Hi! I'm Samantha. If it helps you in some way, here's a little bit about me. I did LD for three years through High School in Eastern Washington, and have competitive experience in Congressional debate as well. I am familiar with other debate types, but if you find me judging your Public Forum or Policy round, you may have to help me out a bit.

I was a (relatively, the distinction nowadays is pretty arbitrary) traditional debater, but I think progressive cases are cool if they're well thought out. I can keep up with almost anything: Policy Lingo, wonky frameworks, K's, theory, whatever you want to run, but here are generally my debate preferences.

TECH > TRUTH (in most cases, keep reading), I'm a flow judge, and will vote on the arguments made in the round, but keep in mind that just because you have a card for something doesn't automatically make it true. You need to have warrants as well as logic. Even so, pointing out the low probability of an impact happening is a valid argument in my book, but I will not discount any argument on that premise alone. Basically, as long as you don't say anything blatantly untrue (such as: The sky is red) we're all good.

Run whatever your heart desires. I can keep up with whatever. Stock issues and all. However, by "I can keep up with whatever" I don't mean that I am guaranteed to catch everything that is said in the round if you start spreading 1000 words a minute.

Speaking of spreading: if you're spreading, that's fine, but PLEASE be clear and understandable I can only write so fast, and be aware you do so at your own risk.

If you're running a case that's heavy on philosophy, that's cool, but I need to understand exactly how it functions in the debate, and what your position on the resolution is. Why do I prefer your framework? How am I as a judge supposed to weigh your arguments? I understand phil, but please don't just read a bunch of quotes and some cards that supposedly outline a clear position on the resolution.

No matter what kind of case you're running, I NEED TO HEAR CLEAR LINKS. I can't say when I will and will not connect those dots for you, it will depend on the circumstances of the round, but in general it's your job to make sure I understand how we got from an increase in the federal gas tax to nuclear war with China (just an example from my memory). I want to look at my flow and know exactly how your contention relates to the resolution, and how doing the resolution (or not) leads to or solves for your impact. If I'm missing logic gaps at the end, your argument doesn't hold as much weight.

Framework is the primary weighing mechanism! If framework is a wash I'll just default to common sense biggest impacts in the round.

Be kind to your opponent please... but aggressive CX is perfectly fine, and you can cut your opponent off politely if they're going on a monologue.

If you drop an argument you lose access to it. If your opponent doesn't bring it up/warrant it out, the point is dead to me.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE FRAMEWORK DEBATES AND CLASH, PLEASE KEEP ME ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT.

Please time yourselves, but I have official time.

Ask me any questions you have before the round starts I'm happy to answer them.

Consider me a 99% blank slate.

Have fun! :D

Extra stuff IF IT APPLIES TO YOU:

K's

I don't love K's in general, but that doesn't influence how I judge. I judge K's like every other argument.Please make your links clear... as well as your impact. If I don't understand your K I can't vote on it, and if your opponent can't understand it they can't debate it, so nobody has a good time.

Counterplans:

I love counterplans if done well, but if you're going to run one, you MUST have text. One line of a card talking about an alternative solution to the Aff is NOT a counterplan. If anything it's a casual suggestion. Counterplan debate is fun, so please make it fun!

Theory:

I will vote on theory as long as you have clear standards and voting issues. But please make the voters match the violation (Ex: don't run drop the debater for a small case of framework abuse) or else I'm less likely to buy it.

I won't vote on extraneous theory that was obviously run just to generate voters. This is a bias of mine I will disclose up front. HOWEVER, again, I will definitely vote on it, especially if it's in response to clear abuse and/or violation of debate rules.

In other words, if the bones of the shell are good/actually relevant to the debate, have at it. If you're fighting to make it relevant and/or just desperate, probably best to keep it in your word-document.

I really like to read docs, so please include me on chains/send docs: angelocthechef@gmail.com. I flow on paper like a normal person, so give me a little time to switch sheets and signpost often.

While I currently debate at Gonzaga University, I also like to dabble in judging and coaching.

I'm also newer to actual debate than most debaters in the college scene. I did mock legislature for 4 years of high school, and started PNW/CARD debate in 2021.

I have one philosophy as a judge: be cool.

Be cool, collected, and kind during debates. If you're getting red in the face yelling during cross-x for no reason I'll be sad :(

Cool/interesting arguments MAY also make me prefer your side, and give you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't take anything too serious if it doesn't need to be taken as such. (Things like racism, homophobia, transphobia will be taken seriously)

I also really appreciate heavy impact calc, laying out in ground terms why your plan/idea has a superior outcome. I'm also always down with Ks, or anything interesting really, even including sneaky strategies. All I need is for you to explain why I should cast your ballot.

For more complicated K's, framework, and theory, I'll need some heavier baseline explanation.

In terms of judging, I lean more on the traditional communication side of LD. While sophisticated argumentation and philosophy are integral to a strong debate, I think that presentation, speaking style, and polish are equally important. Clarity, enunciation, and strong communication skills can be the deciding factor between two equally-matched competitors.

If you lean towards a more progressive style of LD debate, I fully expect to see your Value and Value Criterion supported and referenced throughout each contention. Because LD is a Value-centric debate, even the most logical, well-supported contentions will be useless without reference to LD framework. This support should be explicitly stated: as with any other aspect of your case or the round as a whole, I will not make arguments or connections on your behalf.

Any drops made in-round should be adequately explained and impacted. It is not enough for you or your opponent to tell me to flow a drop; the significance of each drop must be tied either to your case or your opponent's and logically refuted.

WI have debated 4 years of HS and on my third in college at Gonzaga. I love the 'sport,' and what it does to the community. I give praise to everyone who debates, because it takes a lot of strength to get up there and speak your opinions. I’m a 2n/1a

Updated -- Summer ‘23

Chain? Yes. dawsonnick02 AT gmail DOT com

Please refrain from suicide reps, thanks. If you have questions, ask.

Top level notes is that I was generally a k debater in HS, that being said I am more versed in some areas than others. In college I’ve been a flex team reading both K and policy affs. I think that both some of my favorite arguments and debates are one off k's or one off strats that give args the most amount of clash, shifting the debate in the most fair way(being a small school sucks sometimes). That being said, I try to be a mainly tabu la rasa judge.

The 10 analytics you spread in 2 seconds on theory or otherwise shotgun out is super hard to flow, disperse analytics or actually communicate your argument and we'll be all good. In every other instance speed is not that much of a conern. Please signpost and either say 'and' or 'next' between cards. Strictly flowing off the doc leads to worse debates.

What you probably shouldn't run:

Double win/loss / other rule breaking

Defending suicide alternatives/advocacies(ligotti, schope, others like these are ok) at least give trigger warnings

If you have concerns just don't read the arg.

Theory

T and condo are always voters, and almost never reverse voters. If you drop it you'll lose. Almost every other interpretation is solved by rejecting the argument.

K's

I have a pretty good knowledge on most k lit. That being said, if you have specific questions, you can ask me before round. I'm down to hear whatever you got. Creative K's are epic.

For the Aff specifically. I will judge the aff how to tell me to judge it, and will vote on anything(unless earlier referenced).

We went for a sick werewolves k aff at the NDT in 2023.

Etc.

Rehighlighting need to be read unless it's a single word or similar.

Anything other than policy debate

I'm a blank slate judge that tries to leave all prior knowledge of the topic outside of the room.

I prefer it if debaters spentway more time on comparing the (framework/resolutional analysis/etc) to the other teams. This is, in my opinion the most important part of debate that can shield in or out different teams' offense.

Impact calculus in the later speeches isnecessary to define the most important parts of the round, and if you win it, it should mostly define what my ballot should be solving for.

any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hey there, debaters! Here's how I roll:

I am a newborn child and know nothing about the world. I am here to learn and am easily persuaded by well constructed logical arguments.

For speech events passion and vibes matter. If you're genuinely excited about your argument, that enthusiasm might just sway me.

For debate events I'm looking for the best presented value and how well it is supported. Keep your flow logical and provide sign posts.

Let's have some fun, everything is awesome!

I am a 4 year debater with LD being my primary focus. I am comfortable with any argument you wish to run, but be prepared to defend it. When I look at the round I like to look at the round through the lenses of the value and value criterion and then look at the voters that may be present. Please signpost where you are in the flow, it makes it easier to follow you and if I can’t get it down or get it down in the wrong spot it doesn’t end well for you. I don’t flow crossx but if there is something in there you wish to bring up I will flow it.

im not super big on speed, but I can sorta deal with it. If something is dropped don’t just say oh it’s dropped, impact it and show me the significance of that drop.

I am a volunteer and this is my third year judging. I appreciate a professional debate, devoid of rudeness. Please keep your delivery relatively slow and clear. I do not like spreading. I like arguments that are organized, cohesive, and provide rational support. I appreciate signposting and I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. Have fun! Be proud of yourself! What you are doing is amazing!!!

Signpost, articulate your taglines, and everything will work out. Clash is good, T, Ks, etc. are fine. I’m not very particular on style or structure: this is your round, and I am here to occupy the position of judge according to the whims of tab.

Run whatever you want, and have fun!

This is my first debate season as a judge, so far judging 2 open rounds.

I prefer speaking no faster than a fast conversational pace. No spreading. Technical jargon, especially around values and criterion, should be adequately defined so that I can tell if your case meets them.

I flow constructives and rebuttals. Cross-ex is for your information and I do not take notes during cross-ex.

I value strong logical arguments over style. You must draw connections between your contentions, impacts, and value criterion, and directly rebut your opponents points in a convincing way. Must maintain consistency throughout arguments.

Of course expect professional conduct, address judge during speeches, emotion during speeches is fine to a point.

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my sixth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

Public Forum: I usually use cost benefit analysis to compare each team's impacts. I prefer to have voting issues for comparison, but they are not necessary as long as the impacts are clear. I do not think that spreading really belongs in PF, but I will flow it as long as you slow down on taglines. At least try to take turns in crossfire. I won't vote a team down for being rude, but it will cost you some speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As this should be value debate, I prefer for your value to be a concept with intrinsic worth and for it not to be too vague (for instance, I would prefer "individual rights" over the wildly vague "morality"). This same preference is also true for your criterion. I would prefer that your criterion actually shows me how we determine what is moral vs the circular logic that starts with "promotion/reduction of..." (for instance, I would prefer "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance" to "promotion of equity"). I will follow my flow closely, so make certain that you extend and impact any drops. When you get to voting issues, make certain that you are actually using the criterion that you established in the round and that you are upholding your value.

Price: $4.99 adjusted for inflation

Thanks for debating and reading my paradigm.

4 years LD experience in HS, not real versed in progressive debate theory or format. Flow judge.

-As a judge, I want to hear everything you have to say. To weigh your arguments to the fullest, I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I have a hard time keeping up with significant speed and the resulting lack of clarity. When reading your case, you already know what it says and so it's easy to get the words out quickly. When listening to your case, it will be new to me and will take more time to digest the words you're saying and take notes. Please be aware that if you go too far past a conversational pace, I may miss important parts of your case and that could impact the round. I will say slow and clear a few times if need be. Totally understand in a 3-judge panel situation if you want to disregard to play to the other judges, but I will have a hard time. Realizing I may sound like an old fogey saying this, but personally I think some of the best rounds are the ones where a totally lay person could reasonably follow the arguments being made because they are being explained well and in an accessible way.

-I think mutual respect and good faith debating make for good rounds. It's totally cool to play to win, be direct and assertive, but no need to be impolite in the way that we go about it. We are all friends here, ideally.

-Please stay humble in cx and utilize it to the best of your ability. Pointed questions are good, but try not to force an unnecessary yes or no answer to get ammo for your argument. I never liked being told to only answer yes or no and you probably don't either. I think the main function of CX needs to be clarifying your opponent's position so you can respond accordingly and accurately. In that vein, when your opponent sufficiently answers your question, feel free to move on to the next. Feel free to ask to see your opponent's case during CX or during your prep time. Also, CX questions and answers should be directed at the judge instead of directly at/facing each other.

-*Signposting as you go*, roadmaps, down the flow/ line by line speeches, anything to keep the debate flow organized is much appreciated. It helps so much when you are very clear about which side of the flow you're on and which numbered point you're responding to. This will really help me stay with you and flow all your arguments into the places you want them. At the end of most rounds I look at my flow, prioritize the framework arguments, and then apply those frameworks to the contention level debate. If impact calculus wasn't already provided or is contested, I'll look to see which points I felt went to each side and do my best to weigh them up on the whole.

-If you want an argument cross applied or it addresses multiple parts of a case and the way it does so isn't immediately apparent, please explain.

-If your opponents drops/doesn't sufficiently respond to a significant point, feel free to argue that it's conceded in the round and apply that argument/ impacts to the debate. That said, there are instances where it wouldn't be fair to vote on or heavily weigh some tiny argument that wasn't directly addressed. If a case is structured well imo, there's a few main points to focus on and not a laundry list. No hate on the homies running 15 contentions but it's tough to flow and time runs short.

-Progressive arguments are cool, but please accommodate both me and your opponent in terms of speed and accessibility. Please know that I don't have a solid knowledge of specific progressive structure or lingo. That said, outside the box cases which aren't built on speed/jargon but rather view the resolution or the debate in a different light are v fun as long as they can interact with the opposing case in a meaningful way.

-I love a nice synergy between the value and criterion. Especially where the value is the goal or moral standard and the criterion is the lens for how we know we're achieving that goal. Please note: it is difficult to evaluate a framework argument such as "justice is needed for safety", because the same could be said in reverse. Please explain how or why you believe that the frameworks differ (if they do) and why one is better/ more useful/ of higher moral quality than the other.

-All your time is your time, so please don't feel bad if you want to use it to collect your thoughts, breathe, consult your flow, make notes, etc. Taking a few seconds to collect your thoughts and think it out if you need to usually doesn't hurt. I believe it's in your interest to take advantage of all your prep time, and any down time in cx even if you don't have more questions. However you feel comfortable presenting is good, I don't bother too much with needing to stand for speeches or how much eye contact you have (even though at least some is nice :D). You won't get less than 25 speaks unless there are major issues or inappropriate behavior.

-Impacts: a good impact has clear evidence showing how and why it happens, the scale and time frame of the impact, etc. I know you know this but claiming something will or won't happen is not the same as providing evidence to demonstrate.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask me any more questions you have before the round. Good luck and have fun!

I believe in fair and respectful discourse. During debate rounds all speaking should be directed towards me. I base my determinations on who has the better arguments/cases and on who flows the most impacts through the round.