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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated in High School for all four years and qualed to TOC. I have experience in mainly PF, but on a number of occasions I debated circuit LD, holistically I'm more familiar with PF and the style in general. There are a few things I love to see in rounds and a few things that I hate to see. Otherwise, don't try to mold yourself too much to me as a judge, I just want to see a good debate.

Onto some of the things I love to see in rounds. Super intense crossfire is always fun, but I will not flow anything said unless you bring it up in a later speech, which I feel is pretty standard across most judging pools. Weigh your impacts, duh, but unless it's clearly warranted and you stress why it's important, it won't mean much to me. Remember I'm not the one researching this topic for weeks/months, clearly tell me why you won. I like jokes, make one and I might bump your speaker points up. Please don't come across as condescending or rude if you do that, your opponents probably don't deserve nor need that, and I don't want to watch it. I love a good offtime roadmap before rebuttal, summary, and ff. Please signpost to let me know where you are on my flow, this will greatly improve the chances of me fully comprehending your argument.

Now onto some of the general things I don't want to see in round. As a girl debater, and coming from a majority girl team, I faced a lot of sexism and heard countless stories about judges and fellow competitors participating in sexism in the round. I have no tolerance for seeing that. If you are a male/boy debater please be conscious of your actions throughout the round. Just because your voice is deeper and louder, does not give you permission to speak over anyone else in the room. It also does not make you a better speaker. Please be courteous and mindful and there should be no issue. The second thing I hate to see in rounds is rude behavior towards your opponent. Even if you think you are winning, win with grace and don't be a jerk. There's no need for that behavior and it could lose you speaker points, and potentially the round if it's severe enough. Please don't spread unless your taglines are clear. Like I said I did circuit LD and PF so I can flow it, but if I can't hear a tagline that looks poorly on you and the argument. I'm the judge you should want me to hear everything you have to say. The last thing is framework. I will not vote on a framework unless it is clearly extended through each speech. Don't just say the words cost-ben or utilitarianism, and expect me to perfectly fit that to your case. If you want it to impact the round, tell me why you win under it specifically to this round. But don't bring it up unless you actually want me to vote on it.

As of right now I'm judging at tournaments and attending college, but I really want to help give good feedback that could potentially help you in a later round. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round starts.

I debated on the National Circuit for all four years of High School in Public Forum. During that time, my partner and I qualified for Gold TOC multiple times, Nationals, and placed 5th at State.

The reason I love PuFo is because it’s a debate for the layman. I prefer if theory and technical debates and spreading stay in Policy. In PuFo, I like to see well formulated arguments that are supported by evidence and can be evaluated based on the impacts of the claims.

On the flow, I weigh evidence pretty heavy. Make sure that when you make links, you are able to support each of them with evidence. Don’t make illogical or wacky links that can’t be substantiated. Furthermore, please make links. If you are not linking you claim to your impact clearly, I will drop the whole impact from the flow. This is also something that you should call out if the other team fails to make links.

In first and second constructive, make sure you signpost. This makes flowing much easier for everyone.

First rebuttal should be spent refuting the other team’s arguments. Second Rebuttal should be spent refuting the other team’s arguments and also addressing responses made to the case.

I don’t look for structure too much in summary, just make sure you are not just spewing a bunch of infomation. Make it organized and clear. Also, the more your summary and final focus flow together, the easier it is for me to keep things on the flow. Furthermore, first and second summary should address clash and weigh.

Final focus should not be used to tell me why your opponents lost the round, but why your team won.

I don’t usually flow cross, but I do pay attention. Make sure you aren’t getting over emotional and you are prepared with questions and responses.

If a framework is not provided, I will default to cost-benefit analysis. Make sure weighing of impacts is done throughout the round and the most in final focus.

email: jimmyshi1@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years in high school, It's been ~3 years since I've done debate and ~2 years since I've judged.

It is probably best to consider me as a flay judge by LD standards. I'm not familiar with the norms of LD at all so I don't have any opinions on the format itself, because of this I don't intuitively have a feeling for if a debater is doing something uneducational/abusive and I'll be more receptive to theory because of this.

If you want to win me over, win the warrant-level debate, I find this is the most important & interesting part of debate that is the most lacking in most rounds.

Read whatever you want and I will give my best attempt to understand the arguments, but keep in mind I have very little experience judging Ks, heavy theory rounds, or nuanced phil, if you want to make those arguments, please put extra effort warranting them.

tech>>truth, I try extremely hard not to intervene. The only exception this is that I'll be more receptive to arguments that are explained better (sorry about this :( - not familiar with LD)

please don't assume I know any literature

speed is fine, just signpost

IF YOU ARE EXCESSIVELY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(s) I WILL OBLITERATE YOUR SPEAKS

I am a current freshman at USC. I did PuFo for all 4 years in high school so I'd say I can follow a round pretty well. I was competitive in the circuit, qualifying to TOC and Nats.

I'm more of a tech over truth judge. If you didn't rebut some outlandish contention, I won't automatically strike it from my flow. Don't make me do the work for you. With that said, make sure to tell me why to prioritize your impacts over your opponents. I'll probably guide off util unless someone gives me reasons not to.

PLEASE SIGN POST! It makes my life a whole lot easier, and it will make your lives easier if you tell me exactly where you are with whatever you are saying. With term of extensions, please don't just tell me to extend random cards without explaining which argument it goes with so I can accurately make out your link chain.

Because I'm a PF debater, I don't appreciate spreading and will probably be unable to understand you. I mostly like to flow on paper, as you will probably see me do in rounds, and I can only write so fast so enunciate and emphasize your tag lines clearly if you speak faster.

I want to see you guys respecting your opponents while addressing their claims in a sophisticated, civil manner. With that said, have fun! Debate can be frustrating but it was a great experience for me so you all should try your best to enjoy it while you can.

Sidenote: If any of you have questions about college, debate, or anything else, don't hesitate to ask me. :)

I am a sophomore in college, and during my high school career I competed in Congress and have watched many PF rounds during tournaments as well as practice rounds on my former S&D team. Typically when judging, I look for strong eloquent speakers, not rude or abrasive, but strong. People who can show me they know what they are talking about and are confident are also big winners. Overall, strong arguments with solid evidence will help you win the round above all else. I can not stand condescending or rude debaters. Be polite at all times and I won't have a problem. Please refrain from spreading.