My name is Al Barani, I have taken an Elements of Argument class at Berkley, so mainly judge on ethos, pathos, and logos. I allocate speaker points based of fluidity, manner, and confidence while speaking. If you spread you will get not get speaker points. I am very knowledgable about the US and World economy, so know your case and what you are saying well. You will win the round if you can prove your case and execute it well, don't fluff around or waste your speaking time. All in all, I am excited to hear your rounds, and I have a genuine interest in what your saying.

little about me: d1 pacific champion, 2019 western novice policy debate champion— i go to ucla now and don’t compete anymore but did debate at fullerton college under coaches jeanette rodriguez & toni nielson. my hearing is horrible so it would be great for everyone if ya’ll could speak louder :-) like plz lol if i don’t hear your arg that’s no good for you either

add me to the chain! — germainebaltazar@gmail.com

important! spreading it's chill... until it comes at the expense of clarity. again, my ears. if you have prewritten analytical arguments, do not spread them at me or you can be sure i'll miss some. i know spreading allows us to cram in tons of arguments but that's not always better. "but we said this" is not enough for me; the act of you responding to an arg is not the same as you explaining what that arg means in the context of this round and why you win something as a result

flowing — roadmap before speeches and signpost as you go, do something to distinguish the tag/author from the warrants srsly if you don’t tell me where something goes i’m either not going to write it down or spend extra time trying to find it’s correct location, during which you will probably be reading another card or arg that i will then completely miss

prep if i can tell you're responsibly timing yourself, i'll leave it to you. don't take advantage

theory & t i prefer case debates, lean aff for T, not familiar with theory at all so if that's you-- focus less on how many things you can say and more on how well you can get me to understand who or what you're reading. i usually lean tech>truth but in this case it's truth>tech

k — like them but they need to be explained really well. i’m more of a traditional plan debater so k affs are not really my forte but just make your args/explanations clear and you’re good. explain link and tell me how the alt works and why i prioritize it over the aff

cp not a big fan if it’s super similar to the plan but will still vote on it if net benefit to preferring cp is well emphasized and/or aff has solvency deficit.

da love das, tell me the story~ go hard on the link tho

cx i live for every minute of cx especially when it’s feisty (but respectful). as long as the heat is necessary and stems from passion, it’s all good. sometimes people get riled up on the smallest, most trivial points though— be strategic

p.s i do take notes on cx.. it’s binding oof

speaks high speaker points go to those who ....

say their arguments like they mean it, ask purposeful & strategic cx questions, demonstrate a clear understanding of their own arg (how are you using your cards?)

also, love love when there’s a clear articulation of w h y something matters/matters more/doesn’t matter. tell me what i should bother weighing at the end of the day, less intervention on my behalf so win-win for everyone

My. Background:

 I am a corporate banker at a U.S. based international bank. I have been judging for approximately one year with most of my experience in the LD debate format but have also judged Public Forum and Parliamentary.    

 Approach to Judging/Preferences:

As a debater, assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain what's going on to me clearly and succinctly. 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. 

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've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

I am Justin Bushong, a student from Citrus College, majoring in Theater. I also went to Walnut High School, where served as the Drama Club President for two years, was part of the Thespian Society and was Improv President. I also served as an officer for Walnut High School's Speech and debate team and I have judged Varsity Lincoln-Douglas, Varsity Public Forum and Varsity Parliamentary Debate. I also judged for novice Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas and was a mentor for Walnut Debate Outreach Program, and as a senior mentor, I judged and coached Middle School debaters for three consecutive years. Currently, I am involved in Walnut High School's Fall Production and I often coach debtors, when needed.

I am an engineering major at UC Berkeley, and did debate all throughout high school and am continuing in college. The styles I have experience in are LD, Parliamentary, and PF

dont call me judge its awko taco "luan (lu-anne) is just fine)

Presentation:

spreading--make sure to flash the case. email chain: luanchuang07@gmail.com

For Novice/non-TOC: Make sure to signpost so I know where you are.

Case wise: *below is mainly for open/novice, TOC do whatever u want*

Morality isn't a real value, if you are going to run it make sure to have topic lit.

I do not flow cross, so if something important happened, make sure to bring it up in your speech.

MAKE SURE YOU DO YOUR IMPACT CALCULUS! If you leave it up to me to decide, I will probably weigh everything wrong and that's no bueno for you.

VOTING ISSUES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. This is what I will 99% base my decisions on. If one of your voting issues have been completely refuted or turned, it is probably not strategic to only use that issue. Additionally, sometimes have a sole voting issue can be hurtful, for I might not have bought the argument.

Make sure your DA/Adv are all impacted out.

Counterplans, topicality welcome.

LD: yes, it is a values debate, but I am not a "traditional LD" advocate. Furthermore, sometimes losing the framework debate is strategic. You can lose the framework, but still win under your opponent's framework--use time wisely.

PF: please warrant all your arguments, and explain why winning an argument matters.

don't drop your whole case and run double-suicide k. (please) That ruins the educational value of debate, and it is you trying to clutch a win you don't deserve.

If you run 17 contentions just so your opponent loses the will to live, well that's on you buddy. quality over quantity.

Misc.

A good Kritik is always appreciated IF AND ONLY IF you run it correctly. Assume I do not know the topic lit.

If you say *meow in your case I might give you an extra point.

I will buy all types of arguments as long as the evidence is there.

BUT I think disclosure theory is stupid, not a big fan of theory in general prolly wont vote off of it tbh unless its p solid and good

Good luck, have fun, debate well:)

#makeamericaflowagain

 I am familiar with all forms of debate and have a particular interest in LD, Public Forum and Parli. I debated on the national circuit in college and have been coaching for almost 10 years. I am fine with speed, as long as I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not a fan of extreme spreading and do not think it is a skill set that benefits competitive debate, nor is it a skill set that I believe will help students in their future lives. I am familiar with all forms of arguments, theory, etc. I am open to all of them as long as they are well articulated. To be honest I am not a fan of kritiks based on semantics.

I most greatly appreciate debate that uses logic and sound reasoning supported by relevant and credible sources. In LD make sure you are supporting your value and criterion with the rest of your case. I find it disappointing when a debater presents their value/criterion and then almost never references them again throughout the debate; novice mistake!

I believe I evaluate every round with fairness and expectations deserving of the division you are entered (novice/JV/open). Do not make up facts and/or evidence. If I feel like you present false evidence intentionally I will inform Tabroom and urge them to punish you accordingly. I definitely will increase speaker points for those who speak with respectful conviction and enthusiasm. If you sound bored, I will be twice as bored. I do not award wins to those who speak "pretty" just because they speak "pretty". I will increase your speaker points but I award wins based overwhelmingly on the logic and comparative analysis you offer.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.

I am the current head speech coach with the Los Angeles Debate Academy (LADA).

From 2001-2011, I competed in LD, Congress, and every single Individual Event offered in high school and college. I did not compete in Policy, I have been trained in the event through working with Rashad Evans, the director of debate at LADA.

Speed-reading: I am fully capable of following and flowing fast-paced rounds, however speech clarity is important to me. If your argument sounds overly rushed with a lot of gasping for air and hardly any pausing, that is a sign to me that the argument can be better refined so that it can be more clearly communicated.

Philosophy v Pragmatism: The best arguments are backed by both philosophy and pragmatism, however if you are going to be significantly heavier on one than the other, I would lean towards a more pragmatic solution over an impossible to implement philosophical one.

Ideology: While all humans have various biases both consciously and subconsciously, I do not have any political ideology that I bring into rounds or evaluate arguments against. I believe in making strong arguments and asking good cross-ex questions. I will not make up or fill in an argument that was not made or was incomplete, I will choose from those presented to me in the round.

Cross-Ex: Failure to respond to or address a specific critique will result in the issue being DROPPED and won by opponent.

Standard of Review: I am much more likely to vote for clearly established plans, standards, and interpretations. I want to understand your value criterion, see that you understand your opponent's mechanisms of debate, and to see a well-executed counter-plan.

Disrespect: I do not tolerate blatant disrespect regardless of whether it is directed towards a partner or opposing team member.

Structure: I am supportive of both traditional and modern structures for arguments. I am open to critiques of the very structure of debate and do not punish competitors who incorporate elements of prose or poetry, so long as they serve the point/argument.

Please inquire as to any other specific questions.

Hello everyone,

I’m a lay parent judge who has been judging for several years now. I don’t enjoy spreading or people being rude. Voters are important for me because I want to be convinced why I should vote for you. I do flow the debate so if your opponent drops something you should let me know.

Gabrielino High School 2011-2015

tech>truth

Speech times are set, one team wins

I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals. My email is matthew.graca@gmail.com

However, will (attempt to) not reevaluate this evidence post-round, I don't want to do that work for you.

Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions.

If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this.

I don't believe in debating for anyone. If you can justify it, you can run it. I believe if someone makes a truly despicable argument, you should clap back and make them regret it.

DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GOT FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT. I AM ACTUALLY AN IDIOT SO PLEASE MAKE MY LIFE EASY

*CHRIST ALMIGHTY SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY*

I am VERY bad at catching blippy arguments. if you spend less than a sentence on the arg, i probably won't catch it. beat me over the head with it tyvm.

honestly i didn't actually believe i was really tabula rasa until i recently voted for a tragically underanswered spreading bad arg do you understand what that does to a man i don't play NO GAMES MANG

GENERAL STUFF

Topic Familiarity: I probably won't research the topic and most likely won't judge it enough to know the meta. I would avoid using acronyms that have previously not been defined

Delivery: Not really used to speed anymore tbh. Using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctively puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow.

Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count. but again, don't count on me to catch blippy args

CP threshold: Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory. but as long as you keep your theory organized, i will likely be able to follow

PROCEDURAL STUFF

tag team cx is fine

having your partner speak for you is ok, but if it occurs enough times say bye bye to your speaks

prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer / the email is sent

time each other's prep, i will not keep track

FRAMEWORK

Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. I think of fw like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benz to your vision of debate.

you can frame the impacts of your fw. i love filtering since it makes my decision easier

KRITIK

I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam.

ALTS

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving land back? what is revolutionary suicide supposed to mean? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% capitalism solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily gag

THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks

Nietzsche: I was the 1n that spent his time finding links for my partner that can literally (literally.) only go for Nietzsche. At the last leg of our careers wanted to run death good, but ever could :(

Race: probs the one I’m most comfortable with, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year.

French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews and explain your buzzwords. if not, the other team could prob say "lol whatre you even saying" as an effective response. i do not like being pressured to vote for something that is incoherent.

etc (queer, ableism, things i can't think of): no real experience, but i have no reason to dislike these args at all so go for it

THEORY THEORY THEORY

For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this crap... I have a very hard time following theory debates that are just blasting at full speed. If you do this and ask why my decision is incomplete, this will be why.

note for ld: i've never voted for an rvi and god willing i never will. unless it gets egregiously dropped

For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion:

Interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters

This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory. It's pure nonsense and a headache to adjudicate where one side had 5 lines of DAs to the interp and the other had 6 lines and it's just throwing crap at the wall (aka ME >:|) and seeing what sticks.

Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy your strategy setup where you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they drop their no link arguments”, but hey everything's gotta be a friggen voter doesn't it, huh.

As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. T-subs and a spending DA hits different.

In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Potential abuse is fairly weak for me tbh, but if it's there i'll evaluate it the best i can

judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P. "the status quo is always an option" makes me uncomfortable b/c you're making me do it. commit to something.

SPEAKER POINTS

Speaks = organization + ethos + clarity

I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. HAVE SOME PERSONALITY, THAT HELPS YOUR SPEAKS LOTS.

I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style, please respect the local volume.

I should be able to coherently hear the texts of your cards btw.

Breakdown:

30: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

29: hey you should get a speaker award in this tourney

28: not likely to get a speaker award but i like the cut a ya jib

27: delivery is incoherent at key moments or made life hell playing flow hopscotch

26: it is possible that words were spoken but i can neither confirm nor deny

25: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

Lay parent judge--no spreading, tricks, theory, Ks, etc.

Explain clearly what your arguments are. Signposting and organization help greatly. Speak clearly–arguments I don't understand will be omitted.

1. I want a values debate

2. Be polite to one another

3. Have fun and make solid arguments

I am new to the national circuit (I have been a judge in Boise, Idaho). I am a stock issues judge and would appreciate clear voters.

My preferences are:

- State your contentions clearly

- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.

- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.

-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.

-I like sign-posting

-I like quick off time road maps

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

Experience:

2015 - 2017 Orange Coast College: NPDA, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu.

2017 - Current CSU Long Beach: Policy.

Debate Judging:

I see debate as a game in which the flow is the board. I am a human being with biases, and try my best to leave those at the door. I acknowledge that it is impossible to be truly "tabula rasa" but will do my best to actively remove my biases in debates. I like to listen to every sort of argument. I like the traditional stuff and I like the critical stuff.

Most importantly: I focus heavily on flow and will not do the work for you. Be clear and signpost to the best of your ability so that I can know where you want me to put your arguments.

Email chain: joan.kim@alumni.harvard.edu

General:

• Speed: You do you but quality over quantity with clarity

• Voting issues are not necessary

• Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum

• I don’t count flashing as prep unless you are taking advantage

• You don’t have to constantly remind me that your opponent dropped such and such argument(s)--don’t rely on a win because they dropped x amount of arguments

Love:

• Framework

• Fantastic CX

• Clash

• Impact!!!

• Creativity

Yes:

• Evidence, analytical and empirical--state your source

• Logical Analysis

• Roadmaps and overviews

• Weigh your arguments

No:

• Card cutting- you will lose the round

• Rudeness

I have coached for over 15 years and before that, I competed in high school both at state and nats (policy debate in particular).

For any debate, I'm old school. Debate is about a meaningful exchange of ideas, presenting them in such a way as to persuade your audience. I don't like debate jargon. While I know what you mean when you say "cross apply my "Pena 19 card," that doesn't change anything in my book. Apply the substance of that card to the argument you are trying to make. I flow, but I don't flow everything.

I don't enjoy wastes of time. If you want to exchange cases before the round, that's your right. But don't ask for cards in between speeches. Wait for cross ex or cross fire (when it was intended) and make it a formal part of the questioning process.

Warrants are very important to me. Explain to me why you draw a particular conclusion. If you say universal childcare is bad because it increases feelings of anxiety and depression, you better explain to me why (and don't simply reply on a statistic). I want to know that you understand what you are arguing.

I don't accept whatever you tell me just because you have a card for it, I'm not a tabula rasa judge. If what you say doesn't make sense (within a reasonable amount of latitude), don't expect me to buy your argument.

Lastly, I'm not a fan of speed. Pretend I'm a lay judge who keeps giving you a quizzical look whenever you speed up. If I can't follow what you're saying, it is as though you never said it.

This activity is about learning how to be better communicators in life, not simply to win a competition.

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

For Open Tournaments:

I love a good values debate so if you could tell me either 1) why we should weigh your PV/VC over your opponent's or 2) use both your values and your opponents into your case, that would be awesome.

In regards to your case, I will pay close attention to the cards you use and will also be flowing during the debate round. If your opponent DROPS an argument, I will definitely catch it BUT I WILL NOT EXTEND IT if you do not tell me 1) to extend it 2) why I should extend it and 3) why this argument is essential to your case.

Aff:

-Give me good rebuttals in your 3 and 6 minute speech. I would love crystallization and voter's issues in your last speech to tie everything together.

-If you bring up a new argument in your last speech, I WILL NOT take it into consideration so NEG do not worry about that.

Neg:

-I need good rebuttals in all your speeches and any "status quo" arguments are no good to me.

-I would love crystallization and voter's issues in your last speech to tie everything together.

Cross-Ex:

I did LD debate for years and I will not accept any rudeness whatsoever. If you are rude during C-ex, I will note this and will lead to low speaker's points.

I LOVE trap questions, so please prepare some!

Use your C-ex questions WISELY: do not ask questions which make your opponent fluster and say something incorrect and then not use it in any of your speeches. It's a waste of your time to ask those questions if you will not use them later on.

Speaking:

I prefer off-time roadmaps before you start speaking so I and your opponent know where you're starting and ending.

Since this is an open tournament, I don't mind spreading or random cases. With that said, if you have an extinction case which goes way off topic from the resolution, I will not follow it so keep that in mind.

If your opponent is okay with spreading, it is okay with me. If they don't feel comfortable, try to go slower but you have to do what you have to do.

I usually award high speaker points if both cases are well thought out and explained, the only way you can get lower than a 28 with me is if you are rude, your case doesn't make sense, or if you run a gag case.

Overall:

Have a good time, crystallize, voter issues in your last speech, and USE YOUR C-EX TRAP QUESTIONS IN YOUR SPEECHES!!!

The debater who makes the best logical arguments supporting his/her assigned position wins.

Lay Judge with one year of experience. Limited exposure to circuit, but a strong intuitive grasp of argumentation and will be able to follow your logic. Adjust accordingly.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

I flow on paper.

I don't mind swearing.

Preference of no K's. Besides that, run anything you want.

Don't spread.

Respect your opponent, don't attack their character. Extremely low speaks if you do.

Random:

Don't ask me where I go to college.

Don't shake hands with me.

Experience: high school debate, continuing in undergrad.

I am a lay judge. Please no spreading, tricks, theory, K's etc. If I can't understand you, I will be forced to vote against you. Make sure to clearly identify why you won through weighing and impacts. Make sure you have links and proper evidence - no jargon.

I was a national HS circuit debater in the 1980s (policy) and did a little coaching at the college level in policy as well. As a parent volunteer the last couple years, I’ve judged most events and genuinely enjoy these rounds . . . so have fun when you’re debating in front of me!  

A few specifics/preferences:  

*    I start out with Tabula Rosa paradigm unless/until I’m persuaded to bring a different model to the debate. I’m open to all sorts of arguments, just make sure that you explain to me why something should be a voter — it’s not enough to win an arcane argument, it needs to make sense to me why it should win you the ballot.  

*    In spite of the above, I’m pre-disposed to treat the “stock issues” (especially Topicality) with reverence.  

*    I’m all about the flow. It’s not only the road map that I use to keep my brain organized throughout the debate, it’s also my record of the debate for post-round decision making. You’ll make things a lot easier on me (and therefore yourself) if you sign-post clearly before your constructives/rebuttals and make sure I stay on the same page with you during each speech.  

*    I’m comfortable with speed and will flow whatever I can hear. But one word of caution: I’m more impressed by smart arguments than I am by quantity of arguments.  

*    I’m old school when it comes to speaker points (let’s just say that 30s were a lot more rare in my day) but I’ll work hard to award them as close as I can to the current points scale. Fastest way to get dinged by me, though, is to be a jerk to other competitors — no matter how good you are. No excuse for rudeness.  

*    I like to call for evidence after rounds, from obscure definitions of terms in the resolution to cards buried in the middle of contentions. Don’t read anything into the stuff I ask to see, sometimes it’s crucial to my RFD and other times I’m just curious about a source citation.  

Last thing to understand about my judging philosophy: I was away from debate for many years, so some of the progressive arguments (e.g., Kritiks) are new to me. I’m open to them, but just be forewarned that you’ll need to explain the theory of your argument and how I should weigh it in the round.  

Competitive debate is awesome and will help you in every aspect of your academics, but it also teaches you skills that will be a competitive advantage for you in your professional careers. Have fun!