Just a regular Dad who loves to support school activities, like Speech & Debate. First time judging Worlds (3 time PF judge). I value clarity, teamwork and risk taking. Not a big fan of hyperbole. Don't waste my time. I could be skiing right now.

Im an Ex debater with 4 years of experience. 2 in Pufo (My favorite) and LD so I know how things work, and I know how i wanted my past judges to judge me, that is why I takeout any sort of political or moral or social bias I may have when I judge, I will buy any argument, counterplans or K's or extremely progressive or extremely conservative args, anything goes! BUT you must have evidence and you must show me the links, if you dont make links in your args, im forced to make them myself and that might not always end up being in your favor. I try to be the best mix of Tech Vs Truth so of course there will be some conclusions that I just have to make on my own (like if you tell me that Vladimir Putin is the supreme leader of the United States, I cant really buy that because thats just simply not true)

other than that, I love aggression, obviously no Ad Hominem type stuff but I like to see a good aggressive CX (its meant to help you and harm your opponent, so use it!)

LD specifically: use your frameworks, what makes you different from pufo is that you have frameworks, SO USE THEM. I have a wide range of exp with different philosophies and I'm also majoring in PHIL so I dont have a problem on following along if you want to run something wild (In fact i admire when you run good and complex frameworks)

Note for both: the squo is important... if the aff cant provide any sort of solvency or a "better" world than the neg... I will default to the squo (neg)

Please Sign Post so I know where you are on the flow.

Hello my name is Lucas Fyre! I am a senior at Eastern Washington University (EWU) graduating with a bachelor's degree in psychology, with a special focus as a behavioral health support specialist. Throughout my time at EWU I have been a student employee of the Associated Students of Eastern Washington University (ASEWU), EWU’s student government team, where I have served out three consecutive terms with titles ranging from Senator of Academic Affairs, Executive Vice President, as well as my current title of ASEWU President. During my time at ASEWU I have been a part of several university wide projects ranging from University Accreditation, Strategic Planning, Resource Allocation, Annual Giving, as well as Budgetary Review.

This will be my first time judging a speech and debate event and I look forward to seeing all involved, that being said this is what I will be paying close attention to:

• Respect is a big priority of mine, I give respect to everyone and I expect you to respect myself, others, and the space itself. Respect to me is shown through thoughtfulness of action, speech, and attentiveness.

• Intolerance of any kind will not be allowed; this includes discriminatory speech, bigotry, or xenophobia. I expect you to utilize cultural competency throughout your time at this competition.

• I value the ability to structure an argument with sensibly connected evidence with conclusions that are logical extrapolations from the evidence, evidence that does not contribute to your overall argument or conclusion should not be included.

• To me the best arguments are made at a comfortable pace that allows anyone to follow along without straining themselves to keep up. This includes having logical topic breaks that don’t stray too far into one another.

Thank you for reading my paradigm. Taking the additional time to study and adapt to these suggestions will increase your odds of picking up my ballot, though doing so does not *guarantee* the result you are looking for.

I have organized my paradigm into blocks, depending on the event I'm judging, as follows:

All Debate Events:
0) I make mistakes. I'm human. You make mistakes. You're human. Grace, therefiore, is rule 0. Give it and receive it. Nobody here (myself included) has the right to consider anyone else as less perfect or otherwise inferior as human beings. Therefore, all the following statements are offered not to make you feel inferior, but to show you my thought process so you can adapt to it. Nothing more or less.
1) Decorum is the ultimate a priori voting issue. I expect you to treat one another, the audience, the facilities, and the judge(s) in your round with respect at all times. In turn, you will receive my full respect as well. We've all invested time into this contest, and to disrespect it with rude, discriminatory, bigoted, intolerant, or other disruptive behavior is an insult not only to those who sacrificed to be here to support you, but to all the people who came before you to give you this opportunity.
2) Speed is NOT your friend. In order for me to understand and apply your argument to the flow, I must first be able to understand it. If I've stopped typing (or put my pen down if using paper flows), I'm probably not following your argument. If I didn't flow it, it never happened.
3) Jargon is Speed's twin... also not your friend. Dropping a bunch of debate jargon in your speech isn't effective with me. Shorthand speak is lazy debate. Don't assume I know all the meaning behind your words. If I look confused, I probably am. So, take a second and explain things.
4) Sources must be cited properly. “Jones, '22” means nothing to me if I don't know which Jones and which article you are referencing.
5) For events that allow for prep time: Prep time begins within 5 seconds of the end of the previous speech. There is no stopping prep because your tech malfunctioned, or because you need to swap thumb drive evidence. Prep ends when you start speaking.
6) Mine is the only clock in the room that matters. You can time yourself, but if I say stop, you stop.
7) If you offer a roadmap, follow it.
8) After the round: Gather your things quietly and leave so the tournament can run on time. I do not shake hands (it's a germs thing). Do not comment on the round after it's over.
9) I do not disclose results in prelim rounds. Period. Full stop. Even if the tournament requires it. I'll take the fine/punishment. I don't believe it is beneficial to anyone. I will give oral feedback IF the tournament is running on time and if I feel the teams are in a proper mental state to listen to it objectively and accept it (same goe sfor my own mental state... I may simply be too tired to engage... don't take it personally). Oral critique, if offered is UNIDIRECTIONAL. It is not a time for you to argue your case further. Doing so will be considered a decorum violation (see #1 above). I reserve the right to change my vote in the event of a post-round decorum violation - including going to tab and requesting a change in person.

Congressional Debate:
1) I'm a Registered Parliamentarian, as in I do this professionally as a paid gig. If you're thinking of challenging my knowledge of Robert's Rules, the local rules for your tournament, etc., just don't. (Not perfect, but I get this right to 5-nines of accuracy). I always study in advance and ask for complete rules lists for your Congress.
2) As a Parli, I am looking for these things in order descending order of importance: Decorum, Participation, Appropriate Use of Procedures, Advancement of Debate, Good Analysis, and Solid Speaking Skills. You scorers are judging your speeches. I can't focus on the procedures and listen to every aspect of your speech or the flow of debate.
3) Conversely, as a scorer, I am going to actually flow the debate in round, tracking the arguments Pro and Opp and looking for you to advance the debate, not merely rehash what others have said. After the argumentation, I look to style and speech quality as a secondary voter.
4) I know many of you are being taught that 30-seconds of questioning is about getting in as many questions as possible. Please resist that urge. You'll score more points with me by letting the speaker address one or two questions fully than by blasting 5 rapid fire questions. If you need 30 seconds and 5 questions to make a point, then it belongs in a speech.
5) Be engaged during the session. Side-talk, playing on your phone/computer, ignoring the speaker... I notice these things and they're heavily frowned upon (see decorum rules above).

Policy Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the team who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your team up, and the ballot is yours.
1) By default, I am a Stock Issues judge - I debated Oxford (a slightly different form of what you do today), NDT, and CEDA formats in HS and College, all of which used this time-honored and tested framework: Topicality, Inherency, Significance, Solvency, Ads/Disads. Aff must win all five. Neg needs only win one issue decisively. (Assuming a priori voters don’t come into play, which is rare).
2) I give VASTLY more weight to on-case arguments. Inherency and Solvency are my most common reasons for voting NEG. I consider Topicality a time suck unless the case is grossly non-topical. I despise debates that become pure T or just K's (or only these 2 things), and the team I feel is most to blame for creating that problem will lose my ballot every time. Significance and Inherency are the two most overlooked issues in debate today - I won over 80% of my negatives on these 2 issues as a young debater, and I miss hearing those arguments. I LOVE a good counterplan that gives a clear, net-competitive alternative to the Aff case.
3) The sole exception to #1 & 2 above is that I accept Theory arguments IF they are clearly communicated, carried all the way to the 2AR/2NR, and have DIRECT link to the round. Example: I voted once at National-level outrounds on a performative K because it dealt directly with something that occurred during prep time between the 1AC and 1NC and had a clear impact on Neg's ability to debate the round. This is a rare strategy - risky unless you can prove both the immediate root cause was the opponent and the clear impact to the round. Additionally, Presumption belongs to the Neg. Aff has a burden to present a complete Prima Facie case in the 1AC or the round is over at that point.
4) I do not read evidence unless challenged directly under the NSDA rules of evidence, and then only to determine the validity of the challenge. If I didn't hear it clearly, it didn't happen. If you think it's critical to your case, make absolutely sure I hear it.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
1) I learned LD from Minh Luong. My camp study partner/roommate was Victor Jih (founder of Victory Briefs - and yes, I'm name dropping, Victor... if you're reading this with your student, :) ). I finished 3rd at NFA Nationals in college. I am likely what you would call "old school." I've also coached TOC outrounders more than a dozen times in my career. I understand TOC-circuit style, even if I disagree with most (or all) of it.
2) LD is Values Debate. It was created expressly as a counterpoint to Policy. I will reject plan text in LD. Period.
3) A Value is (I can't believe I actually have to write this) something that has inherent, intrinsic, or physical value to you or others. Morality isnot a value. We can be moral beings because we value X, and valuing X is moral according to Y framework. But we cannot value morality by itself. If you read this, and your case has "morality" as its value, take 5 minutes of pre-round time to think of something valuable that applies to your case and value that, please. I guarantee your case has something in it you can use this way.
4) A Criterion is the philosophical or logical approach/framework that, when applied to the resolution, establishes a hierarchy of values according to some logic or philosophical consideration. If you choose not to offer one, then you agree to be measured by the standard your opponent offers. If neither offers one, then you're subject to my chosen criterion for the round in front of me. This is an unpredictable place to put my ballot in.
5) In the end, I will vote for the case that establishes, in the context of the resolution, their value to be superior by whatever criterion is the best choice within the round, supported by the arguments in the contentions offered.
6) Kritiks in LD have to be directly linked to the cases offered, or the events in round. Tenuously linked arguments will be given little or no weight in round. Generally, K's need to be established as a priori for me to even consider them.
7) Theory arguments are rare in LD. Presumption exists, and I have voted on it when the AC is clearly not prima facie valid. Beyond that, you'll probably spend more time convincing me that your specific theory argument is a priori than you could spend on case in direct clash.

Fun fact: 80% of my RFD in LD are on Value/Criterion. It's rare that a decision has to go deeper than that in justification.

Public Forum Debate:
Overview: I was coaching when PuFo was created (Ted Turner Debate was its original name). It was patterned after a TV show called Crossfire... a 30-minute show around a single topic where 4 guests debate the merits of a single issue. It was intended explicitly to be an event judged by laypersons... a default audience sitting at home on the couch watching the show. My paradigm is strongly influenced by this framing of event intent.
1) I do not keep a rigorous flow of PF rounds. I will make notes about the performance of the debaters and their key arguments during the round. But since I don't flow debates on TV talk shows at home, why would I do so here? Frankly, if I can't track 3-4 main arguments per side in my head, with a few memory notes, then I shouldn't be judging debate. And if you are making more than 3-4 main arguments per PF round, then either you're going too fast for PF or not going deep enough into each line of argument you're making. Either way... flowing is not needed in this event. It's just way too short a round for that.
2) Because I'm not flowing, clarity and simplicity in your argumentation are key (as it should be in an event designed to appeal to a lay audience). The more complex your argumentation, the more likely you're going to lose me. And my ballot. Keep it simple.
3) This isn't "Policy light." Even topics that appear policy framed (i.e. - "The US Federal Government should...") are intended to be debated point-counterpoint. Not in a plan-counterplan format.
4) Theory, policy, jargon, frameworks, etc. have no place in this event. Again, this is point-counterpoint debate. There is no presumption. The burden of proof is on whomever is raising the point. The burden of refutation is on the opposing side. And you don't automatically win by your opponent dropping an argument. If an argument is dropped, you must prove how dropping it proves fatal to your opponents’ position, or benefits yours. It could be they dropped it in favor of a stronger response on another point that wins the round.
5) Clash is required. Because there is no presumption, you don't just get to win on Con if Pro doesn't make their case. "Two ships passing" debates end up being decided on my ballot by coin flip. I've decided PF rounds on the mere appearance of clash on a single otherwise irrelevant point because neither team wanted to engage the other. Make a good debate. Engage your opponent with direct clash please.
6) Crossfire is a freely-flowing exchange. It is not cross-examination with an examiner and a respondent. Statements are not only allowed, but expected, especially in Grand Crossfire. Show off your discussion skills in these periods. It is also NOT a screaming match. If I'm getting nothing from the screaming chaos, I'll end the Crossfire... better to keep the tournament on schedule.

World Schools Debate
Unlike every other form of debate, WSD is designed to be scored. Not judged as you might traditionally expect it to be. It is possible that a team could win the arguments, but do it in such a sloppy, inelegant, derivative manner that they end up losing the round. I do not believe in low point wins in WSD.

So, how do you win my ballot in WSD? By scoring points. Here's how you do that:
1) Content (40%) - Arguments need to be: Relevant to the topic; Substantive; Deeply constructed (I'd rather hear 2 substantive arguments in 8 minutes than 4-5 weakly built arguments with limited support or limited exploration of the concept). Arguments should be properly constructed (claim, warrant, impact). Refutation should be likewise relevant, on topic, directly contrarian, and properly constructed (claim, counter-claim, warrant, impact). Evidence, when offered, should be properly cited. Analytics, when offered, should be strongly correlated to the argument being made.
2) Strategy (20%) - A good WSD case has a goal, an objective, a purpose, an agenda, a cause... however you want to word it: You're all working toward a specific goal. This is not point-counterpoint debate. There isn't any theory that requires all arguments be made in the first speech and extended. Instead, each 8-min speech is supposed to be constructive in nature. This can be done many ways, but each member of the team should playa role in developing the narrative the team is creating (and defending) as a whole. I rate you on how well you define, serve, and complete that role. For example, in a case where "This House regrets the narrative that children are the future," a good Gov team might divide the work 3 ways. Speaker 1 offers how the narrative was formed, its flawed purpose, and how structural ageism played a part in founding that narrative. Speaker 2 might extend off that into three ways the children are directly harmed from the narrative (added pressure increases anxiety, leads to suicidal behavior, etc.), citing child development theories and experts in the field. Speaker 3 might then devote an amount of time to how resolving this narrative takes pressure off our children and let's kids be kids, building a better future for us through our children, but not by applying pressure to succeed or improve out lot as adults. This isn't the only way it could be done, but is a good example. In contrast, Speaker 1 giving 5 substantive arguments then having speakers 2 and 3 extend and add more evidence is a bad strategy (often seen in CX or PF). In WSD, it doesn't work. Bottom line: The strategy should be cohesive, interconnected, defining and advancing the narrative.
3) Style (40%) - How you conduct yourself in round goes a long way toward this style score: Is the team confident, but not arrogant. Is the team professional. Are they appropriately aggressive when needed, and deferential when not. POIs go a long way to scoring in this area. POIs should be relevant to the point the speaker just made. They should be a single point, not a series of questions or statements. POI is not cross-examination. They should be brief, but contain enough content to make the point clear. They should be just frequent enough to be relevant and just infrequent enough as to not disrupt the flow of the speaker. Barracking is heavily frowned upon and will be penalized. Also, how you respond to POI affects this score as well. Each speaker should accept at least 2 POI (preferably from different opposing players), and address those points directly and substantively before moving on. Most of all, Style scores are elevanted based on how well your team tells a story - each speaker is a storyteller as much as a debater - combining argumentation skills found in LD, CX, PF with rhetoric skills found in Oratory or Expository. Wit is rewarded, but so is rich use of language. Most of all, helping your opponent understand your argument is an element of style, part of making good debate is avoiding deception or intentional confusion of your opponent. Take the time to help make it clear to them what you mean. Opponent misunderstanding affects their score and yours. It doesn't help you.

Ultimately, the goal of WSD is to engage in good debate stylistically. Yes, you do score points for content and strategy, but that is only 60% of your total score. Between two teams with equal skill in argumentation, the deciding factor on my ballot is almost always style. So make a good debate, not just winning arguments. Any good debater can win an argument. On the WSD stage, you need to do it with style.

Parliamentary Debate
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
One unique aspect of Parliamentary Debate (whether its IPDA, APDA, NPDA, NPTE, BP... doesn't matter): You get a topic assigned to you in short order before the round. Those topics can be questions of policy, value, or fact. Rather than repeat my paradigms here, consider this:
- if your topic for our round is policy-based, read my CX paradigm, then come back here.
- if your topic is values-based, read my LD paradigm and then return here.
- if your topic is fact-based, read my PF paradigm but take it with a grain of salt... PF isn't Parli stylistically. I'll address the style in a moment. However, fact-based topics lend themselves to more point-counterpoint debate style, like PF, which is why I suggest you look there first.

Once you've done that, understand this:
1) I give a bit more leeway in how deep the arguments go because of the limited prep nature of your event. However, I expect the arguments to be well constructed, cleanly delivered, complete, and properly linked to the topic or to another argument (if refuting such).
2) Speed is absolutely not your friend here. These rounds get muddy really fast, so stick to your flows and make sure I know what you're addressing when you speak. A few seconds spent clarifying why you're making the claims you are (what purpose they serve in the round narrative) are worth more than 1 full minute of spewing arguments.
3) Like in WSD, POIs are critical to advancing the debate and remaining relevant. I give a lot of weight to POI... far more than most judges on circuit, and I'm known to vote entirely off a very well made point that "sticks".
4) Points of Order - aka POIs made in the final summary speeches - will be ruled on immediately by me before the speaker may proceed. My rulings come in two forms: "Point taken" (I'm considering it), or "Point NOT taken" (I'm rejecting your argument, move on). This is important as most of the time there are no opportunities for substantive response and you need to know if I'm considering the point or not before your speech ends. The form is this: Opponent raises a point, Speaker addresses it briefly, both pause and wait for my ruling. This may be new for high school debaters, but commong on the collegiate ciruit. Wait for me, please (Note: This is ONLY for rebuttal speeches... in constructives, just keep going)
5) The gallery and backbench may express agreement or displeasure respectfully (low groan, brief muttering, or light tapping/knocking), but never with anything substantive (no shouting any content or arguments). If this becomes a problem or distraction, I will stop it. If I intervene once, there will be no audience reaction permitted for the rest of the round.
6) The prima facie case for the resolution must be made, introducing and framing the topic, plus enough argumentation to fully justify the case on its own, by the Prime Minister (PM - aka Gov/Prop speaker #1). Presumption applies... if the case is not sufficient on its merit, I will vote Opp and the round is over from that point on. This is rare... but consider this before you decide to run some performative AFF case with no relevant discussion of the resolution.
7) LIkewise, the Leader of Opposition (LO, aka Opp speaker #1) must establish the grounds on which the Gov team has misstepped in its support of the resolution. Once prima facie is met by team Gov, BUrden of Refutation applies to the Opposition. If the opposition doesn't directly clash with the actual case brought by Team Gov, I will vote for Gov and the round is over from my perspective.
(Note: When I say the round is over, I'll usually shut my laptop to signal my decision is entered. You can do with that information what you will. As long as my laptop is open, I'm flowing and writing notes and my ballot is active).

Summary:
Make it easier for me to vote for you than your opponent, and you'll have my ballot. Be clear. Be concise. Focus on case-related arguments. Engage with your opponent and clash. Be polite and courteous. Respect me, my position, and my decisions. Respect your opponent(s). If you have a question about my work in round, feel free to ask. I'm happy to explain. But don't argue with me - in round or afterward. Accept the explanation and move on.

Most of all, have fun. Nothing in our round is worth stressing out about. Someone will win. Someone will lose. Do what you can and be satisfied with your effort, if not the result.

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.

Former: Congressional debate, oratory, extemporaneous speaking, world schools w/ Mount Vernon.

Currently a student at Western Washington University, studying Urban Planning and Sustainable Development - that means I'll be a little more knowledgeable on housing, zoning, transit, land use, and similar issues.

Congress:

Please don't rehash.

I should hear refutation as soon as the 1st neg.

Ihate when we spend an hour-plus on each bill. I would much prefer an individual speak on less bills but prioritize speaking on the bills they know the most about. Of course, I know that this isn't how congress normally goes.

Don't be bigoted. Congress, for some reason, seems to love being bigoted. Don't.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. Question answering/giving - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like

5. Congressional BS - take charge in the chamber! Be the one introducing motions, calling for votes, etc. (I'll also knock you for dumb BS like amendments that derail the debate)

For POs: be efficient in the chamber and courteous to your fellow congresspeople.

Worlds:

Remember that worlds is aworld event. I should hear evidence, arguments, and statistics from world sources. Eurocentrism bad.

Cite sources in speech or be prepared to source when weighing statistics or arguments.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. POIs - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like. I'll note if someone is asking too many POIs, accepting too many, not accepting any, etc.

A good number of POIs accepted per speech is 2-3, a good number asked is roughly 1 every 30 seconds. A good rule of thumb (for me) is enough asked to annoy the other team but not annoy the judge.

Any new refutation introduced in the 4 won't be considered. Elaboration on previous examples if fine in the 3, but I shouldn't be hearing new information.

Slow down. Presentationally, worlds is somewhere in-between congress and pufo.

POIs are not CX. there is no back-and-forth, and they can be statements. (if anything, statement POIs can be better as they tend to trip up the speaking team)

Speeches:

Calm, clear speaking. Well-researched points. If you believe you know what you're talking about, then I will too.

Extemp/impromptu/similar: Within reason, I'm fine with short time if it means you aren't repeating yourself for 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

Generally,

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

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

Arguments:

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

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

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

Do like and will vote on:

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

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

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

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

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

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

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

I find that it is best to judge on what's being said and understood rather than the largest amount of evidence presented. I want to see competitors use their voice to convince me of their position rather than sprout out tons of pieces of evidence. I want ethos, pathos and logos in your arguments. That being said, I need to hear the arguments so rate of speech is key for me, especially in cross examination.

My name is Robin Monteith and I am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my 7th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture, but with enough specifics to understand the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I value clear structure to your speeches supported by sources that you site while speaking. Analysis and source material are more important than delivery.

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.

Congres:

I want to see you bring your own personality to your argument style, if you like using props and visuals, use them (as long as it does not waste time), if you prefer citing various legal documents instead, go for it, whatever works best for your speech style. Amendments are welcome, as are caucuses for dockets or votes. I prefer a more formal chamber and follow the NSDA Congressional book. Your speeches should not be re-iterations of speeches I have already heard unless you have something new to that argument and need to recap the concept briefly. I love it when people respond to the chamber and use Clash in Questioning.

Remember that in the end congress is a performance for the judge and have fun with it.

Parli Notes:

Please as a PO open space for paradigms for judges, and if you have questions about policy/procedure I usually try to have the first few minutes (below 10) open for questions before nominations. This is not speech time or judged but is meant to help you. This can be anything from how to go to the bathroom during the round, to what is a caucus and why it exists. I keep my recency/precedency digitally and if you would like a copy it is in excel sheet and you just have to ask.

I am here to help you

OV: I’m a tabula rasa judge, I will buy literally any argument you throw at me. I’m a former policy/prog LD debater on the national circuit, so there isn’t much that I won’t understand. (Lingo is awesome!)

Additionally, slow down on tags, flash your case, or disclose on the evidence wiki if you are going to spread.

FRAMEWORK

Value-Value Criterion: This is the primary weighing mechanism in the round. I will judge both neg and aff under the lens of the winning VVC if not specified otherwise.

Resolutionary Analysis: This is the secondary weighing mechanism, I’ll default to VVC if the RA debate becomes a wash. (If your circuit doesn't use the RA in LD, disregard and assume T-shell is the secondary weighing mechanism)

Theory Shells: This is the tertiary weighing mechanism. RA and VVC come first, but if the theory debate is substantive in rebutting either the RA or VVC, its weight defaults to the same weight as the framework it rebuts.

CONTENTIONS

Literally, do anything you want, I’ll flow whatever. I understand the stock issues pretty well and philosophy, so anything goes. Just make sure it’s clear so I can flow it properly!

ADDITIONAL NOTES

You will not win a round solely with good speech. Logic to me matters over all else. I don’t care if you are screaming or if you are the most charismatic person on the planet, the content and rationality of your argument matter most to me.

Impacts are awesome! But please make sure they function under the VVC as the weighing mechanism.

Good luck!

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) nuclear war and climate extinction??? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)