I'm a traditional Public Forum judge. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with well-developed contentions and significant depth of argumentation. I'd encourage you to state your points concisely, and without significant undue repetition. I do not tolerate spreading; I expect you to have developed reasonable skills of word economy by this point in the season, and would hope that you can concisely develop your case to fit within the required time. I reward the use of reasonably clear enunciation at a comprehensible pace. While I do encourage you to weigh your arguments, be mindful of the tone you use to do so. "Speakersplaining" to me, attempting to tell me which way I am going to decide in the round rather than a courteous appeal for my vote, comes off as arrogant and will not do you any favors in my evaluation of the round. For any clarification, feel free to ask me in-round.

Experience

I am a current high school speaker/debater. I have done PuFo, LD, Big Questions, World Schools Debate, Congress, and Impromptu, so I am specific with what I like to see and what I don't.

Public Forum

No speed, I will knock you down if you speed through your case for the sake of an extra argument/evidence. Please weigh throughout the round, I want to hear your side constantly going back to why your arguments matter more. I only take blocks into account when there is analysis added, simply reading cards in rebuttal and summary will not win you the ballot. Evidence is important, but your analysis and impacts are more important. I want to hear how you argue the round, not an article. I will try to flow CX, but if you said something good bring it up in the next speech. Most importantly, please be nice to each other, you can have a good back-and-forth without cruelty.

Lincoln-Douglas

I have only competed in LD for a short time, and honestly hate many things adopted by the format from Policy, so if you have cases that are more traditional to LD format, use them. I will vote in favor of the person who argues the best value and criterion for the round, based on philosophical ideas. If you spread to get an absurd amount of points as AFF, I will not accept it when you say, "my opponent did not respond to all of my points". Spreading generally is not my favorite, performance and skill>speed. I will generally vote against Plans and Kritiks, but if you can prove your case with the additional burden, go for it. This isn't Policy, so if you have the option do not run K's or Plans with me. I don't want to hear any theory arguments based on nothing, so please do not pull anything outlandish, or not relevant to the round.

Big Questions

I love BQ! The event is a pretty mixed bag so I don't have many specifics for judging. I will account for weighing and logical refutation in my ballot. I prefer a slower, more casual speed for this event, this isn't LD or Policy, so please do not spread when it truly isn't necessary. A lot of BQ arguments tend to be generic, so if you have something unique, use it. I like how loose the event and range of cases are, so don't make it blocky and boring.

Impromptu

I will be judging on fluency and topicality. I don't want to hear rants or debaters just being there to be double-entered.

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.

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

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

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Email: atlas773@comcast.net

Pronouns: he/they

I’m a current high school speech competitor (POI and OSW primarily). Did LD freshman/sophomore year and have some experience with CX. Feel free to ask me any questions after round, I am always happy to answer them :)

I will dock speaker points for aggression, bigotry, etc.*

*Always use they/them pronouns for your opponent in round. Gendered language will lose you speaker points as well.

Please signpost clearly! Don’t risk me missing an argument!

I am entirely content with policy-esque LD, as long as you maintain focus on framework/ethics. Framework is obviously very important in LD and PLEASE weigh it in your last speech, but don’t get caught up in it. I would rather the debate have more substance.

K’s: If you explain your K in layman’s terms, go for it. I am a firm believer that jargon-heavy K’s don’t improve the debate space. Run whatever you want though, I love fun and interesting rounds! I won’t stop you from running an argument you enjoy. In the wise words of Laura Livingston, “your case is your baby”.

Speed: I love good spreading, but you MUST be clear. I will call clear once, but after that I will stop flowing if I stop understanding. Speak to me, not at me.

TL;DR run whatever you want, have fun, be clear! Yay debate!

I enjoy a good debate that goes back and forth but is civil. Courtesy goes a long way in showing respect for your fellow contestants. There is a fine line between being aggressive and being rude. Rudeness can decrease a persons perception of how they are doing in the debate.

Introduce yourself (name, school) before you speak, and state your side firmly and clearly. Most judges do not enjoy being read to so eye contact is important in trying to convince a judge that they should vote for your position.

As much as you may like to keep track of time yourself, be aware that I will be keeping close track of the time and my timer starts when you START speaking and NOT when you say it does.

Have fun and remember that although the round may not go as you planned or expected, it is the experience that is most important. Win or lose, the skills that you learn here and hone through each tournament you enter will help you throughout the rest of your life. The fact that you are here today shows that you are serious about improving yourself and your personal interaction and speaking skills. Cheers!

Hi debaters. I've judged a few tournaments before, but I'm far from an expert judge. Try to keep things easy to follow and don't go too fast. I prefer clear well supported arguments over quantity.

Thanks,

Brian

I’m a parent judge and former debater.

For debate events, please note:

• I value thorough research, thoughtful questions, and the ability to defend your contentions.
• Ensure your logic is sound, and you construct a compelling narrative.
• Arguments should be current, evidence-based, and clearly expressed.
• Respect and listen to your opponents at all times. In cross, let opponents finish their thoughts and answer your questions.
• Speakers will lose points for spreading if they are unintelligible or their opponents can't respond.

For speech events, please note:

• Speech organization should be clearly outlined.
• Ensure sources are current and reliable.
• Storylines are important, but ensure that you can link your examples to your topic.
• Have confidence and have fun - it comes through in the speech.

Hello! I'm looking forward to judging your debate!

This is my first year being involved with debate, but I'm learning fast and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My experience so far is mostly with Public Forum and these are the things I consider when casting my ballot:

Clear contentions that flow all the way to the end. Don't drop something along the way or it won't help your argument when I'm making my decision. Also, don't let your opponent's arguments go uncontested!

Emphasize the impact. If your side has a larger positive impact you should make sure to point that out! Does the other side cause serious harm? Bring that up!

Logical arguments. Any evidence used should be relevant and have clear connections to your contentions. Your analysis of that evidence is equally important. If you don't know your stuff it will be obvious during cross.

Remember that even though this is a competition we are here to have a good time! Treat everyone with respect at all times. Actions mean as much as words. Good luck!

About me:

I am a coach at Mountlake Terrace High School. I was awarded most argumentative in high school, and probably would still hold that title if re-evaluated.

My strength is in historical periods/perspectives, philosophy and morality. I'm a Math and Social Studies teacher; so I like when arguments take good research, with strong sources, and combine it with logic and interpretation of material mixed into a smooth transitory argument.

I like civility and respect in my debates but don't mind rebuttals and crosses having a little bite to them.

I like sources that are short and concise but to a strong point, especially with numbers/stats!

Strength of an argument is brought through strong points that are well articulated and backed with sources. Out-speaking your opponent in words-per-second is not a source of victory from my standpoint.

I don't mind controversial topics being brought in as long as it is done tastefully and with purpose.

Off time roadmaps are always helpful but by no means necessary.

Speech-

With so many varying speech types paradigms are a little harder to pinpoint. The most consistent and well-put-together performances that include strong openings and closings with details/script inside. Vocabulary, diction, intonation and articulation in your words, emoting/gesturing in your body language, and preparedness (as much as possible) are the qualities I look for.

Any questions on my paradigms please feel free to ask!

Hello Debaters!

I was a PF debater in high school much like many of you. Below are some of the basic things I look for in a good debate round and some things I wish to avoid seeing.

Things I look for:

The top thing I look for when weighing a debate is the evidence and the weight of said evidence. Give me hard numbers for things that have impact. Saying "a lot" or "many" is subjective and I will be a bit more harsh on the impact of evidence that does not include some sort of number when applicable. For example, if you're going to say that something is harming people, give me a number of people hurt to work with. The other half of evidence is the freshness of it. If there are two conflicting statements being made, I will most likely go with the statement that is backed by more recent evidence if the two are reasonably similar in credibility. If you can show me that your evidence is more credible AND recent, you are in a strong position.

Another thing I would love to see is the clear explanation of unique or specific terms. If the general person would not know what something means, assume I don't either as I would like to fully understand any and all things that you say. If there is a term I do not understand, I will not be able to judge anything based on relative information that relies on that term.

Finally, give me clear indications of when new contentions are going to be stated. This can easily be done by stating "Contention 1... Contention 2..." so on, so forth. I will listen closely regardless, but the easier you make it to follow along, the easier it will be to figure out your contentions.

Things I want to avoid:

Some things I wish to avoid are spreading, aggression of any form, and all types of disrespect to anyone.

For spreading, if I can't write down what you said due to how fast you spoke, I will not be able to use it to the same degree of if I was able to write it down.

For aggression, just use common sense and know when you are being rude or overly pushy. I love seeing passionate debates, but there is a point when it gets aggressive and uncomfortable.

Lastly, please do not disrespect your opponents in any way. While it will not affect who won the round (unless it does become overtly negative), please avoid any sort of action that can be perceived as disrespectful. This includes laughing at speakers for any reason. Again, my decision will not be affected by it in most cases, but be aware that I will mark down significant speaker points for it.

General things that win my vote:

Be willing to concede points of contention if it means you can focus on more impactful portions of the debate. While small wins are important and add up, if you can show me that you win the debate off of something that is bigger than the other points combined, you probably have won the round. I look for quality over quantity. Having more contentions or small victories does not mean you have won the round. Focus on points that are significantly impactful within the topic.

Show me you won! Summary should be used to reinforce your own ideas and expose weaknesses in the opponents' contentions that were uncovered during crossfire and anything leading up to it. I will not make connections for you unless you state why I should care about things that were brought up. In a similar fashion, Final Focus should be used to show me why you won. Give me the big picture and leave me without a doubt that my vote should go towards you. I consider these two speeches to be the most vital parts of the debate when making my decision. As a side note, do not bring up new information in final focus. I will not include it in my decision making and it will not have any affect.

Final notes:

I will give out speaker points in a fair and equitable manner. Points will be based on the above things mentioned and how you compare to the other speakers during that round.

I am here to help you have a fun and constructive time so please feel free to ask me questions about anything related to me or my paradigms before the round begins.

Best of luck everyone!