The debaters must to remember to focus on their impacts, as well as their framework/value criteria as it relates to their impacts. That is where they tell me "where the goal is" and "who reaches it" for the debate. Having the biggest impact doesn't mean anything if it doesn't fulfill the right framework.

If framework is not debated by the neg, I will default to 1AC's Framework.

Email: marinaalan02@gmail.com

I have two years of debate experience on the college level, and I've been judging highschool speech and debate for four years now.

The best way to convince me as your judge is to be very clear on your impact calculus. Tell me why exactly your impacts are the most important thing in the round, make me understand why I care more about your arguments than your opponents.

Even though I was a debater for a while, I'd rather not have to deal with speed, unless I have your doc. In any form of debate where I don't have your doc, I don't want to start calling slow, but I will if I need to. If you lose a judge because I can't understand you, that's on you.

There is nothing I love more than well-structured debate. So, tell me where we are on the flow, and keep everything clean. Please signpost, I’ll be really happy if you signpost.

I have zero tolerance for any level of disrespect towards opponents. If you are being rude, making sly comments, yelling at someone, making faces, anything along those lines I will drop you, or your speaker points. There is a distinct difference between being passionate and confident in your arguments or questioning their logic, and being downright disrespectful.

Tl:dr, keep the debate space clean, respectful and accessible to everyone = we will get along just fine.

bonus points if you can guess my favorite animal crossing villager

As a parent judge without a lot of experience, My understanding of LD is that:

"LD was specifically designed for lay audiences, the style of presentation and content is specifically defined as being analogous to a presentation in a community meeting."

Please speak clearly. It is your responsibility to be sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it. Please also stay respectful of each other in the round

Speaker points: On a scale of 0-30): 29-30 (grade point A) Excellent; 27-28 (grade point B) Good; 25-26 (grade point C) Average; 24-25 (grade point D) Improve.

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.

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

senior at Damien

Put me on the email chain- alandebate03@gmail.com

he/him

General:

please be respectful of others

ask me questions before the round if you have any

I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too

fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and

don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with

the POLICY topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.

I have a son that is in LD, so I know the basics of the LD structure. I know some common arguments but make sure to explain as much as you can.

General:

1. Medium pace talking, if you end up speaking too fast for me, I will say clear. After 3 clears, I will stop flowing.

2. Send over speech docs to: iagam@hotmail.com

3. Run what you want, ill try my best to understand it.

4. No trigger warnings and respect the competitor.

5. Any blatant racist, sexist, homophobic behavior is an automatic drop.

CA LD:

1. As said before run what you want. Make sure that I can understand it, and I will flow it. All the squirely arguments, dont run them, I wont flow.

2. Most comfortable with;

- Larp

- Theory (Ill try my best to understand, but explain everything)

- Kritiks/Phil ( I have no understanding of these, and I won't be able to understand)

3. Be aggressive in cross x.

4. Follow CHSSA rules, so no CPs or P

NLD

1. Be clear, make sure I understand the logical flow of your arguments

2. Ill judge off the flow.

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

Background: I have seven years of speech and debate experience in multiple leagues (HS and college), with two national speech titles. I'm most familiar with parli, which is my main debate background.

Priorities: In debate, I prioritize clear impacts directly to the RES, organized flows/tags, and explicit impact calculus. You will win not by explaining why your side is good, but why your side is BETTER. Throw in some humor and it will help you. I want to honor the time you've put into this and have a good round, so let's have some clash.

Things to avoid: I HATE GROUND SHIFTS. Name your burdens in the very beginning, and stick to them. Do not try to shift your message slowly throughout the round. And if your opponent does it, point it out to me.

Counterplans: If they are mutually exclusive, and still create clash, go for it. If they aren't mutually exclusive, you better be able to communicate your theory VERY well to convince me. Neg must point it out, of course. If it doesn't create clash, and it seems like two ships passing in the night because you didn't want to address their ideas, I will not want to vote for the CP.

Ethics: If I believe you are truly being unethical or using intimidation tactics on your opponent, expect to lose. Also, insinuating that your opponent is silly, incompetent, etc. does not win you any points with me. Keep it respectful and address ideas.

Critiques: I don't usually vote for them, but feel free to be an exception if you're very confident in your ability to run it well. Make sure you still create an opportunity for clash.

Theory: If you choose long-shot theory arguments over arguments that are less technically sophisticated but more clear and pragmatic, I will likely prefer your opponent. I enjoy good theory, but it should elevate the clash and the arguments, not muddy the waters.

Speed/Spread: If you prioritize speed and spread and your opponent prioritizes clarity and variability, I will probably prefer their style. However, I do think you can spread in a clear, successful way. I can usually follow speed if you enunciate clearly and slow down for the really important takeaways. If you choose very high speed, you risk losing arguments on the flow(and I'm a flow judge), so use discretion.

Dark humor: Within reason, go for it. ;) I will not be the grumpy judge who gets irritated at playful political jokes, dark humor, etc. As long as it's respectful, have fun and own the floor.

Hi, I'm Allison and I am a judge for Novice/JV LD!

I am not an extremely picky judge, but here are a few things to be aware of:

Please email me your case beforehand, plus any off cases you plan on running! (allisonstone02@gmail.com)

I know debates can be stressful, but please be respectful of your opponent! I take attitude into consideration when evaluating speaker points.

Overall, I am okay with any arguments; just be clear and organized with your speeches.

Good luck and have fun!