The Mount Vernon Invitational w NIETOC TOC BIDS and WORLDS
2023 — Mount Vernon, WA/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Please be prepared to time yourself.
If this is a prompt-based speech, please state your prompt before you begin and report your time when you are done.
Please send your case doc or outline - email@example.com
. Speak clearly and not too fast. Slow down on major points, value, criteria, framework, definition, etc. What about spreading? If I can't flow, I can't judge. If you need to insert that much material into the round, you need to provide the outline of that material, at a minimum. In four years of judging, I've only seen one round decided on the sheer volume of evidence introduced and counter arguements and that round didn't have spreading.
. Sign post, then stick to it. If you jump around, I can't follow you. If you drop a point, don't pick it up in another speech.
. Provide outline: numbering and lettering points, impacts, etc, so I can track.
. If you run an unusual case/framework/K - you have to uphold it. You can't just say here it is and that the other side isn't allowed to argue it. This is a debate, so let's debate.
. If you say the sky is green, fine with me, cite reputable sources, and debate it.
. If you run your case without sources, everything you said is your opinion and doesn't win against even the worst sources cited by the opposition.
- For L/D, if you concede framework to your opponent, and the framework argument from the opponent is clear, then framework above contentions. If you don't want to argue framework, go debate policy.
. All common historical context currently taught in Washington State high schools is allowed (ex: The holocaust happened). All obscure or controversial fiction-as-fact must be upheld with reputable and current sources (ex: Jan 6 was just a misunderstanding from a reputable world-wide source).
Poetry/Art/etc as debate
If a case is presented in a format that you haven't seen before or understand how it is relevant to the topic, please use your cross to clarify. Then debate it. Everyone had the same time to prep/research. Now you need to think on your feet.
Meta such as role of the ballot, drop the debate, drop the debater
Role of the ballot - I enjoy ROTB arguments
Drop the debate - make a very strong case
Drop the debator - there must be a clear and obvious ethical or moral breach in the round. I don't drop the debater because they haven't understood the importance of something you said to them on a personal level within the pressure and speed of the round. If you request drop the debator - then you need to walk me through the violation slowly because you've just rested the entire round on this one point and I need to understand it.
Meh - a topicality argument needs to be strong with subpoints. Don't say something isn't topical. Walk me through it.
If you skip voters, or assume voters based on debate, then I get to choose. Probably not what you want me to do.
If your opponent doesn't literally concede a point, but instead drops it or doesn't argue it in a way you deem valid, do NOT say they conceded. That is disrespectful to both the judge and your opponent.
Hi, I'm Pepper Berry, and my pronouns are they/them.
My email if you need it: firstname.lastname@example.org
I've been a debater for five years and I am currently a debater at Seattle University doing British parliamentary.
I have done four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate, about a year of Policy debate, and a tiny bit of public forum. as well as Informative, Impromptu, and Poetry slam.
I am not a fan of speed within speeches, Sure, some speed is fine I've done debates with speed before but too much speed doesn't make debate fun for anyone. I would much prefer the quality of arguments over quantity, especially for complex arguments.
I will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, counter plans, framework, theory, etc. as long as they are explained well.
Debate good, me vote
I will vote off of anything as long as it makes sense
Please bear in mind that event records are public, events are geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in you being removed. Tabroom might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.
In other words, be mature, and good people.
feel free to ask for more feedback later
Current events savvy, Independent/moderate with a background in debate, theater and public speaking. Logic driven and fact oriented, I believe firmly in free and open discussion on tough topics.
One important paradigm for me is that debate is NOT a speed talking competition. I firmly believe that if you have to rush through the information, you are probably trying to include too much information. The purpose of debate is to persuade the audience, not to baffle them.
Current LD debater of 3 years, debate style tends towards Ks and K frameworks. Familiar with a variety of lit bases up to and including high theory and will evaluate any argument (barring the obviously harmful ones). That being said, I have a high threshold for theory arguments in novice rounds, along with highly technical stuff. I will evaluate it and vote according to the technical level of the debate but I may judge you personally and give opponents some grace on RVI-esque arguments. Go as fast as you’re comfortable going. Be engaging, have fun, try not to be a jerk.
I am an experienced debater from a long time ago. I did policy debate from 1987-1989. I am a physician and on the faculty at the University of Washington Medical School. I also have a degree in Public Health. I neither reward nor punish debaters who venture into areas I know a lot about, but if you do so please don't try to convince me of something I know to not be true. That will not go well for you.
I like clash. I like well-reasoned arguments that are responsive to the resolution and the opponent. If it gets on my flow I just might vote for it. However, don’t run arguments just to run arguments. Being strategic is fine but reading blippy arguments just to trick your opponent, I think is abusive. All arguments must be warranted in the first speech that they are given in. If I wouldn’t vote on the argument after the first speech you made it in then I won’t vote on it after your last speech.
I am fine with faster than conversational speed but I really want to understand what you are saying. If your speech is too fast I'll put my pen down, which means I am not writing anything down and therefore I can't vote for it. You can go as fast as you like but if there is any loss in my understanding then it is not worthwhile for you. I think emphasis is useful for my understanding. I am not voting off of who talked better but I would say the two are correlated. I think of debate as oral argument. I will judge based on my flow, which in turn is based on words spoken during the round. If questions come up about evidence during the round of course I will take a look afterwards but this happens rarely. I listen carefully and if statements made about a quote like the tag not matching the quote then I probably heard it too.
I like stock issues like topicality, inherency, significance, solvency, weighing advantages/disadvantages. I am fine with counterplans but I don’t understand the theory behind them. If you want to run a counterplan or you are debating against a counterplan be prepared to argue that it either is or is not legitimate in a way that is understandable to a layperson.
I do not understand or really want kritiks. If you think that your kritik is so obviously true that any lay person would believe it you can read it but I am not promising to understand it. If you are trying to criticize something truly egregious that you believe your opponent has done just point it out and I will vote on it if I agree with you. The same goes for theory shells. I don’t understand and don’t really want to understand the meta of how to read theory shells. If you think your opponent has done something unfair, say so but time debating about how to debate fairly about the debate topic is time wasted, and probably won't help you.
A great thing about LD is philosophical engagement. I am very happy to see clash on that front. You should explain your philosophical concepts as if I am someone who does not know them given that I probably don’t.
You will do well to treat your opponent, me, and debate with respect. At its best debate can be really cool and I'll be excited to learn from you!
Parent Judge. Economist with a quantitative research background. Investor and Trader.
email@example.com Please send in your case doc ahead of time, and time yourselves during the round.
Well-structured and clear communication (no spreading) is a must. Weighing, numbers and creative analysis approaches can make my eyes sparkle, for which a no less than 28 score is guaranteed. You pay speaker points for being disrespectful to your judge or opponent, for which a no more than 25 score is guaranteed.
I am being a debate judge in the tournament, because the estimated opportunity cost of my time spent on this is relatively low this weekend. Debate is A BETTER INVESTMENT NOT FOUND ON WALL STREET, indeed.
Hi, I am a parent judge. Please set up an email chain before the round (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) and send me documents.
While speeding is ok, I would prefer that you not spread and instead use word economy and vocabulary to convey the same.
Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is email@example.com
I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.
Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).
-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.
-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.
- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).
Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!
Policy and LD paradigms are below.
Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, rape and disabilities are discussed.
Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.
Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I prefer frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.
Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.
Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.
Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.
Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.
I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.
I am a highschool senior and have debated for 3 years. 1 in public forum and 2 in Lincoln Douglas. Generally, I would wish for you to clearly signpost and tell me when you are moving to your opponents flow. Be respectful to your opponent, serious enough violations will be enough to drop the debater. For Lincoln Douglas, Utilitarianism is not my favorite, and I really enjoy link-chain debate and framework debate. Please share your cases with me and your opponent. If you create a email chain to share cases, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Most importantly, have fun! Simpsons references in your speeches are always welcome.
Please call me Emily (not 'judge') and add me to the chain: email@example.com
Did a negligible amount of coaching in the 2021-2022 AY and have not dabbled in debate since. I also have no topic knowledge, so please proceed accordingly.
Debated for 4 years at Interlake, currently a sophomore at Harvard.
2A in senior year, 2N for 3 years before that. Most experienced with CP/DA/T vs. plan aff debates, but I will listen to anything.
1. Be a decent human being! I care deeply about inclusion in this space & have no tolerance for rude, condescending, or marginalizing behavior.
2. Speak clearly and slow down if needed. Explain acronyms/niche, topic-specific terms. Please give me time to shuffle my flows.
3. Debate with intention. Introduce well-researched positions, read/compare warranted evidence, avoid rambling overviews, and line up numbering.
4. Explain why things matter. An argument needs a claim and warrant. Impact out statements. Set thresholds. Be instructive and make choices.
5. Pathos can coexist with technical execution. Make the 1AC exciting by setting up a well-paced narrative & delivering it with enthusiasm. Be assertive but respectful in CX. Poke lighthearted fun at silly arguments, underscore pivotal claims, and demonstrate that you know the most important parts of the debate. I love passionate 2ARs (but also have a higher bar for them).
6. The following is a laundry list of preferences. Ideological positions are easily overturned by in-depth debating. I like limits/predictability explanations (T vs plan affs), fairness (T vs planless affs), academically-sound analytics, historical examples/references to 1AC evidence with kritiks, and smart challenges of the "offense/defense" paradigm (I have a lower threshold for reasonability/"zero risk" than most). I dislike exhaustive framing contentions, debating kritiks like they are counterplans/disads, making random perms against kritiks, the phrases "try or die"/"I don't get a 3NR"/"don't make me reinvent the wheel," death good, and trivial theory arguments (or arbitrary interpretations during reasonable debates, like condo).
7. I will match your energy - if you are kind/act like you want to be there, I will be happier! That said, I understand that debate is a stressful activity and will do my best to make sure you are comfortable.
I am a Lay Judge. Please don't spread or speak too quickly, debate is an activity about persuasiveness, not about throwing things at a wall. I don't enjoy progressive debate, If you want to do it, do policy. If I can’t understand you it doesn't serve you well. I may not flow everything. Make sure you signpost clearly.
Greetings, esteemed babies, I'm Sam.
First and foremost, I use the pronouns He/Him, and if you call me anything more mainstream like Microphone/Microsoft just because I look the part, I will be very sad.
Now onto debate specifics.
Send case pls makes flowing easier.
Pref shortcut: Trix(not the cereal) >>>>>>>>>> Theory > stock = policy > framework > K
1. "Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Please do not spread. I lived the majority of my life in China so I find speed hard to flow. If you are going to spread do it in Chinese. I do not give warnings. <- JUST KIDDING!!! Spreading is fine. zoooooom.
2. "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." I am ranked 5th in the state in LD so feel free to run whatever you want. If you want to run meme cases, this is the round to do it. While I attempt to be unbiased, I still think we should keep things in the realm of plausibility. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made-up evidence, I will take it into consideration when I cast the RFD.
3. "While traveling our separated roads through life, we are also either road signs or potholes on the roads of others." Road mapping is very important. I am not confident in my ability to concentrate on flowing the arguments in the right place so make it clear to me which argument goes where.
4. "Brevity is the soul of wit" Clash is critical to a debate. If you spend the entire time orating on the beauty of your case but not saying why your opponent is wrong, that is a speech, not a debate.
5. [I'm lazy no more quotes] Please time yourselves. I will keep time and if you go over time that will affect your speakers. I will not give warnings and it is up to you to stop.
6. Do whatever you want that makes you comfortable during the round as long as it doesn’t make me annoyed. Don't break the rules though. If you want to win I recommend watching my reactions to seeing which arguments I buy.
7. Theory: I will flow it, and I have a very very very low threshold. I love frivolous theory and it would be very easy for you to win off of it. If the AC is super stock and you are considering running theory just because you can, please don’t, you’ll probably lose.
If you are a noob don't worry too much, I've probably debated someone who uses the same style as debate as you so I can probably flow your arguments fine.
+1 speaker point if you are over 100 stars in bedwars. (IF YOU SAY ROBLOX BEDWARS I WILL GIVE YOU MINIMUM SPEAKS)
+0.5 points if you are over 10 stars in skywars.
+0.5 points if you quote the art of war
+0.5 points if you quote Yi Jian Mei
+0.5 points if you make star wars reference
+2 points if you read trix (not the cereal). (maybe auto win)
+1 point if you can make me visibly show emotion
If my paradigm is insufficient, here is a 10-minute video explaining my stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt7bzxurJ1I
Coach and judge of 17 years.
I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.
1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.
*This is paramount for me.
2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.
3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.
5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.
Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years.
I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.
Other aspects to keep in mind:
I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.
I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.
Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.
I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.
I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.
Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.
As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.
I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them
Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.
That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.
For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).
I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF
At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not
Lay judge debate paradigm.
Hi there! I did LD for 4 years at Central Valley High School (Spokane, WA) and I’ve been doing parliamentary debate at Western Washington University for two years. I attended debate camp for three summers back to back in HS as well. I typically judge LD.
Prefs shortcuts for LDers:
K debaters- 1 or 2
Policy (plans/CPs/DAs,PICs)- 2
Traditional- 1 or 2
Phil debaters- 2 or 3
Theory/trix debaters- 4 or strike
Performance debaters- 1 or 2
*Note for traditional/novice/PF debaters — if none of this makes sense to you, scroll down to the bottom for my traditional paradigm.
- My NUMBER ONE rule is to keep the debate space safe and inclusive. Therefore, if you compromise the safety of the debate space for your opponent, for me, or for anyone, you will likely lose the round. This could include being overly-aggressive in cross-x, treating anyone disrespectfully, disrespecting someone’s pronouns, running something -clearly- outrageous or offensive, or using offensive rhetoric. (Quick note about rhetoric — it’s not a game-over argument in my eyes. If you honestly didn't mean to offend with your rhetoric, it might slide. Typically though, I will punish you for it.)
- Spreading’s okay with me. If you do spread, PLEASE email me a copy of your speech doc before your speech(es). Otherwise I might lose some crucial warrants in cards or something. I will destroy each speech doc in front of both debaters after the round is over.
- I’ll give speaks around 27-30 for standard circuit rounds. I use speaks to punish debaters initially, but ultimately the ballot if you really piss me off. You’ll earn higher speaks by giving good rebuttals, good word economy, appealing to pathos and logos, speaking clearly, and using TASTEFUL puns in your speeches.
Ks- Run them. I’m a K debater myself so I know how to evaluate Ks. My personal favorite Ks (in order) are Anthro, Fem, Cap, afropess, and most of DnG’s stuff. I love these Ks not just because I like the arguments themselves, but I like debates about those critical fields. If you’re running high-level kritiks like Baudrillard, Fanon, etc please slow down to explain them. If you can’t explain your K to a common person, don’t run it. I generally need a ROTB for Ks but I can evaluate it through a value criterion if that’s how you roll. Also - I like it when debaters explain how their alt’s solvency and when they weigh the K and the AC. Oh and K affs are awesome.
Theory- I’ll vote on theory if you win it but I generally don’t like theory debates. If trix or theory-overload is your style, avoid me. I’ll vote on RVIs if you win them. I really have a hard time voting for plan theory/CP theory/DA theory/K theory but if you win it I guess I’ll vote for you. PIC theory/disclosure theory are definitely acceptable positions for me, so go ahead and run that if you want.
Policy- Run it! Plans are totally fine as long as they’re topical (see non-T positions below for non-T plans). CPs/DAs are totally fine and legitimate too. CPs don’t have to be competitive IF they solve much better than the AC. You can also run a CP even if the aff doesn’t have a plan text. DAs need UQ and a solid link, and idc how long the DA is. PLAN-INCLUSIVE counterplans are good with me, but word PICs are usually not legitimate to me. Solvency is a must when you’re LARPing.
Phil- Probably run it if you know it, but be cautious. I know Kant fairly decently, and util/consequentialism is always fine. You MUST send me your speech doc when you’re going for a heavy phil position. Also, you MUST be able to explain the phil if I look confused. I like well-warranted frameworks, and I love syllogisms within the framing. Other notes — standard/value criterions can either be the name of the phil or a text, I LOVE(!) it when you break the framework cards into subpoints, weighing between AC and NC under your phil is a must, and you don’t have to have a value generally.
Performance/Non-topical positions- Run them. Anything counts as a performance if you call it one, so have fun (but be safe). If you claim to be topical and you lose on T with these kinds of positions, you’ll lose the round. Performances/non-T need framing of some kind. Also you need to be able to explain the thesis of your performance’s argument if it’s unclear. Performances need to either be reasonably topical or 100% nontopical. Otherwise, do whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the debate space. Also - disclosure is nice for nontopical positions. If you provide proof that you disclosed your performance to your opponent BEFORE the round starts, I’ll give you an extra half of a speaker point.
Topicality- I have a very high standard when it comes to topicality. If I feel the shell is especially frivolous, I won’t vote on it. Otherwise topicality is just fine. If your go-to strat is T no matter what, avoid me. Oh yeah, and T’s a voter if you win it.
- MY NUMBER ONE RULE is that every debater must be kind and respectful to everyone in my rounds. Overall, just be a good person :)
- I value effective communication, persuasive argumentation, creative thinking, and having fun! Debate is supposed to be educational and a good time, so make it that way.
- I like giving high speaker points and seeing -tasteful- passion behind what you’re arguing. Logos and pathos go a long way in my book.
- Anything in my circuit paradigm will generally apply if you wanna be circuit at a local, traditional tournament.
- Other random notes — I like good eye contact, slowing down on tags, polite cross-x, humor, and being a human (and not a robot) in round.
- SPECIAL NOTE FOR PF DEBATERS — If I’m judging you for PF, everything from my traditional paradigm still applies. I like when PF teams have frameworks in their constructives but it’s not necessary. Make sure you focus on clash during your speeches and make sure CX isn’t overly-aggressive.
Definitions - unnecessary unless you are defining something creatively. Definitions debates will make me very, very sad.
Framework- You need to have a value and value criterion, and they need to be fair to both debaters. Weighing between frameworks and weighing under your opponent’s framework is a must. But I’m completely fine if a debater just wants to use their opponent’s framework. Also, if you have similar frameworks, I appreciate it if both debaters agree to collapse on a similar goal with their frameworks. (example: aff has justice/consequentialism, neg has morality/util. Debaters agree to weigh their impacts under what’s the most ethical consequence). Generally, I like framework debate more than contention debate, but it depends on the debaters and the topic. I’ll tell you in-person what I like with frameworks on a particular topic.
Contentions- I like well-warranted contentions. They can have multiple sub points, but they all have to be meaningful. Also, contentions MUST HAVE empirical evidence, not just analytical arguments. If you have a good mix of empirical evidence and analytics, I’ll go with it. In traditional rounds, solvency isn’t that important, but nice if you have it. Your contentions also must have impacts and you ABSOLUTELY NEED to weigh those impacts against your opponent’s.
- You can time yourselves.
- You can sit or stand no matter if it’s a circuit round or a traditional round.
- Try to use all of your time in your constructives and rebuttals, but it’s probably okay if you don’t have a lot to ask in cross-x (if you understand everything).
- Memes cannot be offensive or potentially to anyone in the room.
- Content warnings are appreciated BEFORE your speeches.
- My pronouns are he/him/they/them. Don’t care which ones you use.
My contact info —
Email: email@example.com (flag emails as important if I’m ur judge)
Facebook: Gavin McCormick
Have fun out there in the debate world, and I’m looking forward to seeing you if I’m your judge! Thanks for reading my paradigm :)
I judged Public Forum 2 years ago for one online tournament and a single round of LD last year. With this level of experience, I personally still consider myself a novice judge and wouldn’t claim to be more.
Be aware that my hearing, while not horrible, is sadly not great. Please refrain from spreading. I will dock points if I can’t understand what you are saying. While I understand the need to fit a lot of information into a short period of time, please articulate and speak clearly. Otherwise, I will miss key points which may affect my ability to take notes and ultimately in my overall decision-making.
This is a learning experience and I don't expect perfection. I don’t normally give feedback at the end of rounds as it takes me a while to fill out the paperwork and I don’t want the tournament to drag on longer because of my pace. I also am not big on spectators. Understand that I may ask them to leave as with my hearing, I try to avoid any potential distractions as I need to concentrate on the speakers. During the round, please be nice, keep it civil, and don't be rude.
Briefly, I tend to be a tabula rasa judge. Overall I favor evidence, and prefer speech clarity to rushed speech.
Hi, I’m Emily or Em I did mostly LD competitively for four years in hs and competed in Congress for Nats I’m currently a Student at Gonzaga University Majoring in Biochemistry and International Studies/Relations plus a random minor in dance
And me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org or speech drop I think flashing creates accessibility
tldr: I open to literally just about anything reasonable that isn't harmful to certain groups. Also make sure to say why you win and how I should vote in your final rebuttals, If I have to decide how to vote you may not like it nor will I
hopefully this is a given but I will most likely intervene if you are explicitly sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc and reach out to your coach
Speed is fine be lightning McQueen but be clear and I will most likely be able to understand however it’s not cool to spread against a novice…However disclosing your case doesn’t mean you get to be incomprehensible…
I love unique arguments. But be topical.
If you want to run an off case position go for it (DAs and CPs are my fav) make sure to explain the link and why it matters over the case. As well as default reasonable. Also I have and will still totally vote on a good traditional case and love true criterion debate.
I view framework as a lens in which to evaluate voter’s versus a voter itself
Ks, explain critical lit and the link especially if you're using a unique philosophy or text also I need an alt to vote on it ya know
I mean you can run theory I'm not a big fan of it in LD (policy go for it) unless you’re gonna go for it in your final rebuttals (Ie drop the debater) but I’ll vote on it.
I'm not a big fan of tricks unless it directly applies to the debate itself but will reluctantly still vote on them
Also love CX, use it to your advantage and tbh have fun with it (flex prep should really only be for clarification)
I think performance affs are annoying but again I’ll vote on them
Please clash in your arguments and signpost
I think rfds are important so if you have any questions lmk!!! (Exs at novice level) and there will be a clear reason but I’m also not gonna go into a lecture I will also have notes on each of the speeches in the written rfd
speaks are fun and I’m going to try to give you as many as possible bc having dumb criteria for speaks used to annoy me but let’s be honest here if I have caffeine during your round your speaks will probs be higher
pf/Congressoff chance this happensmake sure your still debating vs just giving speeches…
If you have any questions please let me know before the round starts. :)
Case/evidence email: email@example.com
Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.
Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)
Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.
Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)
Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.
New / First Time judge for LD
I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in front of me. I am strongly biased against logical fallacies.
Disclaimer: I can only argue with what is presented to me in round. Ultimately, if you want to run something, who am I to stop you? I'm flexible enough to deal with it.
TLDR: Speed fine. K's n stuff fine. Be organized. Do what you want.
I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Never had a problem outside of policy rounds.
All Prep is running prep. If you say you're only going to take two minutes of prep, end up taking an extra 30 seconds and try to pass it off as only two minutes... no... just no. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.
Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is less confrontational than CX and much more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX. Flex prep is Not binding as far as tricky questions go, however, if a debater willfully misrepresents their argument, I'm either slashing speaks or treating just that misrepresentation as binding, depending on how much that misrepresentation shifts the round. IE. If it becomes a centerpiece for the debate, it's binding. If it's just a side argument... speaks. Try not to do it.
As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuance difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.
K's function as their own FW. They don't necessarily need a super comprehensive FW with a K, the ALT and Link's are FW on their own. If those aren't sufficient, you can run a bit of FW up top or something, especially if your Alt is Drop the Debater... that isn't really a FW sufficient Alternative and you're going to need some work to set that up. Honestly, I have a higher threshold for Drop the debater args with no intrinsic justification then I do a more progressive mindset alt. You have to disclose an alternative for your K's when you read them, no more hidden drop the debater alt. I weigh the Alt as part of the K's FW. I think it's also good form for accessibility. If you don't disclose an Alt, I'm going to default it to Drop the Debater, and hope you provide justifications in the next speech and probably drop speaks a point or two.
I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth,knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself.
I'm fine with Speed and progressive argumentation.
Judged Public Form for 2 years and this is first year for LD
As a judge I look for :
Clear communication of goal
I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.
If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.
Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)
* are new/significant
*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.
*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.
I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily
if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.
I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.
*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.
I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.
i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).
I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.
Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)
defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****
I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)
*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*
I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases
I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*
ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.
Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad
Please communicate your points clearly and slowly. If I’m able to follow information, it will help in my voting. I won’t know if you’re losing badly, my decision will be based on my comprehension of overall presentation – was I able to follow and understand the points you are trying to make.
I don’t enjoy spreading, talking fast, even if you enunciate. I don’t have the practice and experience to process information at a rapid rate you may be accustomed to as a seasoned debater. I will not be able to keep up.
I appreciate debaters taking the time to outline.
I welcome debaters to lead and communicate the structure of debate.
I’m a parent judge and former debater.
For debate events, please note:
- I value thorough research, thoughtful questions, and the ability to defend your contentions.
- Ensure your logic is sound, and you construct a compelling narrative.
- Arguments should be current, evidence-based, and clearly expressed.
- Respect and listen to your opponents at all times. In cross, let opponents finish their thoughts and answer your questions.
- Speakers will lose points for spreading if they are unintelligible or their opponents can't respond.
For speech events, please note:
- Speech organization should be clearly outlined.
- Ensure sources are current and reliable.
- Storylines are important, but ensure that you can link your examples to your topic.
- Have confidence and have fun - it comes through in the speech.
I’m a Graduate Student at University of Washington Seattle. Studying Technology Innovation
- Thorough research, thoughtful questions, and the ability to defend your contentions.
- Ensure your logic is sound, and you construct a compelling narrative.
- Arguments should be current, evidence-based, and clearly expressed.
- Respect and listen to your opponents at all times. In cross, let opponents finish their thoughts and answer your questions.
- Speakers will lose points for speaking so quickly that they are unintelligible or their opponents can't respond.
I am a new judge. Here are a few things to know about my judging paradigm:
- Speak slowly so that I can understand your arguments
- I have weakly held opinions about most topics [and strongly held opinions about some topics] but will try my best to focus on the technical aspects of your arguments rather than whether I agree with you on the substance of your arguments.
- I would like to see you engage with the arguments made by your opponent(s)
- Setup an email chain before the round. Here is my email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi! I'm a lay parent judge who is not familiar with judging debate. Please speak very slowly and clearly- if I can't understand your arguments I can't vote for you. Be nice to your opponent and have fun!
READ THIS VERY THROUGHLY PLEASE AND READ THE END IF U WANT TO WIN.
tldr: tab judge
NOTE: PLEASE TIME YOURSELF AND UR OPPONENT I WILL NOT BE TIMING
i used to have a long paradigm but now that I’ll mostly be judging high school novice rounds for a bit, here’s an update.
bio - did LD in high school for 2 years. loved it & hated it. i know technical debate but feel free to use lay debate if that’s what you are good at. I used to hate on lay debate a lot but I’ve come to realize the beauty in its austerity
debate how you want to.
big fan of email chains, even in lay rounds -> email@example.com
enunciate when you can it helps me out.
skip the value debate, just debate VC. If you spend 5 min debating justice v. morality, both me and your speaks will be crying.
i doodle a lot. dw im paying attention
I’m kinda harsh on legit speaks but will give u plenty of chances to boost your speaks
if ur a novice and want to run advanced stuff thats fine by me just ask ur opponent if they are okay.
take notes during oral rfd if u actually are interested in learning.
debate related things:
-i hate rounds where i have to intervene and there is no clear winner.
-voters fix this issue
-tell me why i should vote for you. what is the deciding issue in the round.
things that will boost ur speaks:
IF YOU MAKE THE DEBATE FUNNY AND ARE CASUALLY SNARKY i will love you and raise speaks a lot.
ill start ur speaks at 30 if say something some variance of this joke:
“judge, my opponent’s case is just a box of donuts: a ton of holes in it” or some creative variance w/o using donuts.
+0.5 any drake song reference (tell me after u make by saying ‘that’s a drake reference’)
+0.5 any drake lyric reference (tell me after u make by saying ‘that’s a drake reference’)
+0.5 for calling me 'ur honor' like im a judge the entire round
+0.5 for sportsmanship
auto 20 if u post round me.
auto 20 if u say some out of pocket stuff (racism, homophobia, etc.)
debate is a game so make it fun. i spent many nights stressing about debate but rarely took the time to just enjoy the activity for what it is. enjoy.
I’m a new judge. No spreading. No speed.
Background: I was the 1985 Washington State Debate Champion in Policy (LD had just started way back then), 1st in State in Impromptu Speaking, and 2nd in State in Extemporaneous Speaking. I went to college on a debate scholarship, then to law school at the University of Washington School of Law where I was inducted into the Moot Court Honor Board, and won the Falknor Appellate Competition during my third year. I have been a Seattle litigator since 1992, and have been named a Washington State Super Lawyer every year since 2005, including six years as a "Top 100" lawyer in the state. I am currently the managing partner of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, a Seattle-based litigation firm. I have taught speech and debate, moot court, and trial advocacy to high school students, law students, and young lawyers. My professional profile is here: www.sylaw.com/
How to Lose a Debate Round: I have a great deal of respect for speech and debate and have little tolerance for those who disrespect the process or their competitors. If you are rude, you'll likely lose. If you are sexist, racist, or anti-LGBTQ+, you'll likely lose. If you are unprepared, then you are not respecting the process and that will hurt you. If you attempt to bend or break the rules, that also shows a lack of respect for the process. Don't bring up brand new arguments in rebuttal -- a twist or spin on an existing area of contention is good, but wholly tangential new arguments will hurt you. Speed is fine -- see below -- but if you attempt to spread, make sure you can do it with sufficient enunciation to make it intelligible.
How to Win a Debate Round: Clash, clash, clash! A good debate round is not two ships passing in the night with pre-canned arguments that fail to clash with the points advanced by the opponent. Sure, openings are set, but once the case moves to rebuttal I expect to see real engagement. I will give a win to a speaker or team who advances the most logical, reasoned, and supported arguments over a speaker or team who is smooth, but lacks depth, every time. I will flow all your arguments, make sure you engage all the positions advanced by your opponent. Dropped arguments can kill in policy, and will hurt in LD. I can handle speed, but make sure you can too if you decide to spread. If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. It took me years to unlearn speed after I got into the real world, so I don't penalize lack of speed, especially in LD. I generally buy problem area arguments and positions in both policy and LD. I like humor, where appropriate. Core principles, standards, burdens of proof/persuasion are key: I'll pay a lot of attention to the fight over the playing field in LD, so make sure you don't just engage on the details but neglect the superstructure.
Impromptu: I admire any student with the guts to do impromptu. I am open to any form of speech in this genre -- from a story to a serious discussion about a current event. Give me a structure or roadmap, and attempt to tie in your conclusion to the introduction in some form. Pauses, stumbles, gaps and the like will not surprise me in this event, so chill if that happens to you. Just, please, don't go fast -- I know many people who do impromptu are also debaters, but this is the time to slow down and make a speech that has resonance with normal, non-debate people. Speed kills in this event. Finally, I really hate pre-canned impromptu speeches where the speaker takes one of the prompts and attempts to shoehorn it into a canned speech. That's not impromptu in my view, even if many students make it to nationals with this approach. If you do it, then make sure I don't know that you are doing it because I think it undermines the purpose of this event.
Extempt: See Impromptu. You have time to create a roadmap and structure (and hopefully a message or theme) so I view those elements as important. Like impromptu, this is a time to slow down from your debate tempo. I am not looking for volume of information -- don't spread extemp -- but a well-constructed outline with a theme or message that is, hopefully, thought-provoking.
Informative/Oratory: I have definite thoughts about good speeches in each of these events, but understand that by the time you are reading this there is nothing you can do. I'll make constructive comments on the ballots. In general, I think both of these events have become too formalistic and patterned. If you have a unique approach, you will likely be rewarded. The same tired formula (espicially in OO) has existed far too long, in my view. If you have a formula speech because that is what you have been coached to do (because the coach was coached the same, etc., etc.), just do it well.
Interp Events: Interp is far outside of my wheelhouse, and if the tournament decides to have me judge one of these events then treat me just like a "parent judge." I'll do my best . . . .
hey yall im linh (she/her) and im a senior, ive done (washington) ld since freshman yr.
just as a heads up, i understand that most debaters see debate as a game which is totally fine but that doesnt mean that you get the right to be misogynistic/racist/homophobic/or even plain mean towards your opponent/others. i will 100% drop you if those things happen. and on the flip side, if you ever feel unsafe during a round, email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) and i'll stop the round.
- weighing is so so so important and if you don't weigh, i will have to intervene to make a decision and no one wants that (if you don't know what weighing is, please ask!)
- progressive arguments are fine (i love kritiks)
- please don't debate about the values. vc debates are fun, amazing, wonderful! value debates not so much.
- dw abt speed, i can flow it -> but if ur opponent is clearly struggling, maybe give them a hand and slow down?
- give me clear voters/reasons to vote for you and explain why those reasons are better than your opponents
- otherwise do whatever you want. if you want to read a sick-ass performance, go for it. if you want to read util and two contentions, go for it.
i give default 29 speaks. if you want that illustrious 30 speaks, you can do one of a couple of things:
- incorporate three good taylor swift or mitski references in your speeches
- show everyone in the round a goofy picture/video of your pet
- give me an album rec and a song off of that album that i can listen to while you prep
really do try to have fun and take care of yourself. i know its stressful out there <3
I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.
I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.
As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 25 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.
Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.
I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.
I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.
I am humanity-centered. I know you will be running theories, hypotheticals, and extrapolating a significant amount, but remember, these topics affect real people. If you run cases that dismiss the humanity of the topic or dismiss the humanity of any specific group of people, your score will reflect omission.
LD Coach 10 years.
If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, email@example.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.
When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.
I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.
I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.
Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.
I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.
I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.
If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.
If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.
Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.
I disclose if it is the tournament norm.
If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.
Public Forum Paradigm
RESPECT and DECORUM
1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".
2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.
I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)
I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.
I like direct clash.
All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.
I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.
In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.
In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.
1 - larp
2 - theory (most familiary w security, orientalism, cap, academy)
3 - k
4 - phil
5 - tricks
bsd novice paradigm - 12/1/22
- t/l - please time yourself and include me on the email chain, i will disclose if both of you want me to, speaks will be 28.0+
- fw: i am most familiar with util, sv, kant, and prag but anything is fine (if your framework is a quirked up version of one of these please just say so at the top to save us both time)
- contention level: i have the most familiarity with larp, cap, and theory (mostly espec and afc) but feel free to read anything just note that if you read something high theoryish or phil dense you will need to explain it more or i wont understand :(
- novice only: if your opponent asks u not to spread/read prog stuff please do so novice is meant to be accessible (this also means i will have much less tolerance for frivolous args)
- i beg you please implicate args to the round in the 2n and 2a, dont just reiterate the terminal impact - if u tell me how to write my ballot it will be much easier to get it
- if you are racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. during round it will be an immediate L20
- be polite to everyone in the round including yourself
I started to learn LD debate in the summer of 2021. I am a parent judge. I’ve worked in the IT industry for over two decades.
You should speak at a conversational speed and convince me with evidence and reasoning for why I should vote for your side. I will not vote against you for exceeding my preferred speed, but if I cannot understand you when you give speeches (e.g. by spreading), it will not help you.
I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. Explain the criterion if it is uncommon. I am a traditional judge. Try not to use Kritiks, Theory or Tricks in your speeches or CX; I may not understand those types of arguments. Contentions, Disadvantages, and Counterplans are fine. Affirmatives may read Plans only if they are topical.
I prefer roadmapping and signposting before every card so that I can properly flow the debate, and I think Voting issues are necessary.
I will vote for whomever persuaded me more that they better uphold the criterion.
Zavia (ZAY-vee-ah) (She/Her)
Categorically refusing to be identified as diversity enhancing
Put me in the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I did 3 years of LD in highschool and now I'm assistant coaching LD. I did some circuit debate, mostly reading Ks, but not a ton and I've only been back involved in debate for a year, I think my speed tolerance is probably around 80% top circuit speed and I'm unfamiliar with any recent debate norms (especially ones related to online debate).
My first concern is always that debate is a safe and accessible space for everyone, if you ever feel that something made you round unsafe or uncomfortable for you feel free to talk to or email me about it. I will fight TAB/Judges/whoever on your behalf.
I will vote on pretty much anything and am generally pretty tech > truth. The only exceptions to this is if you say some racist/transphobic/ableist or whatever I will absolutely vote you down and may stop the round. Also I'm not a fan of bullying newer debaters, if you're a circuit debater you should not need to read disclosure or spread out some 1st year open debater at their first big tournament, just win your arguments, that shouldn't be hard. It would have to be especially egregious to lose you the round but will definitely hurt your speaks.
Spreading is fine and I will clear/slow you as needed, your opponent can also clear/slow you, debate should be accessible.
Flex prep is fine but your opponent doesn't have to answer, if you ask me if flex prep is okay I will know you didn't read my paradigm and while this will have no effect on my decision or your speaks I may glower at you.
My judge philosophy is that debate is a space for debaters to have the rounds they want to have and the judge should interfere with that as little as possible. So run your cool cases you really like and have a round you enjoy. If you and your opponent both want to do something that isn't even debate, good for you, no idea how I would evaluate it but I certainly won't stop you.
Tricks: I will vote on tricks but have a high threshold and expect them to have actual warrants, I wont vote just because your 6 word blip got dropped.
Theory: I'm totally fine with theory, really friv theory might lower your speaks and I tend to have a higher threshold but I'll vote on it if you win sufficiently warranted reasons why I should. RVIs are fine. Please don't read paragraph theory in front of me, just read a shell.
Kritiks: I love a good K, if I think your K was interesting I will probably raise your speaks. I am familiar with a lot of the common K lit but always appreciate good explanation of the way your K works. Feel free to ask me before the round how well I know the lit you're reading. Aff Ks are fine be as nontopical as you want. In responding to a K I tend to be much more convinced by specific line by line analysis than reading a bunch of generic blocks.
Plans/Counterplans: make sure your plan text is specific and does what you want, feel free to run planks, condo, whatever but I will also happily vote on the inevitable theory shell if your opponent wins it.
DAs: sure. I generally think neg cases that format their topical offense into DAs and not contentions make more sense and are better
Trad LD: pain and suffering. Okay but actually debate how you want its my place to evaluate the debate you guys want to have and I will do that to the best of my ability, it will make me happy if you make it interesting with a cool framework or something. Please tell me very clearly what you want me to vote on.
ROTB/J: I try not to assume any particular role of the ballot but give that's impossible I probably err towards being an impartial mediator who votes for the team that won an argument that they warranted gives them (better) access to the ballot. But I am more than happy to change that if you win an argument that I ought to be a critical educator or whatever.
I generally base speaks off how well you presented your arguments, meaning: clarity, sign posting, how easy it was to follow the argument you made and to some degree speech strategy. So tell me a good impact story (I don't care how much weighing you do in your last speech you should do more), tell me exactly which card you're putting offense on and what specific warrant in the card you're attacking, be easy for me to flow.
Other factors that could hurt your speaks are: saying something minorly messed up but not enough for me to vote on it independently, bullying less experienced debaters, running really friv theory, misgendering me (bad) or your opponent (worse)
I am happy to clarify my paradigm and answer any questions before the round, though I will be a little annoyed if you ask me questions and have clearly not read my paradigm
Have a good round, try to win and don't be a coward, cowardice is always a voting issue.
Hi, I'm David Zeng, a high school senior. I mainly do speech and I'll be judging novice LD.
Spreading is fine. No theory plz.
Be mature, be good to people.
I did two years of LD in HS but have not engaged with it much since then. Spread and run progressive arguments at your own risk. Be nice and be kind!
Hi there --
I began learning about the world of LD debate this past year and have a background in technical communications and writing.
I believe the essence of a strong case is built upon logical arguments backed with appropriate evidence that is concise and easy to understand. The key, hence, is to persuade me that your side is better in an efficient and effective manner, this can include leveraging tools such as clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting. I would prefer no spreading and am not likely to prefer theory arguments. Additionally, debate terminology is not one of my strong suit, so clarity is key.
Good luck and have fun!~