I am a parent judge and therefore request participants to speak clearly and not too fast so that I can flow. I have judged parliamentary debate for 5 years, public forum for 3, and novice LD for 2. I think arguments about the core of the topic make for good debate.

Flow judge. Please weigh. Spread OK. No K's. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11jZDk15UIPhhyBojzFnXayCETBt36yUnRHWGgTizBEI/edit?usp=sharing

First of all, let me start by saying I HATE SPREADING. And I mention it frequently, and we STILL. SEE. SPREADING. You are not auditioning for an auctioneering job, you are trying to present a convincing argument. Three strong points well presented will be more effective with me than ten thrown out in an indecipherable flurry of syllables strung together. CUT IT OUT.

Good information well documented goes without saying. But there, I just said it anyway.

A presentation that has an arc, where the delivery is smooth throughout but that varies in tone, volume, rate, intensity, etc. will always tend to sway me in your favor. Good signposting is smiled upon.

Finally, look and sound like you're having a good time, or at least that you have something that you're glad you get a chance to present. Have confidence in yourself, and know that even if you stumble, you're going to get through this. And of course, when you find yourself totally lost and the information or words that you had right there two minutes ago have somehow disappeared, stop, smile, regroup and carry on. You will get through this. Probably doing better than you think.

Be mindful of your judging pool. Especially when you have less experienced parent judges, consider taking your time for an extra beat here and there, be sure to signpost well, enunciate and speak up. Some of us are old and not as quick as we used to be. Good luck, have fun, and, as we say in my hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

-------------------------

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

-------------------------

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

-------------------------

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

-------------------------

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

Background

• I competed in HS Parli for two years for VIP-South/iLEAD North Hollywood, primarily in Southern California (Double-Octos @ CHSSA, 2015; Octos @ CHSSA, 2016; Iain Lampert Award @ POI TOC, 2016), and competed in Policy at the District level (2nd @ District, yielded). I also competed in a number of Individual Events, including Impromptu (5th @ CHSSA, 2016; Quarters @ NSDA Nationals, 2016) and Extemp (IX: Quarters @ NSDA Nationals, 2016).

• I'm a Government & Sociology double-major at Georgetown, and I compete for their Mock Trial Team.

Debate Philosophy

• Debate is both a game that you have to try to win and an educational activity for all involved (yourself, your competitors, and judges). I understand that you want to do everything you can to win, but don't do it at the expense of education.

Approach to Judging / Argument Preferences

• I'm, for the most part, fine with debate jargon. However, for the sake of everyone in the round (mostly me), if it's something you don't learn within your first year of debate, make sure that you do me the favor of defining it when it first appears.

• In terms of speed, I was a pretty fast debater in high school, but I've come to be wary of it as a judge/coach - speak at a slow enough pace that an average person could follow (not only does it make it easier on me to pick up your arguments, but it gives you the valuable life skill of being able to talk to people and have them understand it!). I'll call slow/clear a maximum of three times, then I'll just stop flowing and start deducting speaks (I'm also receptive to speed Ks, or in-round abuse calls about speed).

• Have actual impacts for your arguments (saving money is not an impact), terminalize them (death, dehumanization, suffering), talk about dehumanization seriously and I'll be incredibly perceptive.

• Kritiks: I'm not familiar with most K lit, and I believe that you should be able to perform this K in front of someone completely unfamiliar with it if it's a good K, so make sure that you're explaining the arguments in your own words and aren't just reading cards you copied down during prep. If you're running a K-Aff, disclose as soon as possible during prep (I'm open to disclosure theory here). Also, if you're running the K, make the link as specific as possible to what happened in the actual round (even moreso than the resolution), otherwise, I'll find it pretty difficult to believe that my ballot really means anything for the K.

• Theory: I'll flow any debate theory argument that you give me, but if it needs some sort of potentially prepped response (looking at you narratives), please disclose during prep. Also I'm more receptive to theory arguments that directly come out during the round or are in response to in-round abuse than I am to strategic theory, but I'll evaluate both.

• Finally, for your speech formats: I'll flow in any order you want, and put anything on any sheet you tell me to, but for the love of God tell me where to write down what you're saying.

If you have any other questions, just ask me before the round starts.

Hale, David

Instructor at California State University Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles College 
Assistant Director of Forensics at La Canada High School (La Canada) since 2014
Assistant Director of Forensics at East Los Angeles College (Los Angeles) since 2014
Coach at Nova42 & Wilshire Academy (Los Angeles) since 2012


Experience
I primarily competed in the realm of interpretation (8 years). However, as a coach my focus has expanded into platform, limited prep, as well as debate (2009 - present). In my time as a debate coach I have had several PuFo teams place at middle school nats. Outside of the activity of speech and debate I have obtained a B.A. and M.A. in Communication Studies. In terms of fields of study I have narrowed my areas of specialization to Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Performance Studies. 

General Paradigm
I am a firm believer in the perspective that argumentation is part logic, rhetoric, and dialectic. Specifically I will take into consideration; the logic of the cases presented, whether or not you assessed the available means to persuade me, and lastly if you have attempted to advance the argument by sussing out the most relevant issues. That being said, it is your round and I will do my best to let you determine how you wish me to judge the round -- with the exception of any procedural errors. 

Speed/Delivery
In terms of speed I am mildly competent, on a scale of 1-10 I would say my skill is a 6. With regards to delivery, I tend to evaluate what is communicated through the rubric of delivery, arrangement, invention, memory, and style. (If you are unfamiliar with Neo-Aristotelian theory feel free to ask me in round)

Speaker Points
I'll quote from another paradigm that I think best states my view "I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 30 points, second best, 29.5 points, third, 29, and worst, 28.5. I will only give you below a 28.5 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action during the round. I will also deduct an entire point if you are not flowing the majority of the time that you should be. The trend to stop flowing because you are looking at a document (that, mind you, the judge can't see) is gradually excluding us from the rounds....plus, it is creating debates that are more shallow and debaters who think they are "too good" to practice sound debate skills. FLOW THE ROUND." (Megan West)

Technology
Have at it, just make it quick. I won't be forgiving of technological failures.

I am a lay judge. I have studied Master of Pharmacy, Master of Business Administration (Major in Marketing), MBA (Information System Management). This is my second year judging. I enjoy IE and PF. I do not like circuit stuff. I prefer specific, concise and focused debate. Respect each other and do not interrupt while one person is speaking.  I also prefer reference from well-known journal like Harvard Business Review etc. 

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Hello, I am a parent of an LD debater. I have three years of experience judging both circuit and traditional styles of debates (more so traditional). I have a few basic preferences:

Speed/Speaks: Although I understand most debate issues, I still need you to go slow. I don't really care if you sound nice or go super slow, but try to avoid spreading. If you talk faster than conversational, that is okay. Do not use a bunch of heavy jargon, because even though I can probably understand how arguments break down and interact, saying uniqueness overwhelms the link without an explanation will lose me. In terms of speaks, I think I am similar to most LD judges on the circuit. This is how I break that down:

28.3-28.7-average

28.8-29.0-good (probably break)

29.1-29.3-great (definitely break, maybe bid)

29.4+: will be competitive to win tournament

LARP: This is the debate I am most familiar with. DA's, CP's and all of that is fine with me. Just don't use super complicated jargon, but just explain what things mean. For example, instead of saying perm do both, say perm the CP and plan are not mutually exclusive, so the aff can defend doing both. Stuff like that.

T/Theory: Fine I guess. I'm okay with judging it, but once again, don't use jargon. Just explain T like you would to any parent judge.

Phil: This is fine. I require more explanation than most judges for a lot of phil arguments, but I will probably be willing to vote on them, although I tend to lean towards util and other consequentialist frameworks.

K: Big time no. I don't understand most of them, and I will not vote on them. By that same logic, the aff must be topical and defend a policy action within the resolution. Spec is fine, but just defend government action.

Note: Disclosure is good. Disclose on the wiki. If someone reads disclosure theory and there is a real violation, I will probably be willing to vote on it. That being said, new affs not being disclosed are fine, and I don't really care about Open Source. I will also not be disclosing the decision in the round, so you can probably ask me, but I will say I won't disclose. That being said, debate is a game. Have fun, be entertaining if you can, and be respectful so everyone is included :)

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

History:

I have been judging debate for 3 years and I was a competitor for 2. I have a history with LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary, Policy, and World Schools.

Preferences:

•First, and foremost, do not spread. If I, or your opponents, say "clear" you ought to slow down. The point of the debate is to get me to believe you won the round and if I can't flow your speech, you are losing potentially valuable ground.

•Please number/alphabetize your contentions and sub-points. I am can write fairly quickly but if your arguments aren't organized, something is probably going to get lost. Same goes to referencing your opponents arguments. If I don't hear where it is on the flow, that makes you lose time where I could be writing your rebuttal but instea I'm searching for the referenced point on my flow.

•I weigh arguments that are contested back-and-forth throughout the round more so than one's left behind. If you or your opponents aren't bringing up one of your contentions/sub-points until the very end, you are telling me that it does not matter as much. I will take these non-argued points into account, just weigh them less.

• Use your time wisely, there are plenty of times when someone goes up to speak with enough notes to fill half their time. Usually this end with repetition of statements made from the same speech over and over. If my pen is down, that means you are repeating yourself and wasting valuable time. If you feel you have less points than time to fill, go slower and go more in depth about your points. That is far more convincing than repeating the same points over and over.

•Show me why the evidence matters. Give me impacts for each point you bring up so that I can compare the arguments.

•I enjoy a bit of value/criterion debate when applicable. If the aff and neg both have different values for the round, I want there to be debate about which I should use to view the evidence from.

•I will differentiate between trusted academic opinion versus statistical precedent. I will value "the statistics show" over "Dr. ___ believes that..." nearly every time unless you clearly show why your opponent's statistics are wrong/not applicable.

•I'm a big fan of counterplans when applicable. Not every round should have one but, to me, it is easier to show a counterplan as being successful than status quo or aff's plan causing more harm than good.

Theory et al

•Debate jargon is incredibly exclusionary and weakens the debate. If I can't understand the language you are using or if your opponents can't, there is something wrong. I feel you can generally avoid jargon it may just mean you have to say 3-4 words instead of 1. If your competitors ask you what a word means, respond clearly.

•K's & Topicalities are good but the less related to the round/debate as a field they are, the less they are applicable. In a debate round lacking T's and K's, the debate ought to lead to a logical conclusion for who won. With these two argument types, you make the judge the decider, rather than the arguments. So, I will be a bit less objective with these and use past experience & the arguments to make a decision.

•However, that does not mean all K's are valid arguments. If you and your opponents agree before the debate begins to have a sillier round (involving such things as Santa Claus K or whatever) and all judges approve, then be wild with your K's. Otherwise, if you make me roll my eyes at the K you are running, I will put my pen down and it won't have any weight in the round.

I am a philosophy professor (emphasis on logic and ethics) and a parent judge. This is my sixth year judging, and I enjoy LD most, followed by Parli and PF.

I prefer when debaters have a clear and well-researched case supported by a specific ethical theory or moral principle. I expect that debaters will be assertive but never disrespectful toward their opponents. In terms of debating style, please avoid "spreading." Also, I don't like it when the round has been reduced to debate jargon and you're arguing the rules of debate rather than debating the educational issues within the resolution.

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Hi there, I've done 4 years of parli, one in open High School, three in the Community College Circuit, at one point or another have competed in every debate format. I enjoy clash in my debates. Run whatever you want I'm front of me as long as you take the time to impact it out. Don't make me do the work for you, Tell me why i should vote and where. Been out of the debate scene for a bit, always excited by interesting ideas and we'll thought out strategy.

I am a lay judge and a university history professor. I expect respectful behavior, logical arguments, and please no spreading.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

I am a lay judge with three years of experience. I judge multiple invitationals each year in southern California. In '17 and '18 I judged at Stanford Invitational, and in '17 I judged at State. I have judged many league tournaments over the years and twice judged CBSR league qualifiers. I judge all events: IE and debate.

Over the years I have learned that, when judging Parli, I prefer a logical, well-organized, well-paced case that builds without falling into the "information dump" trap. I am also suspicious of Parli debaters inventing statistics in round. If I am about to judge a Parli round you're in, please know that running a K is risky. You'll need a very good reason, one that enhances rather than diminishes the value and integrity of the debate. Educational value is paramount; your case needs to respect that, as well as your opponents.

There are three major things to keep in mind for my paradigm

First, I'll keep track of what is and isn't extended, including any part of framework, so extend.

Second, You have to win on a clear value and value criterion, and if neither side is able to, I go neg on presumption.

Third, use impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) Magnitude being the most important as long as its probability is more likely than not. An argument needs to be well rooted for me to consider it, so I won't vote on a weak extinction argument.

Ask me anything else you'd like to know before the round starts!

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

Intro: This year is the start of my 8th year as a parent judge. I have judged every Debate event and most Speech events, but I have the most experience with PF, Congress, Impromptu, Extemp, and LD. Of these, Congress is my favorite!

Expectations:

- be professional and courteous to others at all times

- play the part, and enjoy it

- speak in a way that allows me to understand you - not too fast, and assume that I don't know abbreviations and "lingo" related to the legislation

How I judge/rank/assign points:

- quality of speech and quality of answers to questions: relevant, moves the debate, concise, original, organized, logical, supports your position or refutes the opposing position, demonstrates knowledge of the legislation, reliable evidence, persuasive

- delivery: mostly extemporaneous, poised, confident, mostly correct sentence structure & grammar, clear transitions with signposting

- use of time: use all, or at least the majority, of the time allotted for your speech

- demeanor: respectful, professional, personable & memorable (you need to make yourself stand out from the others), be an active participant

Have fun and impress me!!

since Updated: 2/25/2020
Background: As you may have guessed, my name is Shaylee Lawrence (Formally known as Shaylee Tulane). I graduated from Viewmont High in UT in 2012. I competed in LD for four years, and I competed for the University of Utah for four years. I have coached off and on since 2017. I have taken a break since March of 2019. I graduated from the U in May 2017.

General Overview: I am honestly down to listen to any argument as long as it is accessible to your opponent. I try to judge solely off of the flow. If the flow doesn't tell me who won, then I will first turn to the framework debate for LD. For policy, I will usually default to a risk type paradigm. Meaning what the risk of either the advantages and or disadvantages is. From there, I typically default to impact calculus. I am good with theory, critics, CP's, advantage counter-plans, etc. Run what you want. That being said, don't try and kitchen sink someone just for kicks and giggles. Be accessible and reasonable.


Important things:
I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment (this includes targeting comments towards the other team or me)in the round.

I WILL CONSIDER dropping any new arguments in the rebuttals.

Slow down between tag lines, interps, plan texts, alt texts, etc. If you can have a written copy of any plan or counterplan text, that would be preferable. But I know that may not always happen. It won't hurt you if you don't do it.

Speed: I am ok with most speeds. I have been out of the debate for the past year. Also, I have developed severe carpal tunnel. So that being said, while I can understand most speeds, it is sometimes hard for me to flow as fast as I use to.

Theory: I like ethical theory debates. Please don't throw just any theory at me and expect a win. For me, you need to do a couple of things:

• I do not vote on the potential for abuse by default. If you are going for theory, you need to prove the violation of your interpretation. If you want to run potential abuse, then please articulate why I prefer it.
• Theory, for me, usually comes down to competing interpretations. But reasonability arguments are fine, but I need some articulation on what I should prefer.
• Voters are a must! Please give me an a priori voter at the very least. I default to competing interpretations when evaluating the interpretation. So if you want me to vote for or against theory for a particular reason, then please say so.
• Also, please have some different standards. Education/fairness for me are more of impacts to standards.
• If you drop the T [if an A priori argument is made (which please do)], I will look there first in my decision.

CP's, Perms, Plans, and DAs: If you have them, then go for it.

• Politics DAs NEED to provide a clear link that is unique and intrinsic to the plan text or the resolution. I think it makes the link scenario cleaner. I find it harder to vote on politics if I do not have a clear link to the plan text.
• Perms. Slow down for the perm text. Clear net bens. Also, some argumentation on how the perm functions.

K's: I love them. Some things I like:

• I believe all critics need a robust framework.
• If you run a reject alt, please tell me why this is unique and how it solves. I don't really like reject alts. I feel like they are kindof of a cop-out. But I mean, if you have the evidence to back it up, then go for it.
• As I said, I am down for any literature you want to run. But make sure the Links, impacts, and the Alt are clear.
• Case-specific links are preferable.

Philosophy: I love philosophy. That is what I focused on most of my high school career. You should be linking how/why this ideology affects how we should perceive the resolution. I love some good philosophy/value rounds.

What to do to earn low speaks:

• Being rude
• Any ism. As I said, I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment in the round. And by dropping, I mean both dropping you in the round, and I will not give you above a 15 in speaks.
• Spreading to spread. What I mean is I can understand to put out 2-4 sheets of paper. But when you are presenting 7-12 ( I have seen it done before) pieces of paper, you are not debating.
• No signposting. I have seen this way too much. If you don't signpost, then I can't flow, which means I get to play the guessing game, and you might not like where I put your arguments.

Values/Criterions:
As I stated above, I was a traditional debater in high school. So when it comes to judging LD, I turn to the Value and Criterions first. Somethings to be aware of:

• I don't find the standard values like life, morality, etc. very interesting. I have voted on those values in the past, however. Please provide me a good articulation on why they matter other than "because you would be dead."
• Please have a criterion. I get annoyed when the neg says, "Yay, I accept their value and criterion." That kind of defeats the purpose of LD in my mind. However, I find it necessary to clarify that you can still argue that you uphold your opponents value better. I want to see some clash on the value criterion debate.
• Also, please impact the value and criterion. I think this is something that people ignore; if your value/criterion doesn't affect society at large, then why are we even talking about it.

I prefer that you remain cordial and respectful to both your opponents and the judge. I am ok with most argument as long as it makes some sort of sense. Please no Ks- relatively new to debate. I am don't have a lot of experience with speed. Some things that I look for in a debate:

- pointing out logical fallacies are always good

- Make sure not to cut off the other speaker in a rude manner in CX

- I'm fine with evidence swap as long as it's done in a timely manner

- Be prepared to provide evidence after the round because I may call for some

- Hypotheticals with no inherency don't fly in this zone

Good luck in the round!!!! :)

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

LD Judging Paradigm - 

I am a flay judge. 

As a scientist, I will prefer a debate founded on evidence and statistics as opposed to unwarranted analytics and theoretical claims going back and forth.

If you go through a card that is really wordy and difficult to understand, spend a few seconds giving me a short summary of what that argument was and its impact in the round.

Clash: I'd like to see more of this. Engage with your opponent's arguments, tell me why they are wrong, and say why your arguments should be preferred. The more persuasively you frame your arguments, the better.

Spreading: If I don't understand what you are saying, I will stop flowing.