As an experienced edebater who splecialized in Public Forum, I like evaluating a round based on key arguments, stock issues and impacts. Contentions should be clear, concise, and supported by evidence when applicable. Speeches should be organized and coherent. Courtesy is also key, which includes the avoidance of yelling or spreading. Overall, I like to see speakers who know what they're doing, are comfortable, and having fun. 

My. Background:

I am currently a homemaker raising our two boys.  In the past, I have managed two businesses, an auto parts distributor and a personal income tax preparation business.  I am a new judge with limited experience but have been taught well on what to look for by my son who competes in debate tournaments.    

Approach to Judging/Preferences:

As a debater, assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain what's going on to me clearly and efficiently. I will do my best to stay open-minded and not to impose my personal beliefs, pre-conceptions or knowledge of the topic on the competitors. 

Things I look for include passion, articulate speaker, maintains good eye contact and confidence.

Please don’t spread.  I understand the strategy, but if I cannot keep up, what’s the purpose?

I do expect that participants at all times to act courteously towards their opponents

I competed in policy debate in high school and a year in NDT debate at Loyola Marymount University in the 1970's. That was usually fast, spread debating. I was an assistant debate coach at New Roads School in Santa Monica, California from 2017 to 2020, predominantly focused on Parli debate. Don't feel obligated to spread. Do speak clearly. I appreciate slow and intelligible tag-lines, repeated when appropriate. Signposting and off-time roadmaps are vital. I take notes on paper with a flow sheet, not a laptop computer, so I expect debaters to explain what contention they're on and where they're going.

I'm a courtroom lawyer, so I appreciate persuasive and logical advocacy, spoken well. At the California Attorney General's Office, I argued in the California Court of Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the California Supreme Court. I admire the classic modes of persuasion - ethos, logos, and even pathos. I appreciate powerful persuasion, specific examples and citations, and an authentic appeal to what is just and equitable. It's possible to be incisive and analytical while also being genuine and moving. I've done jury trials - about 20 - and myriad hearings on motions, in civil litigation and on both sides of the criminal law world, so I'm especially grateful for an eloquent speech, with cogent analysis, clear inflection and minimal jargon. Be open to humor and some whimsy; debate doesn't have to be solemn.

If you suggest a weighing mechanism, then you should actually use it to weigh each side's arguments. I prefer probability to magnitude unless convinced otherwise. I love a true clash of cases and policies, argued creatively and persuasively. Emphasize the relative importance of particular arguments. It sounds obvious, but arguments, claims and debate theory should be warranted. You have the burden of persuasion on your claims, which also seems obvious but sometimes gets lost in the weeds. Someday you will be advocating in the real world, where people need, even want, to be convinced, where consequences are material, and where impacts are weighed. I'll be looking for you to weigh arguments and impacts.

Dropping an argument essentially means conceding the argument, but that's my default. I still would consider whether there was a warrant for the argument to begin with, and I'd listen to analysis about the argument's weight.

I'm open to Kritiks, but I prefer them to be logical, interesting, and well-explained.

I expect everyone to be respectful and courteous. Not only is that clearly the right way to be, it is also a preferable way of being convincing. Long after your competitive debate days are over, you still will be benefiting in countless ways from skills you learned and refined in debate. One of those skills is the ability to make or refute an argument with concise but passionate sophistication, disagreeing without being disagreeable. You can do it. And I look forward to hearing it!

Be kind. Have fun. Persuade!

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

As a prior college debater, I enjoy every intricacy of the academic activity know as debate. The team that provides a balance of defence and offence will be the victor.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.

You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

I have close to 40 years judging debate in every format, and was a policy debater in college. Thus I understand how to flow and how to listen. I appreciate analysis and encourage debaters to draw out inferences and applications. I do not work for the debater - thus enthymemes will have little impact. I will adjudicate what I can flow, but I will not fill in blanks - if not signposted, previewed, reviewed and applied by the debater, it doesn't happen in my decision making. I applaud advanced debaters who help less-talented opponents follow by using good tags and clear organization. Pet peeves: asking negative questions in C-X -- i.e. Question: "Don't you agree....?" Answer: "Yes, I don't agree." Ask straight up questions: "Do you agree....?" Going so fast you spit. Rudeness. Lot's of reasons to make a mistake, never a reason to be rude. If I took my principal with me to judge you, and your performance would cause her to question the value of continued funding of a debate program, you will be in deep trouble on my ballot. I like to hear debate about the topic issues and inferences, not about debate, so save your meta-debate for your graduate theses. Your evidence must be impeccable, but the use, application and inferences drawn from that evidence is the great stuff of debate. I also enjoy debaters who can do more than debate across the flow, but also understand the power of debating "up and down" the flow. If you need help figuring that out, that's what coaches are for.