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.

Hello!

I debated LD for four years at Marlborough in Los Angeles and graduated in 2018 (so please slow down).

Arguments:

I ran mostly policy arguments in high school but am open to anything if it is clearly explained, extended, and impacted.

Please do lots of weighing to make the round as easy as possible for me to adjudicate!

If you want good speaks:

1) Be respectful.

2) Make good arguments.

3) Don't ask me how to get good speaks.

General:

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

Rate of Delivery: Because I do not have a lot of experience judging debate, my preference is slower rate of delivery with speech clarity. If I can't understand your arguments or evidence because you're moving through them at too rapid a pace, it will be difficult for me to judge in your favor.

Timekeeping: I prefer when teams time themselves so that I can focus on the arguments/counter-arguments rather than worrying about keeping time. I believe most debaters are well-trained to time themselves.

Style: I appreciate when debaters roadmap and signpost. I definitely prefer fewer arguments and arguments with substantive evidence.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents.

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (feel free to share yours in round!)

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I am now a senior at Chapman University with a double major in Psychology and Sociology and a minor in the Honors Program.

I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in a few events. I competed on both the California state and national circuit for Congress throughout high school, but off and on I participated in Parli, PuFo, and Policy. I also competed in other debate events like World Schools and Big Questions. For IE's I mostly did spontaneous events (Impromptu and International Extemp), but I have done a few prepared original speeches and have experiencing judging all types of speech.

With that being said, I don't enjoy most theory, spreading, or K's. I can follow some speed and understand basic theory (i.e. Topicality arguments), but please use that all sparingly with me. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! I would like to emphasize that being rude to your opponent will never be tolerated and speaker points will be docked if you're blatantly bullying others in round (I hope I don't have to remind y'all of this, but homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round!!).

If there's an e-mail chain - add me to it! Just let me know at the start of the round and I'd be more than happy to provide my e-mail. If your case is going to involve sensitive topics that could be triggering to others, trigger warnings will always be encouraged and accepted in any round I judge. I also encourage and appreciate people sharing their pronouns in order to create an inclusive environment for all.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. There's not much to say there, just do your best! In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, and overall educational round.

I'm a second-year UC Berkeley student + debated in high school for four years (PF/CX/Parli).

PARLI: (Updated 1/20/21)

Speed: I'm good with speed as long as long as your opponents are good with it. (The goal here is not to speak so fast that I can understand you but your opponents can't. I'm not a big fan of the "read-as-many-off-case-arguments-to-spread-out-your-opponents" strategy in Parli.)

Tag-Teaming: I don't think this is really necessary in Parli, so I would strongly prefer if you would not. If you can convince me otherwise, then sure.

Counterplans: I've always liked a good counterplan. If you plan on running any theory arguments against a counterplan, please remember to articulate exactly why the counterplan is unfair and how it impacts education/debate as a whole/etc.

Disads: I weigh these like anyone else. Please make sure your disadvantages have a good link to the Aff (or be able to argue that your disads have a strong link to the Aff).

Kritiks: Fine, as long as there is a solid link to the Aff. It's been a while since used a K in a debate round, so you'll probably need to give me a refresher on whatever literature you're citing. If you can't defend your alternative well, I'll be less likely to "buy" your K.

Topicality: Don't forget to provide a counter-interpretation in your T shell so I have something to work off of. Also, if you want T to be an a priori issue/a voter, please articulate to me why that should be (on the grounds of fairness, education, etc).

Dropped Arguments: I don't do anything with these unless you tell me to. That is, I won't automatically vote for you because your opponent dropped one of your arguments--you'll need to explain to me why that dropped argument is significant and means I should give you the win.

Other:

-Just because you can run an argument doesn't mean you should (e.g. "death good"). Use your best judgement here.

-It's OK (and encouraged) to give me an off-time roadmap before you start.

-Don't forget to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow.

-Remember to be respectful to your partner and your opponents.

-I like when speakers take POIs, but don't feel obligated to take every POI. (Good POIs/responses to POIs will be rewarded in higher speaker points, though.)

-Please don't make up evidence--I may ask to see your evidence after round.

-If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I'm always happy to clarify.

Please look at Adam Torson's paradigm.

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.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I debated for Oakwood (CA), doing Lincoln Douglas debate on the national circuit level for 4 years. I don't care which arguments you read. I award speaker points based on how easy you make it for me to vote for you. That said, go easy on the a prioris.

Defaults (The following are merely defaults in the absence of any arguments for or against)

1. Drop the debater and no RVIs

2. Presume neg

3. Competing interps

If you have any other questions, I encourage you to ask me before the round or email me at arimostow2021@u.northwestern.edu

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Hello!

I debated at Marlborough School for four years and I now attend UChicago. Please be nice to your opponent. I do not like framing arguments that would indicate that the holocaust or any other atrocity is good. Please explain to me the implications of your arguments and signpost! If you keep speaking after time is up, I will stop flowing. I like a good plan v. cp debate; however, I also like ks, DAs, etc. Whatever you decide to run, please make sure you have clear extensions and weigh the debate for me. If you are emailing cases, please put me on the chain. Feel free to ask me questions before 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.