Clear logical arguments based on evidence.

As a second-year judge, I want to understand your logic and evidence. If I can't understand what you say, I can't award you points. Though I understand speaking fast (spreading) is sometimes necessary, by the end of the debate I will judge based on what I understood. If I don't follow you, you may lose. Overstating your case also loses points with me (in other words, "x is unlikely and so many people will suffer" convinces me a lot more than "x will never happen and so the entire world will suffer and die").

I don't appreciate frivolous theory or too much theory. If you can show me why your opponent is being unfair in debating, that helps me judge. Otherwise running theory will probably lose you the debate.

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’m a volunteer parent judge. I ask that you please keep your delivery slow and clear, in other words, no spreading. You will know that you are speaking too quickly if I put my pen down. I can’t take notes or judge what I don’t understand. I do not disclose.   My preferences: State your contentions clearly; Debaters keep their own time; I appreciate clear analysis; Quick off-time road maps are fine (emphasis on quick); A polite and respectful space is vital. 

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

I have experience in LD, Parli, and IEs.

General Preferences:

I understand that debate is confrontational and it can get heated but remember that you and your opponent are here to learn. I will not tolerate disrespectful behavior during round. Rudeness will drop speaks and possibly cost you the round.

Stay organized I can't vote for you if I can't follow your work on the flow.

I'm okay with speed I will call out "slow" or "clear" if I cannot understand you that being said, If you spread to exclude your opponent from the debate I will drop you.

When you give your voters speech I want you to write my ballot for me.

I won't vote on arguments that are racist,homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I don't care if your opponents drop them

LD preferences:

I'm not super experienced with circuit args but if you can explain them I am willing to vote.

I'm good on T and K's as long as they are warranted.

Not a fan of RVI's.

I don't really flow CX don't be overly aggressive CALM DOWN I PROMISE IT IS NOT THAT DEEP.

GIVE ME IMPACTS TELL ME WHY AN ARG MATTERS AND LINK IT BACK TO YOUR VALUES.

Parli Preferences

Anything goes argumentation wise

Tag teaming is okay but excessive tag teaming is irritating

I will defend the flow but I encourage you to call POO if you think I may not catch that a team is making a violation. At most call POO twice anything over 2 is excessive

I don't know when "Heckling" in parli became a thing but what I do know is that I will drop your team if you can't respect your opponents during their speeches. It is your responsibility to make arguments during your own speech.

That being said POI's are for questions not arguments feel free to trap your opponents but please make it a question.

On plan text I expect you to be specific ex: Funding universal basic income through normal ways and means I won't buy that

Feel free to ask me questions before and after round. Have fun and Good Luck!

Also remember that rankings, records, and awards don't really matter. It's about learning and having fun!

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 a parent judge and usually a blank slate. I would prefer that debaters follow through with their arguments, especially emphasizing the impacts of their arguments. I am not a fan of spreading.

Please send me your case at kaijund@yahoo.com if you like.

I look forward to listening to a good debate.

Good luck!

Hi, I'm a lay judge who you should assume, knows nothing about the topic. Please no spreading or circuit type arguments-- they will just fly over my head. Don't pref me unless you want a lay round.

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.

Freeman, William                 Oak Park High School                                 

Background:

I am a commercial litigator in a large, national law firm. I have 6 years’ experience judging Lincoln Douglas and other debate formats.  I recognize that Stanford’s debate competitors are neither attorneys nor college students, but I expect that they will understand and comply with all rules, format, and approved tactics of Lincoln Douglas debate. 

Approach to Judging/Preferences:

I understand all of the rules, tactics and subtleties typically arising in a Lincoln Douglas tournament, and expect the debaters to do so as well.  I will endeavor not to impose my beliefs, pre-conceptions or knowledge of the topic on the competitors.  Similarly, my approach is not to impose my preferences on your debate competition. If you are complying with all applicable rules and tactics, I will adjust to you.  This includes spreading, theory arguments, blocks, etc., etc.

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

Coach and Advisor to Westview HS in So Cal. I have never competed in Debate. I am all right with varied presentation speeds. Do what works best for you. I appreciate an organized and coherent argument. I am a fair and impartial judge adaptable to all debate styles. I will enter a low-point win if appropriate. If you feel your competitor is more eloquent than you are, do not worry, I will judge a debate on the content of your argument.

I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023. I have recently moved to Nevada.

I have judged IEs for 26 years.

I have judged Congress for 23 years.

I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 20 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.

I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.

Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.

As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.

I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.

This is my 3rd year of judging (I am a parent judge). Mostly familiar with LD and some Pofo.

Please be respectful and have fun. I really prefer NO spreading. I am open to just about anything, but please explain it like I am new to the argument. Please signpost. You do not have to ask me before each speech, all roadmaps can be off time.

Please crosstime!

Being rude to your opponent, or cutting them off in CX beyond an appropriate level will reflect on your speaker points.

I am mostly tech>truth as long as there is a solid link.

I value these 7 things most:

1) Pace/Clarity/Timing

2) Speech, Quality, Tone

3) Points/Details/Organization/Examples

4) Turns and Rebuttals

5) Flow Through of Contentions

6) Cross Ex Offense and Defense

7) Closing & Quality/Clarity of Final Rebuttals

please be clear with your arguments. sell my vote for me. and have fun.

TLDR;

I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.

About Me

pronouns: she/her

I am a junior at Stanford.

put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu

events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)

I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.

PET PEEVES:

1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in

IMPORTANT READ:

• If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
• Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
• Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
• My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
• If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
• email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round

I’m a great judge for you if:

• you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
• you like technical, high speed debate
• you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
• you are amazing at T
• you have a well-researched stock case

K’s

I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.

Nontopical/K-affs

I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.

Topicality (not theory)

I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.

Theory (distinct from topicality)

Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.

CPs

I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.

DAs

Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.

CHSSA/Lay debate

• I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
• Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.

I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.

I am a lay parent judge. If you spread or speak quickly and I cannot follow your arguments, I won't be able to flow or vote off of it so please articulate your words and don't speak super-fast. If you run theory arguments I will flow to the best of my ability, but please have a clearly structured shell and don't run frivolous theory. Clear links and impacts are important; explain to me why your arguments matter.

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

I debated in high school for 3 years in PF and parli, but I also have experience in LD and policy.

The most important thing to know about my judging style; make it easy for me to vote. If I have to dissect and overthink an argument you make, then its likely convoluted and I probably won't do it.

Make your case coherent and consistent. Avoid overcomplicating simple arguments. Also keep in mind that I will not be impressed by any high level diction if it doesn't add anything to the debate. I tend to favor simple and straightforward language. If I find your word choice as odd and unnecessary it will just distract me from your case

Do not assume I understand an argument, theory, or any specific jargon. Even if I do, make sure to explain and present it in your own way. If I don't understand the point you're trying to make, I won't vote for it.

Make sure to frame the debate and have good flow. Try to guide me through your flow. The better I am able to follow you the easier it is for me to understand your case as a whole.

Make me want to vote for you and your case. Even if your arguments/case is strong, you should still actively try and sell it to me.

I don't mind if you speak quickly/spread as long as you articulate your words properly.

I value delivery. While it isn't the most important thing, make sure to be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it. Bad delivery can make it difficult for me to fully comprehend an argument.

I like seeing clash. My favorite parts of debate were cx and breaking down an opponents arguments. While everyone's style is different, this is something to keep in the back of your mind. Also make sure to be respectful. Any offensive language or disrespectful behavior (such as laughing at your opponent) will automatically lose you the debate.

I'm a second-year varsity debater with experience in LD. Don't spread. Make sure to explain why your side won. No theory or K's, but plans are good. Provide clear links and make sure to show strong impacts. I will judge mainly on impacts and how well you link to it.

I am a novice parent lay judge. Please speak slowly and define all terms. Good luck on your rounds!

email chain pls: emma.martin2021@lrregents.com

she/her pronouns

la reina '21, carnegie mellon english and philosophy '25

previously a varsity CX debater on the nat. circuit (La Reina HM), primarily a k debater. familiar with a decent amount of k lit, ones im especially well versed on would be neolib/cap, security, and fem/queer ir. did varsity nat. circuit LD too. with that being said, if you're going to run some obscure or intricate K and assume i just know the lit so you can wormhole your way out of actually creating clash and debating the plan, you probably will not fair very well :/. you're always gonna have a better shot running a K you truly understand, and therefore can adequately explain to others.

if u can run a good t debate and absolutely smash a 2nr that's just t, i'll vote on that.

love k affs; run them all the time. i wanna know why your model of debate is good, not just why the other team's is bad.

in non-lay rounds, i typically don't consider myself a policy maker in the round unless you explicitly tell me to be

all speed is fine, put me on the chain though

i appreciate a well-split block, doing that in an effective way will help ur speaks as well as the debate obvs.

im gonna be real i've run maybe 2 policy negs in my whole life so im probably not incredibly well-versed on your 8 off case positions. it's not my area of expertise, so be clear, go in the order you say ur gonna go in, and don't assume i know your authors or all politics updates

dont be a jerk. ill literally just drop u and go on twitter for the rest of the round if ur racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.

I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.

Please have fun.

Add me to the email chain: rahil820@gmail.com

Background: I did LD for Edina High School for 5 years (1.5 on the national circuit). I also competed in extemp for 2 years. I'm a second-year-out and I've mostly judged local circuit debate, so my preferences on national circuit debate will likely continue to change as time goes on.

General stuff

With the exception of tricks, I'm fine with any position you run. I did mostly policy style debating throughout my career, so I'm familiar with mostly policy stuff. I dabbled in a little bit of philosophy (kant, virtue ethics) and a little bit of critical literature, but I haven't been exposed to it a lot so I'm relatively unfamiliar with a lot of the arguments. If you want to run these dense critical/philosophical positions in front of me, you need to explain and impact these very well (so that a 10-year old could understand them) if you want me to vote for you.

Also, I will immediately vote you down if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. in the round and I'll reach out to your coach. Procedural safety is my number one priority since I believe debate should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their background.

For local circuit debaters - put emphasis on your "voting-issue" arguments so that it's clear to me how you want me to vote. Do this, and your speaks will increase. Also, make sure to actually respond to your opponent's arguments effectively and weigh your impacts against theirs. This is the biggest thing I see lacking in local circuit debate and your speaks will improve if you do this (you'll likely win too).

Online Debate

Please slow down on tags and important warrants/impacts. Unpredictable things can happen which can cause lost rounds, and none of us want that to happen, so please be very clear on the arguments you think I should vote for.

Record all of your speeches and send them to everyone in the round after you're done in case your audio or connection goes out. If you don't there's pretty much nothing I can do since you can't restart your speech.

Nov-Dec 2020

Not too familiar with this topic, so please explain nuanced arguments clearly.

I am a High School Debater from Taft High School and am well versed in LD, Parli, POFO, and Policy. I am firmly against spreading and if I do feel that the speed is too high, I will issue a clear. I do stick to the flow throughout the course of the round but I also do expect an impact calculus or voter point explanation in the final speech to prove to me why you won the round. Personally, I am not a very theoretical debater but if you do want to run a T shell or K make sure to stay topical and be polite to the other side and be extremely explicit about the theory. Basically, only run theory when absolutely necessary and stick to arguing the resolution more if you can. I am not a huge fan of arguments that don't adhere to the framer's intent of the resolution. For policy in Parli and Policy debate I weight the policy more than any contentions but for the other forms of debate I judge on impacts and contention validity.

I do not tolerate rudeness. At all.

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 am a parent judge. I will flow as long as I can understand you. Please speak clearly and at a conversational pace. Please no techy arguments. I don't disclose unless directed to by the tournament.

My preferences are:

- State your contentions clearly

- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. If you see me drop my pen you're going too fast.

- Be polite

Track your own time and your opponent's time.

For all events:

1. Absolutely no spreading.
2. Treat your opponent with respect.
3. Have fun!

Hi everyone ,

I have judged LD, Public Forum, and Parliamentary for 6 years now.

My only two requirements are to be respectful, and please don't spread (talk extremely fast).

Thanks