CX, PF with rhetoric skills found in Oratory or Expository. Wit is rewarded, but so is rich use of language. Most of all, helping your opponent understand your argument is an element of style, part of making good debate is avoiding deception or intentional confusion of your opponent. Take the time to help make it clear to them what you mean. Opponent misunderstanding affects their score and yours. It doesn't help you.

Ultimately, the goal of WSD is to engage in good debate stylistically. Yes, you do score points for content and strategy, but that is only 60% of your total score. Between two teams with equal skill in argumentation, the deciding factor on my ballot is almost always style. So make a good debate, not just winning arguments. Any good debater can win an argument. On the WSD stage, you need to do it with style.

Parliamentary Debate
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
One unique aspect of Parliamentary Debate (whether its IPDA, APDA, NPDA, NPTE, BP... doesn't matter): You get a topic assigned to you in short order before the round. Those topics can be questions of policy, value, or fact. Rather than repeat my paradigms here, consider this:
- if your topic for our round is policy-based, read my CX paradigm, then come back here.
- if your topic is values-based, read my LD paradigm and then return here.
- if your topic is fact-based, read my PF paradigm but take it with a grain of salt... PF isn't Parli stylistically. I'll address the style in a moment. However, fact-based topics lend themselves to more point-counterpoint debate style, like PF, which is why I suggest you look there first.

Once you've done that, understand this:
1) I give a bit more leeway in how deep the arguments go because of the limited prep nature of your event. However, I expect the arguments to be well constructed, cleanly delivered, complete, and properly linked to the topic or to another argument (if refuting such).
2) Speed is absolutely not your friend here. These rounds get muddy really fast, so stick to your flows and make sure I know what you're addressing when you speak. A few seconds spent clarifying why you're making the claims you are (what purpose they serve in the round narrative) are worth more than 1 full minute of spewing arguments.
3) Like in WSD, POIs are critical to advancing the debate and remaining relevant. I give a lot of weight to POI... far more than most judges on circuit, and I'm known to vote entirely off a very well made point that "sticks".
4) Points of Order - aka POIs made in the final summary speeches - will be ruled on immediately by me before the speaker may proceed. My rulings come in two forms: "Point taken" (I'm considering it), or "Point NOT taken" (I'm rejecting your argument, move on). This is important as most of the time there are no opportunities for substantive response and you need to know if I'm considering the point or not before your speech ends. The form is this: Opponent raises a point, Speaker addresses it briefly, both pause and wait for my ruling. This may be new for high school debaters, but commong on the collegiate ciruit. Wait for me, please (Note: This is ONLY for rebuttal speeches... in constructives, just keep going)
5) The gallery and backbench may express agreement or displeasure respectfully (low groan, brief muttering, or light tapping/knocking), but never with anything substantive (no shouting any content or arguments). If this becomes a problem or distraction, I will stop it. If I intervene once, there will be no audience reaction permitted for the rest of the round.
6) The prima facie case for the resolution must be made, introducing and framing the topic, plus enough argumentation to fully justify the case on its own, by the Prime Minister (PM - aka Gov/Prop speaker #1). Presumption applies... if the case is not sufficient on its merit, I will vote Opp and the round is over from that point on. This is rare... but consider this before you decide to run some performative AFF case with no relevant discussion of the resolution.
7) LIkewise, the Leader of Opposition (LO, aka Opp speaker #1) must establish the grounds on which the Gov team has misstepped in its support of the resolution. Once prima facie is met by team Gov, BUrden of Refutation applies to the Opposition. If the opposition doesn't directly clash with the actual case brought by Team Gov, I will vote for Gov and the round is over from my perspective.
(Note: When I say the round is over, I'll usually shut my laptop to signal my decision is entered. You can do with that information what you will. As long as my laptop is open, I'm flowing and writing notes and my ballot is active).

Summary:
Make it easier for me to vote for you than your opponent, and you'll have my ballot. Be clear. Be concise. Focus on case-related arguments. Engage with your opponent and clash. Be polite and courteous. Respect me, my position, and my decisions. Respect your opponent(s). If you have a question about my work in round, feel free to ask. I'm happy to explain. But don't argue with me - in round or afterward. Accept the explanation and move on.

Most of all, have fun. Nothing in our round is worth stressing out about. Someone will win. Someone will lose. Do what you can and be satisfied with your effort, if not the result.

Former: Congressional debate, oratory, extemporaneous speaking, world schools w/ Mount Vernon.

Currently a student at Western Washington University, studying Urban Planning and Sustainable Development - that means I'll be a little more knowledgeable on housing, zoning, transit, land use, and similar issues.

Congress:

Please don't rehash.

I should hear refutation as soon as the 1st neg.

Ihate when we spend an hour-plus on each bill. I would much prefer an individual speak on less bills but prioritize speaking on the bills they know the most about. Of course, I know that this isn't how congress normally goes.

Don't be bigoted. Congress, for some reason, seems to love being bigoted. Don't.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. Question answering/giving - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like

5. Congressional BS - take charge in the chamber! Be the one introducing motions, calling for votes, etc. (I'll also knock you for dumb BS like amendments that derail the debate)

For POs: be efficient in the chamber and courteous to your fellow congresspeople.

Worlds:

Remember that worlds is aworld event. I should hear evidence, arguments, and statistics from world sources. Eurocentrism bad.

Cite sources in speech or be prepared to source when weighing statistics or arguments.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. POIs - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like. I'll note if someone is asking too many POIs, accepting too many, not accepting any, etc.

A good number of POIs accepted per speech is 2-3, a good number asked is roughly 1 every 30 seconds. A good rule of thumb (for me) is enough asked to annoy the other team but not annoy the judge.

Any new refutation introduced in the 4 won't be considered. Elaboration on previous examples if fine in the 3, but I shouldn't be hearing new information.

Slow down. Presentationally, worlds is somewhere in-between congress and pufo.

POIs are not CX. there is no back-and-forth, and they can be statements. (if anything, statement POIs can be better as they tend to trip up the speaking team)

Speeches:

Calm, clear speaking. Well-researched points. If you believe you know what you're talking about, then I will too.

Extemp/impromptu/similar: Within reason, I'm fine with short time if it means you aren't repeating yourself for 30 seconds.

Speech Events:

Here's a glimpse into how I evaluate performances and the key elements I pay attention to when scoring speech events (and speaking in general):

Content:

• Depth and Originality: Are you engaging with the topic thoughtfully? Do you offer fresh perspectives and insights? Do you demonstrate research and understanding of the issue?

• Argumentation (if applicable): Do you build a clear and logical argument? Do you address opposing viewpoints fairly and effectively? Do you use evidence effectively to support your claims?

• Organization and Structure: Is your speech well-organized, with a strong introduction, body, and conclusion? Is there a clear flow of ideas? Does each point contribute to your overall message?

• Technical: How did the content and structure of your speech perform against the requirements of your speech event? Did you stay within the rules and guidelines of the speech event?

Delivery:

• Vocal Variety and Control: Do you use dynamic vocal volume, pitch, and pace to keep your audience engaged? Are your pronunciations clear and understandable? Did you minimize the use of filler words?

• Nonverbal Communication: Do your gestures and facial expressions enhance your message or distract from it? Do you use movement strategically to increase engagement and to emphasize transitions? Do you maintain eye contact with your audience?

• Stage Presence: Do you command the stage with confidence and poise? Do you appear comfortable and engaging?

Engagement:

• Audience Connection: Do you connect with your audience on an emotional and intellectual level? Do you evoke a response, whether it's thought-provoking questions, amusement, or inspiration?

• Authenticity: Did you bring authenticity to the speech (unless playing a character)? Did you bring your unique voice and style to the speech?

• Stage Presence: Do you use storytelling, rhetorical devices, or humor to capture and hold the audience's attention?

Overall Impression:

• Impact: Did your speech leave a lasting impression, was the speech memorable? Did it make me think differently about the topic? Did it inspire me to take action? Did you deliver a great opening and a strong close?

• Adherence to Time Limit: Were you able to effectively convey your message within the allotted time frame?

Please Note:

• My primary focus is on content and argumentation (if applicable). However, delivery and engagement play an important role in enhancing the impact of your message.

• I value originality, humor (if appropriate), and creativity, but not at the expense of clarity and logic.

• I strive to provide constructive feedback that helps you improve your skills and develop as a speaker.

Additionally:

• Remember, every speaker has a unique voice and style. I try to judge each performance on its own merits, appreciating your strengths and recognizing areas for improvement.

• Regardless of the outcome, cherish the opportunity to share your voice and perspective. I'm here to support your growth as communicators.

Congress:

Here's a glimpse into how I evaluate performances and the key elements I pay attention to when scoring Congressional Debate:

Substance and Argumentation:

• Policy Understanding: Do you demonstrate a clear and deep understanding of the bill/resolution under debate? Can you clearly articulate its strengths and/or weaknesses?

• Grasp of the Issue: Do you demonstrate a deep understanding of the resolution and its complexities? Are you familiar with relevant facts, statistics, and historical context?

• Argument Clarity: Do you present your arguments in a logical and organized manner? Are your positions well-defined and supported by evidence?

• Unique Evidence & Arguments: Did you bring a unique perspective to the debate supported by unique evidence (in the relative context of the debate)?

• Rebuttal and Amendment Skills: Can you effectively respond to opposing arguments and strengthen your own case? Do you demonstrate the ability to craft and advocate for amendments?

• Policy Implications: Can you articulate the potential impact of the bill/resolution on constituents and the broader society? Do you consider unintended consequences?

Delivery and Engagement:

• Persuasion and Advocacy: Can you effectively deliver your arguments with conviction and passion? Do you connect with your colleagues and persuade them to your point of view?

• Utilization of Questions: Did you ask questions that advanced your argument? Did you engage courteously in your question exchange allowing your opponent to respond?

• Courtesy and Respect: Do you treat your fellow delegates with respect and courtesy, even when disagreeing with their positions?

• Active Listening and Collaboration: Do you actively listen to others' arguments and engage in constructive dialogue? Are you open to compromise and collaboration? Were you able to bring others' arguments (either rebutting or supporting) into your questions and speeches?

• Parliamentary Procedure: Do you demonstrate a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure? Do you follow the rules and contribute to a smooth debate flow?

Overall Impact:

• Leadership: Do you demonstrate leadership qualities, such as initiative, decisiveness, and the ability to inspire others?

• Policy Expertise: Do you stand out for your in-depth knowledge and understanding of the policy area under discussion?

• Contribution to the Debate: Do you actively engage in the debate, contribute meaningfully to the discussion, and move the chamber closer to a resolution?

Please Note:

• My primary focus is on substance, argumentation, and policy expertise. However, effective delivery, engagement, and adherence to parliamentary procedure are crucial for success.

• I value the quality of the evidence and data provided to the debate.

• I value originality and creativity in crafting arguments and solutions, but not at the expense of logic and clarity.

• I value participation, but not for the sake of participation. I do count the number of questions asked, but particularly value pointed, clear questions that advance your argument and will note these questions delivered in a round.

• My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps you develop your skills as a mock congress debater and future leader.

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

Hello, our names are Kiana and Margaret and co-judging today. What we like to see in the rounds are concise and well spoken debaters who speak clearly. As you already know the ideas doesn't matter, just that they are backed with sources and argued well. Goodluck!

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.

My name is Scott and I look forward to judging the debate today. I listen for speakers who speak clearly and concisely and have well-developed sources. I look for speakers who argue their points convincingly.

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