I am currently in High School (10th grade) and have been debating LD for the past 2 years.

I am okay with spreading, but make sure you emphasize your tag lines and make your point clear; I do not want to hear a bunch of cards with no links or impact.

Make sure you tell me what to vote on (voters) in your final speech. I should not have to think of them on my own.

Please be respectful of your opponents.

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

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.

Pronouns: they/them

*for novices*
Current LD debater of 3 years, debate style tends towards Ks and K frameworks. Familiar with a variety of lit bases up to and including high theory and will evaluate any argument (barring the obviously harmful ones). That being said, I have a high threshold for theory arguments in novice rounds, along with highly technical stuff. I will evaluate it and vote according to the technical level of the debate but I may judge you personally and give opponents some grace on RVI-esque arguments. Go as fast as you’re comfortable going. Be engaging, have fun, try not to be a jerk.

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.

Hi!

PF

Do whatever, Flow judge. perception probably matters more. If you want a prog round- read the LD paradigm below

LD

If I'm judging you then you are probably a novice debater,

Ethos=Logos>Pathos

For Progressive

Quick Prefs (My confidence in my ability to judge these rounds)

Larp-1

Kant-1

T/Theory-1

K (cap, setcol, baudy etc.)- 1

Pure Phil (Heidegger, Intuitions etc.) -2

Tricks (warranted) -2

There's nothing I won't listen to but if I don't understand it, it's not going to be good for you.

Send cases if you are toc/natcirc-spreading and be clear when spreading- I can flow any speed just be clear

I will NOT vote for anything that says vote for [x] debater because they are [y] marginalized/minority population e.g. vote aff because I am Chinese

Reading Skep, Determinism, or Indexicals against a novice/trad debator will result in high speaks and me being in a good mood.

From William Trinh:

"I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. This paradigm is more so to let you know what my understanding of arguments may be or what predispositions I might have, but I promise I will do my best to check them at the door. If your best 2AR is on trivialism, do it (just highlight the Kabay 08 card more smh)."

How many times I've sat: I

For Trad/Lay:

Things I look for

1. Clash (For more info look at Taite Kirkpatricks Paradigm
2. Understanding of what you are reading (Nobody wants a first-time novice reading Setcol)
3. Strategy (If you are clearly losing on an advantage then just kick out, don't try and win a losing battle)

PLEASE SIGNPOST AND BE ORGANIZED

Feel free to ask any question about my paradigm before the round starts-if you don't know what it is: it probably doesn't apply to you

Appeals to 'think of your children' or 'do it for the/your children' = +.5 speaker points

30 speaks

-if you tell me a joke that makes me laugh-if it doesn't then your speaks are capped at 29

-find a smart way to include bears (includes pandas), penguins, or any Winnie the Pooh character

-30 spksth but only if there's a good warrant

25>

-You are morally repugnant in round (-isms, condescending, misogynistic, etc.)

-your evidence is 1] not cut correctly, 2]not cited correctly, 3] is fake, 4] miscut

I will check so don't try

-card clipping

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Post Round me all you want.

Other than that, Good Luck Have Fun.

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread". I value clear, concise and well thought out arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. I want to see people responding directly to opponent's arguments, asking clear questions in the cross and summarizing well in the final speeches. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind. Thank you!

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Hi,

As of 11/17/2023, I am a lay parent judge, and the John Lewis Invitational will be the second tournament that I have ever judged, as well as the second set of LD rounds I have ever seen.

Please talk at a conversational pace, avoid debate jargon, and be respectful to your opponent.

If you are sharing cases, please send them to me as well.

Weighing, voters, and crystallization are very important to me, and I will deduct speaker points if you undercover them.

Run your lay traditional cases.

Signposting is key!

Thank you, and I look forward to judging your round!

Eugene Hong

Parent Judge

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

Please don’t run or Ks

Be respectful to everyone

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. In the past year I've judged at 6 tournaments including Berkeley, Bronx and Apple Valley

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I am looking for logical, well-crafted and well-articulated arguments. My preference is slow and deliberate pace with no spreading. Please the let opponent finish what they are saying during cross-ex and don't interrupt.

I will likely not disclose right after the debate but will submit your results in Tabroom.

Please also time yourself.

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.

I am a parent judge, and former high school Lincoln Debate State Champion. I have judged many Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates at middle school and high school tournaments. Arguments that focus on societal impact with direct linkages to clear data/facts carry weight. And- stay on topic.

Do not spread, and slow down on justifications in your last speech. I will not consider Kritiks and topicality. I strongly discourage counter plans. If you have any questions, please ask me before the start of the round. Be kind, respectful and courteous to your opponent- or you will lose points. I'm looking forward to an engaging, and fun debate!

Hello I am a novice judge. I am looking forward to gaining experience as a LD debate judge this season.

I prefer a typical conversational speed of debate, and appreciate a metered and intentional pace that does not rush.

I consider criterion a major factor in my decisions, and look for strength in the presentation of values.

I will decide the winner of a round by assessing the key arguments with consideration of the strongest persuasion for their position.

I will take notes during the round that are focused on the key arguments.

I encourage demonstrating respect for your opponent at all times, while representing conviction for your position.

New/First time LD judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly state arguments or contentions. I value the quality of the arguments rather than quantity. Off time roadmaps are encouraged.

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.

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

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

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 . . . .

tech>truth

larp , t --- 1

tricks --- 2

k, phil, k-affs --- 3

email: harrison.tangyt@gmail.com

fine with spreading, slow on tags

Well-prepared contestants are always a breath of fresh air: you exude confidence effortlessly when you have solid understanding of your topic(s), have ample examples and relevant quotes to support your case.

Show your confidence through smooth speech delivery; do not speak too fast and risk the chance to emphasize your points clearly and strongly.

Try not to read directly from your notes and don't forget to every now and then acknowledge the room (judge(s)/opponent(s)). Your sessions get interesting and exciting when you try to engage your listeners!

Always be open to constructive criticism. It can help to make your case stronger for the next rounds.

Always be respectful to your opponents and judges.

Have fun!

First year out judge.

caitrinw@uw.edu, put me on evidence chains, speech docs, etc

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, if you go over time, I'll give you some grace but I will cut you off about ten seconds over speeches or 15 seconds over crossfires.

Speaks:

Almost always in a range of 27 - 30 unless you're shouting at your opponents/doing ad hominem attacks

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, imo second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory: I don't love theory in PF, I think it takes the 'public' out of Public Forum. That being said, debate is always changing and I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well. I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them. If you're going to spread, provide speech docs.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Put me on the email chain: awang32707@gmail.com

I'm a current junior at Mercer Island High School that mainly debates LD and has experience with both trad and progressive argumentation. Signpost clearly, give me warrants, do weighing in final speeches (pls pls pls), don't be mean (esp to novices), and we should be good to go! You are free to ask me questions after the round - if I can't defend my decision, it probably wasn't a good one.

Progressive Pref Shortcuts (ignore if lay debate)

LARP - 1

K - 1/2 (depends on type)

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 4

Tricks - don't

Articulate your points clearly and do weighing. I like clash and if both sides have evidence saying opposite things, tell me why I should prefer your evidence. Do not make new arguments if you’ve already dropped a point, and if you don’t extend your own arguments I will count it as dropped.

Hello!

Student judge here (senior). I've been debating since freshman year. I prefer seeing a traditional debate, with lots of Impact Calculus that ties back to the framework.

I'll be skeptical of progressive argumentation, especially in novice. If you're going for it, really explain it for me. The simpler the better.

Absolutely no spreading.

Off-time roadmaps and signposting are greatly appreciated!

Give me lots of voters at the end.

I’m a parent judge with some experience with judging Varsity LD. I have judged for years.
- Be clear and concise - organize for clarity and impact, skip the jargon, and speak like you're talking to a STEM teacher at school.
- I like Clash, but don’t be rude. Keep it respectful.
- Make me laugh or nod in agreement with your arguments.
- Time yourself! Don’t make me have to stop you
- Regarding spreading (speed talking), no speeding - Keep it fast enough to impress, but slow enough so I can keep up.

• I flow

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

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

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

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

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

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

Speed:

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

Progressive:

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

Speaks:

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

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

Hi there, I'm Blake! Look forward to meeting you!

About me: I'll graduate from Newport High School in 2025 (now a senior) and I serve as co-president and Lincoln-Douglas co-captain of our school's Speech and Debate Club.

Competitive Experience: I've made elimination rounds at multiple local Washington tournaments, and I placed as LD quarterfinalist at the state tournament for two years in a row. Debated LD since freshman yr.

I primarily read lay/traditional (coz it's WA) and have come to enjoy it. I still admire prog more, and love going for theory arguments (structure of debate, discussing "rule" / norm setting, etc).

Paradigm:
- Run any argument you like, EXCEPT if it involves hate speech.
- Please elaborate everything. Make sure you explain your links, evidence, specific advocacy, etc, especially if you plan to run a dense kritik or counterplan or framework.
- Giving voters and summaries help immensely, specifically in rebuttal speeches.
- Speed and fast talking are ok. I can yell "clear" or "slow" if I start to lose track of your arguments, given your permission. If you're legit circuit spreading, I may need to see your case to keep up - we can set up e.g. an email chain or Speechdrop in that case.
- For fun!! Boost your speaker scores - feel free to attempt if I'm the only judge in the room!!
+1 speak if you add a meme / joke into your speech that is relevant and appropriate to the debate. No discrimination or personal attacks pls.
+1 speak if you randomly start spreading for 20 seconds in a lay debate and go back to conversational pace :D

*Ad break - helpful resource!*
Feel free to check out LD Debate Prep [https://lddebateprep.org/], a 501c3 nonprofit that I founded, to help everyone learn about LD from introductory to advanced content through free articles and silly memes. I love teaching LD, so please give me feedback on how I can improve it!

Arg prefs:
Theory: 1 (the less friv the better)
LARP/Policy: 2
Kritiks: 2
Lay: 3
Phil/Framework/PoMo K: 4
Tricks: 5

More cool facts about me! I'm Canadian (straight out of Edmonton, Alberta), I play badminton, and I unfortunately do not prefer maple syrup with pancakes nor have I ever rode a moose with the RCMP to school :(
I played hockey up til 5th grade. Broke my arm and shoulder blade on two separate occasions. Shoutout to the Canadian healthcare system, bro revived me twice.