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.

No spreading, can follow moderate speed.

Traditional preferred, no Ks or Theory.

Huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

Will look for: strong, supported contentions. Supported V/VC. Clash. Clear voters. Clear impacts.

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.

Debate good, me vote

I will vote off of anything as long as it makes sense

Please bear in mind that event records are public, events are geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in you being removed. Tabroom might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

feel free to ask for more feedback later

Parent Lay Judge

Please speak slowly and clearly, english is second language so please avoid jargon.

please keep the debate simple and slow and make your points clear.

I'm a sophomore who has been doing LD for 2 years.

Main things that will be judged in this round will be based off argumentation and rhetoric

Rhetoric

-Stay respectful, but still make it clear that your side is the one that I should vote and show confidence that you are winning this debate

-Don't exactly make the other side look bad, per say, but make sure it's clear to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for me to vote for the other side (your arguments greatly trump and defeat theirs)

-Cross Examination: Instead of just clarifying questions, try to put some in that "poke holes" in your opponent's contention

Argumentation

-Clear and concise argumentation is greatly appreciated

-Clash: Show how your argumentation directly defeats theirs

-Dropped: Show what they didn't respond to and how that affects the debate as a whole

-Framework/Value: Point out how yours works better as a framework or whatever flaws theirs has

I generally will value tech. If something is unresponded to or doesn't fit the standards of LD, I will generally give that point to the person who made the argument. Truth still matters, obviously. Don't say anything obviously false, and you're good.

I am a 2nd time parent judge.

Please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying I will tell you to speak slower.

Please don't run anything progressive (theory, k's, etc.)

I like clear persuasive arguments and evidence.

Please be respectful in round.

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!

he/him Lewis and Clark '21 Western Washington 25' (taking time off right now but I've debated CX for 6yrs in high school and college)

General

Please title email chains with this information: "[Tournament][Round #][Your Team Code and School] (aff) vs [Opponent Team Code and School]"

jonathan.dodge.crowley@gmail.com

I have some old fashioned tendencies: I flow on paper, I think lots of theory violations are good reasons to vote, judge kick needs to be in the neg block, and you could probably get a presumption ballot out of me if you have evidence and explain why that kind of ballot is good.

I have the most experience with guerilla debate tactics like process counterplans, complex topicality debates, and kritiks from high-theory and political science perspectives. I am disproportionately good (on both sides) for debates about capitalism, morals, the value of life, and information-based persuasion/politics.

Framework is a good choice in more types of debates than you may think (like against the politics DA) but you need reasons to prefer your concept of fairness and education. Ultimately it's a question of what debate can do and why that's valuable.

I am serious about equity and inclusion in education. I want debaters to take the time to consider the way they promote positive learning experiences for themselves and their competitors. I'm not a good judge for strategic vitriol. I will not adjudicate out-of-round behavior but I will absolutely be your advocate with tabroom and other institutions if anyone is putting you in dangerous/harmful situations.

That's what I have to say. I like debate and care deeply about debaters. I don't want to over-promise or get too specific because the debate belongs to you and I'm reserving the right to change my mind and grow. That being said, I am always flattered to answer your questions :^)!

Yay debate!

LD

I've competed in most events but never LD for some reason. I respect the format a lot and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My CX experience means I'll likely be more comfortable with progressive debate. That said, I think values debates are honorable and I'm not necessarily a utilitarian or even a consequentialist. I would recommend taking extra time to explain how the value debate filters how I evaluate (especially the other debater's) arguments.

This format pressures 1ARs like no other and I willingly vote for aff theory in other formats already. Still, I find it hard to respect "reverse voting issues." Try not to go for these arguments. If you must, lay it on thick and prove that it made this 1AR impossible. Even when you're desperate, Conditionality vs T is a much cooler debate.

David "Will" Davis

This is my first year of coaching at Mercer Island. 42 years ago I debated at Nationals (they called it NFL back then) and Extemp. Now I am a retired trial attorney with more than 50 civil jury trials under my belt.

1) I am not yet totally familiar with Washington debate. So, let me know if you think I am doing something wrong.

2) Don't talk fast. I don't like spread debate. I don't like watching someone gasping for breath every ten seconds just so he can cram in one more argument. Slow down. Speak clearly and persuasively. If I put down my pen and fold my arms--- take that as a hint that you should slow down. Of course, you have to be looking up to see me. Eye contact!

2) REPEAT. Don't talk fast. If your affirmative is set for spread, then slow down and cut out a contention or two, and go at a reasonable speed. Your outcome and speaker points will suffer if you start off fast. If you spread, and the other side does not, I will not reward you for "dropped" points.

3) I am not a big fan of outrageous arguments such as nuke war or world hunger as a result of school prayer. Keep it real. We are not going extinct because of social security payments to Puerto Rico. Argue something a reasonable person would believe.

4) Imagine that you are chosen by your school to present a plan to the state legislators for additional funding for debate. In your speech in front of the senators would you spread? Would you claim that the economy would collapse if we don't fund debate. KEEP it real.

5) Have some fun.

Flay Judge, been active over the past two debate seasons. Nat Qual is my third tournament of the current season.

Economist, with a quantitative research background.

Clear and respectful argumentation is the goal. During the round, you're expected to do your best to communicate, clarify terminology, justify positions with sound argumentation, and support arguments with logic, definitions, facts, evidence, analogies and expert analysis. Winning side will be decided based on the quality of arguments as well as the persuasiveness of delivery style.

pourelise@gmail.com or SpeechDrop. Please share your case doc ahead of time, and time yourselves during the round. No spreading is a must.

I view debate as something that exists for the sake of the debaters, not for the judge. Ultimately, this is all about you and I don't want you to lose your passion or argumentation adapting to what you think I want. Any argument is on the table if you can make me a compelling case for its topicality and create well thought out links, impacts.

Some info on me:

I competed in both Policy and LD in high school, and did BP in college. It's been a lot of years since then, but now I work in government affairs so I argue for a living.

Like I said, I have no argument preferences, but no matter what you run, I will want you to clearly lay it all out for me. I won't jump to conclusions for you, I need you to tell me why it's important and why I should vote on it.

While evidence is critical, I do want to see that you can also form your own arguments and conclusions. Analytics are an important part of the round, and I will be looking for your own words and views to tie your introduced evidence into a fully developed argument.

Will judge on CX, so use the time to your advantage.

Feel free to contact me with questions for further clarification or familiarity with arguments. You can email me at kdurkin101@gmail.com or find me in person to talk.

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.

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.

Current UW college debater and ex LD high school debater.

All speed is fine. Drop cases before the round if you plan to spread.

Tech > Truth

Open to all progressive stuff, happy to vote on trad as well. Run what you want.

I don't need you to write my ballot for me. In the NR or 2AR its good to weigh and clarify but line by line is often best.

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.

Parent Judge

Please go slow (slightly above conversational speech is good) and articulate

Please don’t run or Ks

Be respectful to everyone

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

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.

I am a parent judge and not a native English speaker. I will do my best to keep track of different points made by each side. I prefer a slower pace of talking and being able to see your cases. If you are speaking too fast and I miss any important point, there is nothing I can do about it.

Things I will look for in a round:

• Clear and strong contentions
• Effectively attacking the opponent's points in rebuttals
• Voting points that show why you should win

I prefer traditional debates over progressive but I will try to understand those arguments.

I will probably not disclose after round.

Have fun in the debates!

LD Coach 0 years

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lirichard6474@gmail.com, 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 apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which 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.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

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.

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

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

I am a parent judge. Please go slow as english is not my first language. I value good speaking, communication, and questioning during cross examination. In arguments I like to see good evidence. I will try to be tab when weighing the majority of arguments but do keep in mind I may not be as likely to vote for certain arguments unless you explain them very very well (friv theory for instance - I'm tab when it makes sense to me).

If you are sharing documents, please only use email. Please send to: liying9371@gmail.com

Hello. I am a lay judge.

Please go slower and explain your arguments

be respectful to your opponent and judges

do not run progressive arguments (T,K,etc.)

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

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!

Parent lay judge, please speak clearly and not too fast if possible

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

On rebuttals. appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

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!

Novice: I'm a little bit skeptical of progressive argumentation in novice, but, like, not totally skeptical. Your high-theory K maybe can wait until next year, but I'm down to hear counterplans, plans (obvs not in PF), and (GOOD) theory that isn't something that you threw together for a timeskew. That said: 1: Quality over quantity at this point: I'll evaluate spreaded arguments (if your opponent can flow you! If you're in novice, and I hear you say "slow" and your opponent doesn't slow, I will absolutely listen to speed theory - educationally, I'll tolerate speed in novice because you have to practice it somewhere, but if it excludes somebody, I think that massively outweighs it's potential longterm educational benefit: I'll evaluate pretty bad speed T in novice favorably if I think it describes what actually happened to a debater in the round.) up to a pretty fast point, I just think you're better off reading fewer arguments you understand well than more arguments you understand poorly and 2: The job of the second rebutalist in LD is to tell me how I'm going to vote, not to read a hundred new arguments. Tell me, in the first sentence of your 2R, what my Reason For Decision says, and I'll give you 30 speaks if I think it's an even plausible summarization of the round.

General: I would consider myself, by and large, a tabula rasa judge. That doesn't mean, if you feel like it, you can't convince me otherwise, it just means that I will begin with the idea that I should be convincible of most anything. I won't evaluate morally reprehensible arguments like "racism good" or "patriarchy good", and there are cases where I will step in, end a round, and make a decision if I feel a round has gotten to a sufficiently inappropriate place - ie if I think a particular student is facing inappropriate behavior towards them (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) in the round. This takes a pretty extreme level of misbehavior, but it's not impossible.

I was a K hack when I debated NPDA with Western for four years, and Bellevue College for 1. There's a decent chance I understand your lit base. There's a decent chance I don't. There's a good chance if you do a decent job of explaining, I can keep up. Even if I know the lit base, please allow your opponent access to the round - I don't care if you know I read Butler for a year, when you're telling me about how mournability is the internal link to violence, you're explaining for my flow, not just for me.

I probably have fairly average standards for theory. I'll probably hold theory I think is unserious to a mildly higher standard, but I'll vote for pretty much anything that's clearly won.

I have some sensory issues, so I may clear you, or slow you, to be comprehensible. For me, access is a combination of speed and clarity, it's just that I have a lower threshold at which things become absolutely incomprehensible. I can flow some degree of speed, but I've been out of debate for five years, so I'm a little out of practice - if you're very fast, you'll have to slow for me. Also, my experience in flowing is with a weird high speed cardless format: you can't blow through cards like I'm an expert in your format, I'm not!

One other exception to Tabula Rasa - If you've told me a thing is an ethical obligation, or about debaters' identities in round, I will do my best to answer hard questions that I'm left with at the end of the round. I think if it's an ethical decision I'm being asked to make, and I don't have a clear answer provided by the flow, I can't avoid my obligations just by shrugging and saying it's unclear. No promises I'll come to a conclusion you like if you leave questions open at the end of the round, though!

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.

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

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

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

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

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

Framework:

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

Contention level:

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

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.

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

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.

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.

Rick Spoonemore

Background: I was the 1985 Washington State Debate Champion in Policy (LD had just started way back then), 1st in State in Impromptu Speaking, and 2nd in State in Extemporaneous Speaking. I went to college on a debate scholarship, then to law school at the University of Washington School of Law where I was inducted into the Moot Court Honor Board, and won the Falknor Appellate Competition during my third year. I have been a Seattle litigator since 1992, and have been named a Washington State Super Lawyer every year since 2005, including six years as a "Top 100" lawyer in the state. I am currently the managing partner of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, a Seattle-based litigation firm. I have taught speech and debate, moot court, and trial advocacy to high school students, law students, and young lawyers. My professional profile is here: www.sylaw.com/

How to Lose a Debate Round: I have a great deal of respect for speech and debate and have little tolerance for those who disrespect the process or their competitors. If you are rude, you'll likely lose. If you are sexist, racist, or anti-LGBTQ+, you'll likely lose. If you are unprepared, then you are not respecting the process and that will hurt you. If you attempt to bend or break the rules, that also shows a lack of respect for the process. Don't bring up brand new arguments in rebuttal -- a twist or spin on an existing area of contention is good, but wholly tangential new arguments will hurt you. Speed is fine -- see below -- but if you attempt to spread, make sure you can do it with sufficient enunciation to make it intelligible.

How to Win a Debate Round: Clash, clash, clash! A good debate round is not two ships passing in the night with pre-canned arguments that fail to clash with the points advanced by the opponent. Sure, openings are set, but once the case moves to rebuttal I expect to see real engagement. I will give a win to a speaker or team who advances the most logical, reasoned, and supported arguments over a speaker or team who is smooth, but lacks depth, every time. I will flow all your arguments, make sure you engage all the positions advanced by your opponent. Dropped arguments can kill in policy, and will hurt in LD. I can handle speed, but make sure you can too if you decide to spread. If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. It took me years to unlearn speed after I got into the real world, so I don't penalize lack of speed, especially in LD. I generally buy problem area arguments and positions in both policy and LD. I like humor, where appropriate. Core principles, standards, burdens of proof/persuasion are key: I'll pay a lot of attention to the fight over the playing field in LD, so make sure you don't just engage on the details but neglect the superstructure.

Individual Events:

Impromptu: I admire any student with the guts to do impromptu. I am open to any form of speech in this genre -- from a story to a serious discussion about a current event. Give me a structure or roadmap, and attempt to tie in your conclusion to the introduction in some form. Pauses, stumbles, gaps and the like will not surprise me in this event, so chill if that happens to you. Just, please, don't go fast -- I know many people who do impromptu are also debaters, but this is the time to slow down and make a speech that has resonance with normal, non-debate people. Speed kills in this event. Finally, I really hate pre-canned impromptu speeches where the speaker takes one of the prompts and attempts to shoehorn it into a canned speech. That's not impromptu in my view, even if many students make it to nationals with this approach. If you do it, then make sure I don't know that you are doing it because I think it undermines the purpose of this event.

Extempt: See Impromptu. You have time to create a roadmap and structure (and hopefully a message or theme) so I view those elements as important. Like impromptu, this is a time to slow down from your debate tempo. I am not looking for volume of information -- don't spread extemp -- but a well-constructed outline with a theme or message that is, hopefully, thought-provoking.

Informative/Oratory: I have definite thoughts about good speeches in each of these events, but understand that by the time you are reading this there is nothing you can do. I'll make constructive comments on the ballots. In general, I think both of these events have become too formalistic and patterned. If you have a unique approach, you will likely be rewarded. The same tired formula (espicially in OO) has existed far too long, in my view. If you have a formula speech because that is what you have been coached to do (because the coach was coached the same, etc., etc.), just do it well.

Interp Events: Interp is far outside of my wheelhouse, and if the tournament decides to have me judge one of these events then treat me just like a "parent judge." I'll do my best . . . .

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

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

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

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

Hey! I've got a few years of PF experience (high school), and would prefer it if you didn't spread. Good luck!!

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.

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.

Hello!

I started to learn LD debate in the summer of 2021. I am a parent judge. I’ve worked in the IT industry for over two decades.

You should speak at a conversational speed and convince me with evidence and reasoning for why I should vote for your side. I will not vote against you for exceeding my preferred speed, but if I cannot understand you when you give speeches (e.g. by spreading), it will not help you.

I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. Explain the criterion if it is uncommon. I am a traditional judge. Try not to use Kritiks, Theory or Tricks in your speeches or CX; I may not understand those types of arguments. Contentions, Disadvantages, and Counterplans are fine. Affirmatives may read Plans only if they are topical.

I prefer roadmapping and signposting before every card so that I can properly flow the debate, and I think Voting issues are necessary.

I will vote for whomever persuaded me more that they better uphold the criterion.

Happy debating!

• Lay parent judge
• PLEASE DO NOT BE RUDE or you will receive a fat L.
• I evaluate cross heavily so pls leverage it.
• Don't talk fast and be clear, please give organized speeches (signpost and number responses)
• Truth matters > if you say something blatantly incorrect that I catch, that may influence my decision.
• HAVE FUN debate is a game!

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that are relatively easy to follow. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. This includes noting verbally when your opponent has not successfully responded to your arguments. Thank you.

New parent judge, no experiences at all. Please DO NOT SPREAD.