I have been coaching speech and debate for 7 years. I have judged Public Forum debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and various speech events in that time.

-Make sure you state your taglines for your contentions clearly. It should be easy for me to flow your cases and keep track of your arguments, so the clearer you can be, the better.

-Provide clear impacts, and focus on impact calculus. Stress these (especially in your final focus or your final rebuttal).

-Weighing your arguments against your opponent's is the key to winning the debate. Clearly state how your arguments outweigh theirs, and again, stress your impacts.

-Please do not spread. If I didn't hear it, then it never happened. If I can't keep track of what you are saying, then it is possible that your opponent cannot either. Speaking clearly is imperative to a fair debate. It will also result in more speaker points.

-If you have a framework, stick with it. If you drop it, there is no purpose for it, and that hurts your arguments more in the long run (especially if your opponent realizes the framework was dropped).

-I do not flow CX. It is your job to bring up what happened in CX in your next speech. That is the only way it will make it onto the flow.

-For LD, make sure your value/criterion is clearly explained at the start of your constructive speech. If you and your opponent have the same value/criterion, or they are similar, it is best to acknowledge this and focus on arguments rather than getting into a framework debate.

-For LD, keep arguments traditional. I'll listen to counter plans and kritiks, but I prefer traditional arguments.

-Please practice good sportsmanship. Being snarky or belittling an opponent, especially if it is clear they are new to debate will not be tolerated.

-To prove you have read my paradigm, simply say "Bear Down" or "Go Wildcats" prior to starting the round.

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.

Experience: I am a parent judge and have been judging LD debates for 3 years. I have a background in finance.

Speed: I can handle moderate to fast speed, as long as you are clear and audible. I will say “clear” or “slow” if I cannot understand you. Please do not spread or use excessive jargon.

Contentions: I expect you to have well-structured and well-supported contentions that address the core issues of the resolution. I prefer contentions that are logical, factual, and relevant. I will vote for the debater who wins the contention level debate or shows the strongest impact to the framework.

Speaker Points: I will assign speaker points based on the quality and style of your speech, not on the content or outcome of the debate. I will reward speakers who are persuasive, confident, respectful, and engaging. I will penalize speakers who are rude, dishonest, offensive, or boring.

Other Preferences: I prefer that you are courteous and professional to your opponent, your judge, and yourself. I prefer that you time yourself and your opponent, and respect the time limits. I prefer that you ask for permission before using your opponent’s evidence or laptop. I prefer that you do not shake my hand or thank me after the round. I prefer that you do not ask me for oral critiques or disclose my decision before the awards ceremony. I prefer that you have fun and learn something from the debate.

Nice to meet you! I'm Keira, call me Keira. I go by she/they.

Ask me anything before the round starts. I am reasonable!

Quick tips:

- Jokes + analogies = I am entertained = more speaks for you

- Don't be rude asdlkf

- Time yourselves, run the round so that I don't need to call on the next speaker for you. No need to ask "is the judge ready?" before every speech; I am always ready unless I say otherwise!

Add me to the email chain if there is one: kyraximin@gmail.com

About

I'm still a student. I'm still figuring out what debates/styles I prefer over others. That means you can run whatever you want!! :D

That being said, I'm NOT a lay judge. I flow. If you have them, explain K/T/Theory thoroughly.

Speed

haha I do policy

If we're online, be aware of your background noise/not-so-great mic/spotty Wi-Fi/etc., and adjust your speed to accommodate for those things, because it's up to you to clearly get your messages across to your opponents and me.

Speaks

You'll get high speaks (28-30) UNLESS you're egregiously bad or doing something stupid (being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, anything along those lines)

Might as well put this here too: ask questions, but don't argue with my decision at the end of the round. You can be salty, just don't be a [insert bad word here].

Policy

People like talking fast in this debate style but please be clear if you decide to do so. I'll try to clear twice before giving up on flowing. Giving the order before starting your speech helps a lot.

Explain your links and cards at least a little when you extend them. Just saying "extend Bob '22" doesn't cut it, I need to know why.

I don't flow cross, but being mean in cross probably costs speaker points.

Yes theory is the highest layer but if you do not explain standards/voters properly then it doesn't work. Also, if you're going for theory, you collapse on theory ONLY.

Rhetoric is great.

It greatly pains me to vote for extinction impacts just because "oh no everyone's going to die." Please explain it compellingly- respond to the probability argument.

Public Forum

Clarity > Tech > Truth. If it sounds like your case doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me either. Explain all your stuff, explain why it matters and sound at least kind of dedicated to it. Don't be mean to people with less experience. Actually, just don't be mean, thanks

I don't flow cross-ex but I do listen. Bring those points up in the next speech.

Do weighing whenever you want, but make sure you have something you can actually weigh- I'm not going to vote for a half-developed argument.

Explain why I should prefer your evidence.

Prove that you're better, not that they're worse- have offense.

On dropped arguments- tell me that they dropped the argument and if that is true in my flow, I'll be less likely to consider it.

Thank your opponents at the end of the round :)

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

For Speech Events:

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

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

For Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I am a lay parent judge with one year of judging experience in Public Forum. I am new in judging congressional debate. English is not my first language.

Truth > Tech. Please speak at a reasonable pace. I will be taking notes but not flowing. Please do not be rude. No debate jargon. Please do not post round me.

Make your arguments make sense to me. If I still do not understand the logic of your argument at the end of the round, I will not vote for it (or I'll have a hard time voting for it).

Please do not just say "drop their Contention One because..." I will not drop it unless you tell me very clearly WHY I should drop it or why it's important.

Speaking matters. Be clear and confident. Realize that I won't understand your argument if I can't hear your argument.

Tell me very clearly why I should vote for you.

At the end of the day, this is a high school activity. Try to have fun and don't give me or your opponents a hard time :)

I'm a 47-year old speech and debate parent who works at Amazon. As I flow, I look for thoughtful engagement with the other team's arguments, ideally reaching a Hegelian synthesis.

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

Former high school policy debater.

First time judging in over a decade.

Flow judge, I like clash.

Please do not run arguments you do not understand.

I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on, weigh the impacts.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM (Policy Paradigm Below)

I AM A FLOW JUDGE. The Flow will Decide all things.

I was a policy debater in high school.
I have judged both policy debate and public forum debate at multiple tournaments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. I am open to all speaking styles and open minded about arguments. I try to keep my own bias out as much as possible.

Cross-X
I do not have strong opinions about cross.
This is a chance to clarify, question, and have direct interaction with your opponents.
I do not flow cross-X, but I do listen. Anything stated in cross-x only becomes binding if it's brought into the round via a speech.

GENERAL
If you are going to be jumping around it helps to tell me where to flow your arguments. Example "now go to their card/argument about x and my responses are as follows" I am also fine with off time road maps and sign posting as you go.

Make as many arguments as you like. I am not afraid of a bit of speed/spreading. However, keep it within reason. I feel most PF debate rounds would benefit from fewer arguments, replaced with better analysis and more clash. The more depth, the better.

Timeframe arguments and frameworks.

This keeps coming up. Please do not tell me to vote on timeframe unless your impacts come first and are more likely. If your impact is extinction, that is fine, but if it is an uncertain future impact, you really want me to weigh on something else, probably Magnitude.

Unless you tell me how to weigh arguments, I default to weighing Impacts on magnitude and scope above other considerations.

I take source and date into consideration when choosing between cards. Good analysis helps.

I won't call for cards unless there is significant disagreement on what the card says, and it factors into voting. NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and the date (minimum) so you should do that if you want me to accept evidence as "legally presented"

Your evidence should agree with your tags. Mis-tagging, or power tagging makes me grumpy as a flow judge. I have seen a fair amount of this lately, though often it is unintentional.
Just remember, A good tag is taken from what the card actually says.

I prefer clash, but if your opponent refuses to address your arguments, please extend them. Tell me to pull arguments across. note why they matter and point out when they are dropped. If both teams completely drop arguments in rebuttal, I am less likely to resurrect them onto the flow in final focus.

Important for Public Forum, I am not keen on running Kritik's or other theory arguments. Those do not fit well in PF. Please save those for other formats like Policy.






POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

General Note.
If you run your arguments in order down the flow top to bottom in the same order as they were originally presented, you do not need to sign post. Please Warn me with a road map if you are going to jump all over.

When you are refuting a specific argument or card from your opponent, I prefer you call it out as you go.
I don't want to make the mistake of flowing arguments unlinked or in the wrong place.

Prima Facie Stock Issues. If Aff meets their prima facie burden and avoids or defeats outweighing Dis-Ads, Counterplans, etc. Then Aff wins the ballot.

Neg needs to attack the Aff position with some real menace. I like on-case arguments from the Neg, but it is not mandatory to win. A single off case argument that links well to the Aff case and has heavy impacts can be enough to outweigh and win.

I will pull off case Neg arguments that are dropped by Aff and weigh them as voting issues if prompted. Aff - I need at least a blurb in defense for each off-case position, even if it is only summary. If neg claims your plan causes teddy bears to explode, thus impairing children while yelling "wont someone please think of the children!", spend the 10 seconds it takes to tell me there is no demonstrable link, or evidence for this. If you do not, I am automatically weighing explosive bears as an impact for the Neg.

Aff - Pull your Solvency and Impacts through to rebuttals. If something is clean dropped by Neg, I am happy to weigh it for you in voting so long as you tell me to. Please do not assume that I am going to weigh every piece of evidence presented in the 1AC if I never hear about it after that.

NEG - Beware of overly abusing the Neg block. I allow new argument and evidence in the 2NC. However, I prefer not to see 8 minutes of completely new evidence in the 2NC followed by 5-minutes of extensions in the 1NR.
If there is no way the 1AR can address the amount of bomb you drop on them in the Neg block, then there is no way I am going to punish them for it and will take it into account when voting.
AFF - if this happens, just cry abuse, point out the new stuff and then address what you have time for the best you can.

TOPICALITY Warning, I have big feels about T.

Neg - Do not run topicality arguments on clearly topical cases. I allow some flexibility for Aff in meeting the resolution.
If you run T for 30 seconds and then spend 7.5 minutes running through dozens of case-specific and off-case cards, you clearly have sufficient ground.
If I suspect this is simply a time suck mechanism that you just kick out of after being refuted, I'll be grumpy about it and will consider a Reverse Voting Issue argument from Aff.

Always run T on non-topical cases.
If a case is non-topical, commit to your topicality argument and give it some real care. I want to hear the contempt you hold for an Aff refusal to debate the resolution properly. You showed up ready to debate against the resolution and the Aff wants to talk about clowns on unicycles instead. Blast-em.
I like when you provide definitions for and underline words in the resolution you feel the Aff has neglected specifically.

K & THOERY

Everything is on the table. If you run an argument about how sock puppets help improve the educational side of debate and provide sock puppets for everyone to use while speaking, I am fine with it.

Two words of warning on K & Theory.

1. Please do not turn the entire debate into theory only. Let's at least have an attempt by both sides to debate the resolution.

2. Please do not run arguments about how debate is bad. We all showed up for just that purpose. It is tiresome to argue that the activity we are all engaged in voluntarily is somehow inappropriate. I do not like it, will not flow it, and will not vote on it.

TLDR:

- Signposting is fine if you think it’ll help.
- I’ll favor good quality arguments > uncontested arguments > number of arguments; basically, focus on quality
- I typically don’t flow crossfire. If something is relevant and you want me to flow it, bring it up in your rebuttal/summary.
- Don’t introduce brand new arguments in the final focus.
- I’ll consider the framework (if introduced) if it’s uncontested (or otherwise accepted)

------

First-year judge for PF. Background in leadership mentorship via the Civil Air Patrol (USAF-Auxiliary). UW Computer Science. Questions, email halimr@uw.edu.

(this is only here bc I had to judge novice finals once idk)

I'm a Junior, I've done PF since freshman year, as a first and second speaker. Therefore I'm pretty flow. In the round I’m looking for good organization, clear speech, and flowing every argument you want me to consider at the end of the round to be brought up in every speech.

• Constructive, speed is fine if you speak clearly, but if I can't hear your important numbers I can't write them down.

• Rebuttal, do your best to respond to all of your opps' points. Let no point go unrefuted!

• Summary, spell out to me why your arguments win. Double down on what you said in rebuttal and expand/strengthen your own points.

• Final Focus, make your impacts clear, show why they outway whatever you think the opps may still have standing.

Good Luck and have fun!

Bonus points if you can work a APHUG vocab word into a speech.

EXPERIENCE

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

POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

WORLDS DEBATE

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

As a former competitor (from middle school to college), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech (e.g. voting issues). For LD, tying in the value and value criterion are essential parts of this.

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

I'm fine with creative stances on Con/Neg in PF & LD, but make sure they fall within the status quo. No brand new alternative solutions.

No new arguments or evidence in the final speeches (LD 2AR, PF final focuses). Wrap up the debate with voters and strongest arguments. It's unfair to bring up an entirely new point that your opponents cannot rebut.

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

Hello,

Thank you for participating in today's debates. I look for well-crafted arguments delivered at a reasonable speed.

Please limit spreading. Fully explain your thinking and reasoning. Slow down when making main points (contentions) or when making pointed critiques of your opponent’s argument.

All the best,

Kieran Jacobson

Im Cody Jimenez,

This is my 3rd year doing PuFo for Mt. Si High School.

• 2 of those years being 1st speaker,
• this year currently doing 2nd speaker

I really like clear impacts, and if you have a framework then LINK, the only thing worse then a framework, in my opinion, is a framework that doesn't even link to the case.

I'm going to treat all rounds as if I have no clue what the topic even is, this also means you have to explain the nuances to your case.

Please provide evidence, and reference back to it if possible.

If I can't understand or keep up with your pace it doesn't matter how right you are. But as long as you speak at a moderate pace then you should be good.

Please address clashes that happened in cross and mention why you win them in future speeches, as I won't be paying as much attention in cross.

If you can make a reference to Fast and Furious (preferably tokyo drift), NFL, Cars (the disney movie), ap geo, or ap world I'll give a minimum 28 speakers but us history in general (RAHHHHHHH????????????) will get you an auto 30.

Anyways, Good Luck!

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

I am a new parent judge that is judging for the first time. Please don't rush your words and make sure to be very clear and understandable. Please bring out the specifics in your case and connect them to the topic. Be very respectful while talking.

I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points. Speak clearly and give opportunity to the other side and have a healthy debate. Understand the purpose of these debates, it for finding the loopholes in your understanding....

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

Hi Speech / Debaters,

I'm Joe from Bellevue; joepham206@gmail.com

Every speaker is at the same level when I evaluate, I have no clue what your social-economic status is, nor do I care, I just want clear, concise points of influencing topics in your persuasion.

Individual Speeches:

I'm looking for a clear Opening, make your opening catchy, tie in your personal experience with topic, then tie that into the topic. I like hearing 3 to 5 clear points about the topic, saying "my first point is".....my "second point is".....and "my last point is" and the conclusion should tie everything back in all main points, then tie back to the opening/introduction to close out the speech.

Dramatic Interp: The presenter that can use the largest spectrum of different voice, body, facial, best use of presenting space, singing (different pitch) will get high marks.
I encourage singing, expressing grief, happiness, laughter, using arms up and down, eye contact presenting a person standing next to you; looking down to their shoes, to their waist, up to their hair - as examples; use full body motions; fist your arm to show Power; being the most dramatic will win high points. If you are able to make me feel the emotional feelings that you are dramatically portraying, that's a win in my book!

Competed Open Forum, Impromptu, Extempt for 2 years in High School. Judged Senior year in High School. Now involved judging now my child is involved in speech / debate.

Speed is fine, but clarity and good arguments/refute is what I'm looking for. Ideally you have hard copies of the Aff/Neg policy flow, but send me your policy to joepham206@gmail.com

LD / Open Forum: I'll focus on your last speech more closely, you need to tell me what the other team left out or did not refute, tell me why I should consider you to win and be specific with clear Point #1, Point #2, Point #3, etc... All parts of round will be evaluated but last speech is heavily weighted to the winning speaker / team.

I appreciate Pre-Flow of Aff and Neg Policies, just write the main contentions, sub contentions, it will help me in my flow for both Aff and Neg policies that will be deliberated. All I'm looking for is a blank sheet of paper with the main arguments you will propose.

Ask any questions in the round, I'm flexible and looking forward to your speech!

Joe-

Howdy y'all,

My name is Scott Rigby, this is my second year doing debate, my first year was in Lincoln Douglas and now I am doing Public Forum as a first speaker.

Some stuff about me, I love parkour, tennis, debate and classics, I am a big history and language buff.

What I value in a debate. I am firmly of the opinion that speaking and articulating well and clearly is one of, if not the most important thing in a debate. If I can't understand you it does not matter how right you are. So please please speak clearly and articulate well.

I will do my best to come into the round with no prior knowledge other than the absolute basics about the case, so make sure to explain your points fully and explicitly.

Finally, remember, this is for fun so treat it as such.

Also, I award more Speaker Points for specific references during the round.

+1 Roman Empire (Any time should be fine, but the republic is best)

+1 Mythology In General

+1 Tennis Reference

+2 Battle Royals (Any should be fine)

+3 Woodworking or Welding References

+4 A reference to APEURO History, specifically the impact of the printing press

+4 Specifically the Wimbledon Championship

If you do all of these you are guaranteed at least 28 speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

• I am a flay parent judge.
• Please speak at a conversational speed.
• Signposting is helpful.
• Please don't be rude, especially in crossfire.
• Quality > quantity
• Please remember to weigh in FF.

If you're struggling mid-round, don't give up. You can still learn from the experience. Whether you win or lose, I'm aware that everyone's still learning, and I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect. Go out and try your best!

Hi!

This is my first time judging. I have the following preferences:

a) Please speak clearly and try not to be too loud.

b) Please be polite.

c) Please explain your arguments clearly

d) Please use off time road map and sign posting

e) Please show clarity on the definitions used in the arguments.

Thank you!

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- truth>tech

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

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

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

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog