I don't mind if you talk fast, but make sure it is understandable (rapid/conversational)

I don't flow during cross, if you want me to take something from there into consideration, bring it back into your argument.

Avoid using general/open wording such as "stuff" and "things", be specific in your argument and evidence, I will not try to assume and build it for you. Specific, concrete evidence and data is something that I look strongly at.

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

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

Main items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

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

Things that hurt you:

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

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

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

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

TLDR: Be respectful, have fun, and make debate educational. I'll judge the debate round as it's presented, and vote off the flow to the best of my ability.

I will disclose the result if EVERYONE in the round is fine with disclosure.

Imo speaks are kinda dumb, by default everyone will be getting full speaks from me, or at least the most I can give.

I don't mind answering questions about the round or ballot (time allowing), but generic feedback will be given in the RFD.

Actual paradigm if you wanna read: I'd say my overall judging philosophy skews progressive. I'm a big fan of progressive arguments in PF rounds IF DONE CORRECTLY. I've got a decent experience with progressive arguments in the past, but if you bring up some super theoretical philosophical argument, it may fly over my head. If this section is confusing, don't worry about it. It won't affect how I judge your debate round.

In terms of speed, I can only flow as fast as my pen can write. That being said, in most scenarios, I should be able to catch what you're saying.

Tech > Truth, but also to an extent. For me, that means if something gets conceded, I'll hold it as true. But for rebuttals, I will use my own judgement to determine if it's responsive. Try your best to implicate your rebuttals as otherwise it'll have to come to my discretion if your block responds to their case. Truth outweighs for common logic. I'm not going to vote on a no evidence climate change good impact turn.

For evidence ethics, please just have good evidence. I prefer cards to not be paraphrased, but if they are it's not the end of the world. If it's discovered that you're misconstruing cards, it'll be an auto-loss for me. Realistically, there's not enough time in a debate round to be checking through everyone's evidence. The basis of debate is an implicit assumption that everyone goes in with good faith for things like evidence. Please don't be the team that misconstrues a card and gets caught, because then it looks bad for everyone. If there is an email chain, please add me to it chenjacob@outlook.com.

I find that I tend to be pretty big on the respect part of debate. I understand that it's a sport where you're literally forced to argue against someone else. I get that tensions can be high when you're arguing against someone else. That being said, there's a line between being passionate about your argument and verbally berating your opposition. Example of things that will not be tolerated: personal attacks, comments on things like your opposition's race, gender, national origin etc. In summary, keep debate in the debate space, don't make it personal.

Overall, we're all just trying to learn in debate, it's supposed to be a fun sport built on the respect for others. Please try to keep it that way.

For Speech:

I've been an impromptu competitor for 2 years now. Impromptu has been the main IE I've participated in, so I have the most experience with it. Small pieces of my impromptu judging philosophy, I don't mind evaluating based on my personal perspectives, so if you want to just go up and speak I'll do my best the judge based on quality of speeches. That being said, I have a slight preference for impromptu speeches that don't follow the same 3 point formula. In my opinion, the three point style of impromptu speaking gets repetitive, but if that's what you're most comfortable with, don't feel bad. It won't affect how I view your speech. It's more, if you give a great well coordinated speech that doesn't follow the three point formula -> it'll be more interesting to me -> More speaks -> Potentially better ranking.

For other individual events, I may need to ask for clarification on speech timings, but other than that, I'll evaluate to the best of what the event is like.

Personal Info if you care about that: I'm Jacob, a current senior at Newport High, I'm the current Public Forum Captain for our team's debate club. I've been debating public forum for 3 years now, with 1 year of policy debate. If you have funny stories or moments to share with people from Newport debate, please let me know, I'd love to hear stories about my fellow debate members.

Current events savvy, Independent/moderate with a background in debate, theater and public speaking. Logic driven and fact oriented, I believe firmly in free and open discussion on tough topics.

One important paradigm for me is that debate is NOT a speed talking competition. I firmly believe that if you have to rush through the information, you are probably trying to include too much information. The purpose of debate is to persuade the audience, not to baffle them.

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.

Please ask me before round what my rules will be. Changes depend on the event and whether it's open or novice. Please be respectful, no phones out in the round. I'm here for you so know even if I'm not smiling, I'm cheering you on.

PF: Main things I'll be voting on is quality not quantity of arguments. Don't drop arguments just because your opponent did. If you have a card for something, tell me the evidence don't just tell me you read me a card. Explain through your arguments, give me clear impacts. If you really want to win, make sure that I know why. If you are disrespectful in xc, I will bump down speaks.

Second Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate (Value, Criterion, Disads, Counterplans, etc.)

50 + rounds judged last season (in LD and PF).

What I like to hear is a well-laid out case, clearly articulated, as well as solid and clear responses to the elements of your opponent's case.

Generally, I'm against spreading. Talking fast is fine, but it's important for me to hear and understand your case, as well as taking an accurate flow. Without a good flow, it's hard to judge the round. Spreading, especially if it inhibits articulation and clarity, is hard for me to follow.

I'm also not opposed to K's, as long as they are articulated well, relevant to the topic, and that the debater has a nuanced understanding of the K. Being able to answer questions about your K in cross is key.

For IEs, my preferences are for clarity of topic, engagement with the audience, dynamic delivery, memorization, and compelling narrative.

Thank you. And good luck!

Chris Goodson

hello!!! [she/her] :)

i've been doing speech (and only speech) for three years, so you can bet that i am pretty unfamiliar with debate. but just some general things to help me out since i'm pretty inexperienced:

-please do not talk super fast or spread, i will probably have a hard enough time keeping up at normal speed

-signpost!!! clarity is very nice and cool

-don't be mean or rude -- it does not look good

-more speaker points if you are funny or you crack a joke :D (trust me, my sense of humor is so bad i will laugh at basically anything)

-i will be Lost most of the time so please be patient and help me out if i do something wrong (which i am bound to do)

-please enjoy this image for reading my paradigm:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/9f8bd0d27a40197e6d02d253574ead2c/tumblr_nhoy3yA27u1sxjko8o1_500.jpg

-i hope that you have a cold pillow to sleep on tonight, thank you very much :]

magnitude emphasis

idc ab time

roadmaps would be cool but if not whatever.

be clear and concise.

don't be aggressive unless need be.

Greetings all, I am a fairly new judge and haven't been provided withmuch training.

Throughout the last few tournaments I have noticed that I have a tendency to be more impressed with those who make eye contact, those who use notes as a launch pad, not as a script ... and most impressed with those who speak directly to the audience with no notes at all.

Speak clearly, know your topic.

И я всегда нахожу, да, я всегда нахожу что-то не так
Ты слишком долго возился с моим дерьмом
Я так одарен находить то, что мне больше всего не нравится
Думаю, пришло время произнести тост

Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за отморозков
Каждый из них, кого я знаю
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Это никогда не отнимет у вас работу
Детка, у меня есть план
Убегай как можно быстрее

Она находит фотографии в моей электронной почте
Я отправил этой суке фотографию своего члена
Я не знаю, что происходит с женщинами
Но я не слишком хорош в этом дерьме
Видишь, я мог бы иметь хорошую девочку
И все еще быть зависимым от этих капюшонов
И я просто виню во всем тебя
По крайней мере, ты знаешь, что я в этом хорош
Вам также может понравиться
8 утра в Шарлотте.
Дрейк
Скажи, не уходи
Тэйлор Свифт
Дневной свет
Дрейк
[Распевка: Канье Уэст]
И я всегда нахожу, да, я всегда нахожу
Да, я всегда нахожу что-то не так
Ты слишком долго возился с моим дерьмом
Я так одарен находить то, что мне больше всего не нравится
Думаю, пришло время произнести тост

[Припев: Канье Уэст]
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за отморозков
Каждый из них, кого я знаю
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Это никогда не отнимет у вас работу
Детка, у меня есть план
Убегай как можно быстрее

[Мост: Канье Уэст и Рик Джеймс]
Беги от меня, детка
Ах, беги
Беги от меня, детка (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Убегать
Когда это начинает сходить с ума (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Тогда убегай
Детка, у меня есть план: беги как можно быстрее.
Беги от меня, детка
Убегать
Беги от меня, детка (Посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри на тебя)
Убегать
Когда это начинает сходить с ума (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Почему она не может просто убежать?
Детка, у меня есть план
Беги так быстро, как только можешь (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
[Куплет 2: Пуша Т]

И я всегда нахожу, да, я всегда нахожу что-то не так
Ты слишком долго возился с моим дерьмом
Я так одарен находить то, что мне больше всего не нравится
Думаю, пришло время произнести тост

[Припев: Канье Уэст]
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за отморозков
Каждый из них, кого я знаю
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Это никогда не отнимет у вас работу
Детка, у меня есть план
Убегай как можно быстрее

[Куплет 1: Канье Уэст]
Она находит фотографии в моей электронной почте
Я отправил этой суке фотографию своего члена
Я не знаю, что происходит с женщинами
Но я не слишком хорош в этом дерьме
Видишь, я мог бы иметь хорошую девочку
И все еще быть зависимым от этих капюшонов
И я просто виню во всем тебя
По крайней мере, ты знаешь, что я в этом хорош
Вам также может понравиться
8 утра в Шарлотте.
Дрейк
Скажи, не уходи (Версия Тейлора) [Из Убежища]
Тэйлор Свифт
Дневной свет
Дрейк
[Распевка: Канье Уэст]
И я всегда нахожу, да, я всегда нахожу
Да, я всегда нахожу что-то не так
Ты слишком долго возился с моим дерьмом
Я так одарен находить то, что мне больше всего не нравится
Думаю, пришло время произнести тост

[Припев: Канье Уэст]
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Давайте выпьем за отморозков
Каждый из них, кого я знаю
Давайте выпьем за придурков
Это никогда не отнимет у вас работу
Детка, у меня есть план
Убегай как можно быстрее

Беги от меня, детка
Ах, беги
Беги от меня, детка (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Убегать
Когда это начинает сходить с ума (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Тогда убегай
Детка, у меня есть план: беги как можно быстрее.
Беги от меня, детка
Убегать
Беги от меня, детка (Посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри, посмотри на тебя)
Убегать
Когда это начинает сходить с ума (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
Почему она не может просто убежать?
Детка, у меня есть план
Беги так быстро, как только можешь (Посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя, посмотри на себя)
[Куплет 2: Пуша Т]

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

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

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

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

Generally,

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

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

Arguments:

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

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

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

Do like and will vote on:

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

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

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

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

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

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

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

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.

if you say erm what the sigma it's auto W

I am a parent volunteer, so I greatly appreciate your patience and any help you can provide. Do not be afraid to speak up if you need something, or if you feel I made a mistake.

I value two things above all else: solid preparation and respect for others.

Relax and do your best!

I am so happy to be here and judge this round today!

A few paradigms I have for Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

1) I am looking for a traditional debate with lots of clash. CPs are not preferred. If you are wanting to run something more progressive just know that there is a HIGH burden of explanation. I would only run a K with me as a judge if you were REALLY confident and, even then, I would not recommend doing so.

2) Remember to focus on the arguments! Not the opponent, don't make it personal. Don't be rude, belittle, or unnecessarily cut somebody off. Respect and Humility are core principles of the NSDA's Code of Honor and I expect them to be upheld throughout the round.

3) I'm huge on impact calculus! Give me all the implications and weigh your impacts. I honestly like you to spell them out for me. Say, "judge, this is a _____ (high magnitude, probability, etc.) impact because..." and I would eat that up. Weigh those impacts against your opponents; why should I care more about yours?

4) Voters are a big must for me because it shows me that you can consolidate to at least three main reasons why you win the round and it easily crystallizes the round.

5) Housekeeping: remember to signpost. If you drop an argument and your opponent addresses that, you lose the argument (aka manage your time wisely so you don't drop arguments or, if you do, have reasoning to do so).

I don't believe LD is a place for spreading. If you talk too fast, I will stop flowing.

Speech Events:

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

Content:

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

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

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

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

Delivery:

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

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

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

Engagement:

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

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

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

Overall Impression:

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

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

Please Note:

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

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

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

Additionally:

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

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

Congress:

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

Substance and Argumentation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delivery and Engagement:

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Impact:

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

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

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

Please Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

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.

I am the coach of the Eastside Prep debate team. Prior, I was president of the Pacific Northwest Middle School Debate League, and I coached a middle school debate team for 10 years. While I am a flow judge, and I pay attention to what arguments are followed up on and which ones get dropped, I prefer students to act as if I am a lay judge as I think that debaters should be able to fully explain their contentions and their refutations so a "regular" person can understand them. When judging debates, I prefer that debaters focus on the significance and impact of their arguments, making sure that they are fully explaining how their evidence relates to their overall position. It should be obvious that they understand what their evidence means, not just that they can read it off of a card. I appreciate it when it is clear that the debaters are in constant communication with one another, building off of each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to really engage in the arguments and seek understanding by clear explanation of evidence and significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

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

FOR LD DEBATE

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

I won't vote on tricks.

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

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

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

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

FOR POLICY DEBATE

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

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

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

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

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

In my judging paradigm, the emphasis is on creating a debate environment that values clarity, fairness, and innovative thinking. The guidelines are as follows:

1. **No Spreading:**
- Avoid rapid-fire delivery or excessive speed. Prioritize clear and deliberate communication over speed.

2. **No New Arguments in the 3rd/Reply Worlds:**
- Maintain fairness by refraining from introducing new arguments in the final speeches or replies. Focus on developing existing points and responding to opponent positions... You will automatically lose.

4. **No Debate Jargon: In WORLDS!**
- Communicate in a manner accessible to everyone. Minimize the use of specialized debate terminology to ensure clarity for all participants and judges.

5. **Lower Speaks for Lack of Clarity:**
- Clear and articulate communication is paramount. If a speech lacks clarity or is difficult to understand, it may result in lower speaker points.

6. **Talk Clearly, Enunciate:**
- Emphasize the importance of clear and articulate speech. Enunciate your words to enhance comprehension and ensure that your arguments are conveyed effectively.

7. **Do Not Call for Cards:**
- Avoid explicitly requesting evidence cards during the debate. Focus on the substance of arguments and analysis without relying on external sources.

8. Tired of Ism's as Arguments (Uniqueness Gets You Points): Yes racism is bad, we all agree, these arguments are no longer unique. they are dull and boring and you will lose me.
- Move beyond generic ism arguments. Emphasize uniqueness and provide nuanced analysis to strengthen your case.

9. **New Ideas:**
- Encourage participants to bring innovative and unique ideas to the debate. Foster creativity and originality in argumentation to enrich the discussion.

10. **No Political/Religious Polarization:**
- Maintain a balanced and respectful discussion. Refrain from engaging in extreme political or religious polarization, and focus on presenting well-reasoned and moderate perspectives.

By adhering to these guidelines, I aim to create a debate space that values clarity, fairness, and the exploration of fresh and unique ideas while discouraging practices such as spreading, excessive use of debate jargon, and political or religious polarization.

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

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

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

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

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

I have backround in PF

Wait until after 2nd constructive to call for cards.

Don't ask me if I "want an off-time roadmap" either give me one or don't, I do not care.

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

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

Hi, I'm David Zeng, a high school senior. I mainly do speech and I'll be judging novice LD.

Spreading is fine. No theory plz.

Be mature, be good to people.