I am a junior in high school. I am PF debater as well as Extemp. I am a two-time national qualifier in PUFO and extemp as well as qualified for TOC . I am well versed in the rules so do not try any abusive attacks. I like off-time road maps, signpost or lose.

I am heavy tech over truth. Don’t try the lay style of debate. I will believe every single thing you say, so call for cards. Contest their evidence, if you don't I have to believe it. Please show me the card if they are lying. I am voting off the flow, so do not try to play logic or any other attempt at discrediting your opponents. Speak as fast as you want, I will be able to understand the vast majority of it. The second my pen goes down, however, whatever you are saying is not being considered. I honor the grace period for FINISHING SENTENCES, the second you add another argument I am making your speaks 0. I do not flow cross, if you want an argument from it considered, bring it up in a speech. Public forum does not need framework, that’s LD. I support the use of trigger warnings before round if necessary. I’ll try my best to keep prep time but also time it yourself.

At the end of this debate, remember it is for fun. Winning or losing really does not matter, have fun. Make up funny impacts and mess around.I will thoroughly enjoy any argument to do with Chimps or other wildlife.

Rest of any random rules:

http://tinyurl.com/37r87j44

Personal Info: My name is Moazzam Ahmed and this is my first year judging for PF debate. I work at Microsoft and am looking forward for the debate rounds. What I want to see: The first thing I care about is your confidence in the round. I want to see speakers speak clearly, project their voice and stand (or sit) tall as you make your points. Avoid stuttering and slurring your words, as well as avoid being fidgety and moving around unnecessarily. Next, to judge on your content I will look for pragmatism rather than contention points & speech being disorganized. You may also get bonus points from me by using global references to your points of contention (if applicable). Last but not least, make sure to be respectful to your opponents and remember to have fun.

I am a second time lay judge.

I prefer clear and concise speaking, i'm okay with speed but prefer slow speaking.

Tell me what to vote on (weighing) in final focus and summary.

Clear and concise reasoning will get you higher points.

I am a parent judge who competed in High School and College both in Washington State and the national circuit. I competed at the state tournament for 4 years and made finals or placed in 3 years. I have done CX, LD, impromptu, extemp, and other catagories. At the time, I was a national forensic league "double ruby" experienced competitor.

I have a masters degree in public administration and I am a "National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer Program" graduate. I currently work for a major fire department as an emergency responder among other speciality responsibilities.

When judging, I follow the "pathos and logos" of your arguments and I will evaluate the strength in your evidence if appropriate. If you decide to go fast or "spread" your opponent, it better make sense and flow correctly.

-Attacking evidence is fair game as long as its supported.

-I will flow your arguments carefully and review arguments individually and cases in their totality.

-Teamwork matters, I am acutely aware if your partner is carying the burdon.

-Respect time constraints. If I am timing and you are not responding or go over, it will be considered.

-Be courteous and respectful.

-Grammar and diction matters.

-I am open to general questions as long as the rules allow.

Thank you

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

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

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

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

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

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

Things that hurt you:

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

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

I’m a parent judge from Eastside Preparatory School . This is my first time judging a debate tournament. Because I’m new to judging and English is my second language, I might have difficulties in understanding your arguments if you speak too fast or use too many debate jargons. Therefore, I would appreciate if you speak slowly and clearly, with minimal jargon and lots of explaining. Thank you!

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.

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

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

I believe in quality over quantity. One or two very strong points will hold more weight then four or five weak ones.

Please speak clearly for me; especially important points. If you are talking so fast and running words together that I cannot understand you, I won't be able to take that information into consideration.

Be kind and considerate. Rudeness to teammates or competitors will not be tolerated. You can be awesome at debate, but if you're not kind, I won't vote for you.

Let's have fun together. Remember this is high school debate and should be fun!

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Parent judge, English is my second language so please speak slow.

PF paradigm:
- No spreading or jargon. If it is too fast for me to understand, I will deduct speaker points.
- Please outline your speeches.
- Be respectful towards everyone in the round.

Speech paradigm:
- Same rules apply.

- Very good storytelling, well organized, and persuasive speeches will get a high ranking/speaker points.

There will be simple feedback on the ballot.

Good luck!

Cohesion, logic, organization, politeness... These are the traits I prefer to see in the debate.

About me: (He/Him Pronouns) second-year law student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I coached for 4 years after I graduated

If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: rjl2000@uw.edu Or, text me at 253-683-1929

About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS

speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.

I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.

If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.

Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.

For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow

For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.

Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned

if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary

Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.

FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why

weighing is also good

Things that are bad and you should not do:

CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)

Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.

Not signpost

overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

I am a new parent judge, third time judging PF debates today. What's helpful for me: (1) Clearly articulate your contentions, including the contentions that you are arguing for/against; (2) I find the off-time roadmap helpful in knowing how it will flow. (3) Ilike to weigh the impacts of the contentions and arguments.

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

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

For me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points. Don't dump information by speed-talking. As my colleague Nate Silverman put it well: "If I can't understand something you say, because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it."

On that note, for your sake, if you begin to speak too quickly, I will raise my hand so you slow down. If you do not slow down, I will stop flowing.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Please sign post. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off time road maps are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you sign post, I'll know which order you're going in.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying.

This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

I do pf, debate jargon is fine.

I don't flow cx but I'll notice if someone is controlling it well.

• Don't make cx lame

Signpost. If I can't follow you, I can't flow.

Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• If you're going to give one, don't ask, just do it.

I don't like new arguments late in the round and I won't flow new evidence in ff.

Good luck

Hi, I am a lay judge.

I will grant 15 seconds over time then after that I will cut you off.

Try not to spread. Make sure you are clear so I can understand what you are saying.

Use sign posting. This will help me better understand your argument.

For the first speech, I will flow and looking for good impacts and addressing your points clearly (sign posting).

I will not evaluate or flow crossfire. If you want me to consider your points in cross please put in your speech.

In your rebuttal, please have clear points and do not bring up dropped points in FF. Also, do not make new arguments in FF.

Past that please be respectful to your opponents, judges and have fun.

I am a public forum parent judge. Please keep rounds civil and polite. During your constructive speeches please speak clearly and try not to talk too fast so I can flow the important details in your case. Stay within the respective time limits and signpost as well. Off time roadmaps are alright with me as well. Have fun and good luck with your rounds!

:3

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

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

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

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

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

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

I have backround in PF

Wait until after 2nd constructive to call for cards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi - Please slow down for your main contentions. Ensure you're well structured - sign posts are welcome. Don't forget to clarify impact.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

Email: 2202317@edtools.psd401.net

I am experienced in Public Forum and Extemp, National Qualifier in Extemp, If your opponent is being abusive of the NSDA rules feel free to call them out

General:

I can handle fast talking but please speak up and articulate well. If I don't hear it I won't flow it.

If a framework is used it must be extended through the round. If you disagree with a framework feel free to contest it and provide a better one. PUFO defaults to Util/Cost-Benefit

Tech > Truth (But please don't misinterpret evidence)

I will be flowing the round so you will need to carry your arguments through the round for me to vote on them.

I love off-time roadmaps and signposting

Try to be nice but I generally won't vote off conduct unless egregious

I may call for a card if there is disagreement over what it says

I won't flow crossfire but will be listening, bring it up in a speech if you want me to flow it.

WHAT I DON'T LIKE:

Won't vote on theory, but I do allow Cap K's

Won't flow new points in any speech after time is up

Don't talk too long in Crossfire, answer the question and move on, no need to grandstand.

Extra:

Have fun, at the end of the day everyone is trying to learn

Highly pref arguments involving chimps

• 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!

Competitor 1983-1990

Coach 1990-current (NSDA 2 diamond, WSFA Coach of the year 2009, WIAA Hall of Fame inductee (speech/debate coaching) 2016)

Retired?

Treat me like a first-time judge. That means communicate with me, go slower rather than faster (speed kills), and emphasize voters.

I do Public Forum because I like PF, so do PF. Don't do Policy/CX or LD. I don't want to hear about T, burdens, or god forbid a Kritik.

A good Public Forum round gets simpler as it goes on, not more complex. It becomes about fewer things as it develops, not more. Don't try to run the WHOLE flow one more time in the 3 minute speeches. You can't do it with any depth or substance; instead give me clear Voters for the round. In addition, I should hear points from crossfire come back up in rebuttal. Crossfire is not about "tagging" your opponent or scoring points. It's about fueling up for the rebuttals. I definitely want to hear from all four debaters in Grand Cross.

First and last: be nice. Be nice to your opponents, your partner, and to me and the other judges. Don't attempt to re-litigate our decisions, don't say your opponents said things they didn't say (or didn't say things they did). This is debate, but that doesn't mean everything's an argument. This is not primarily about winning and losing, it's about learning. Have a great round, then move on to the next one.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

• 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.