Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

My. Background:

 I am a corporate banker at a U.S. based international bank. I have been judging for approximately one year with most of my experience in the LD debate format but have also judged Public Forum and Parliamentary.    

 Approach to Judging/Preferences:

As a debater, assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain what's going on to me clearly and succinctly. I will do my best to stay open-minded and not to impose my personal beliefs, pre-conceptions or knowledge of the topic on the competitors. 

Things I look for include passion, articulate speaker, maintains good eye contact and confidence.

Please don’t spread.  I understand the strategy, but if I cannot keep up, what’s the purpose?

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

1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

1. I am totally and completely find with any type of off cases that you would like to run, along with spreading. However, if I am judging, you MUST ask your opponent first if they are okay with off cases and/or spreading prior to doing that. If your opponent is not okay with off cases and/or spreading, YOU CANNOT DO IT.
2. A strong Value Criterion debate. If I don't see any clash on the VC, it makes it hard for me to pick a winner. When you continually bring up the Criterions presented in the round and how they link into the various arguments, you're only making your arguments stronger and better in every way possible.
3. If you are going to extend a drop that was made, it's not enough to simply say "my opponent dropped this card/argument, extend it please judge." You're going to have to reiterate what the card/argument was dropped and, most importantly, what the impact of that drop was. Otherwise, you're just telling me to extend something without explaining to me what the importance of the extension was, and that's not something that I can clearly vote off of.
4. Have fun. The only reason that I do this is to make sure that y'all can improve and do better in every round after, and that's where the fun comes from. If you're not having fun, trust me, you won't do as well as you could.

Lay Judge

No speed, no theory, no tricks 

This is a severely abridged version of my paradigm. If you'd like the full version, feel free to reach out to me (college) or have a coach reach out (HS) for it.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

TOC UPDATE:

If you're a senior at your last TOC ever, please tell me before the debate. I'd like the opportunity to congratulate you on your career and reward your ability to be here with some great speaker points. You should be proud of yourself for the tremendous amount of work you've put in to get this far!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points vary widely. This is because the quality of debates I judge vary widely. I make no apology for the points I give. I try to adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

Here is my approximate scale for the open division (does not apply to JV and Novice):

30: never given one out in policy debate. Requires devastating speeches that show novel and tailored strategy, technical proficiency, and efficient and effective cross-examination periods (on both sides). A 30 is earned if it is apparent to me that not a single second, word, or breath was wasted in the debate.

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim.This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

26-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

25: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

Yay debate!

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.

I have several years of experience judging more traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas debate for Brentwood. I will flow and base my decision on the arguments. I tend to prefer using the value framework as the lens by which I make my decision. I am not as comfortable with very circuit-type arguments. I tend not to favor theory or kritical arguments. And I prefer more conversational delivery—speed could factor negatively.

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc andUSC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Woodward (the ld tournament I'm at -- 3/22/24)

- here's my old man nagging fist at cloud moment: we say a lot of things in debate but rarely expand those args into something more developed. Try to aim to have a coherent ballot story. Please assume I dont know anything and make that explanation happen in front of me, because I may have opinions you disagree with. This is best mitigated through you explaining what cards implicate which things and highlighting that they were in fact in the first speech, etc

general debate things

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Debated for Palos Verdes Peninsula High School all four years.

I usually ran very policy arguments, so I tend to lean towards topical Affirmatives.

I never ran K affs or just Ks in general, I dont really like. Always sympathetic to good stock util extinction impacts and cap good.

Disads and Counterplans are no different, I've been out of the high school policy loop for a little bit now so I am not familiar with the topic. Make sure you explain links, the plan text, impacts, all that good stuff clearly.

Impact calc is pretty important to me.

Make sure you extend arguments throughout the debate - I will evaluate how arguments are handled until the end of the round, so don't expect me to manually do all that work for you.

Theory is fine by me, but needs to sound convincing enough.

Theory should have all components in the shell, I tend to not like frivolous theory, unless its absolutely absurd maybe you'll catch me laugh at you. Make sure you make it clear what violating the interp means: for example dropping the debater or a specific argument. I'd vote on it.

I won't really vote on condo unless, of course, its dropped in its entirety.

Topicality is very important as well, with reasonable definitions. I like topicality when it's run well, I'd vote on it.

Also love good framework debates against critical affirmatives.

Anything not responded to is fair game for me to evaluate (as long as its extended).

Keep track of each other's time, I wont care if they use 15 minutes of prep time if you don't call them out on it.

Oh also prep time ends after the cards are sent out.

Email: tobby46@gmail.com

That means add me to the email chain please. Thank you

1. I want a values debate

2. Be polite to one another

3. Have fun and make solid arguments

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

Just don't speak too fast.

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

4 minute prep time, off time roadmap allowed

Off cases and spreading completely allowed, just with the permission of the opponent

Do not drop contentions and arguments, if opponent makes drops please explain why I should extend it. I am not going to extend it for you.

Link everything from impact to framework, please

Debated PF and LD for 5+ years in local and circuit.

TL;DR: Run anything and everything, but don't waste my time or your opponents' time. I'm okay with speed, but if you can't spread properly don't do it. Extend impacts. If you introduce FW, stick with it. Also okay with CP, Ks, DAs. I openly react to arguments and what you say--if I look confused, I probably am, and if I nod, I probably like what you're saying.

Do NOT be rude. If you accuse the opponent of being abusive/unfair, tell me why in a polite but assertive way. Chances are I'll be on your side if the opponent is being abusive.

spencerklink.com

tbd

The best way to win a debate in front of me is to go straight for case. I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA.

I'm fine with lower level theory args, I think T is necessary in some instances for the neg but not necessary for every round. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of. That being said, I have voted them up but if you're going to run one you'll have to meet me halfway and make sure you're explaining your arguments fully rather than assuming I'll fill in the blanks for you.

The easiest way to tank your speaker points fast is to be rude to your opponents, please maintain a level of respect for one another in the round.

I also have a soft spot in my heart for rebuttals with overviews and clear direction as to where you want me to vote, this is the easiest to reduce intervention when it comes to my vote and raise speaks at the same time.

 I am a parent with 3 years of circuit judging experience. 

Speed is fine, be clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll start docking speaks.

If you want to make me happy run policy-style args, though I'll vote on pretty much anything. Meaning, I'll vote on your non T Aff but you'll make me very sad. Everything else is fair game. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. 

Don't be mean. Don't be racist, sexist, or a blatantly terrible person. 

Please no spreading. I can flow debates;however, when speaking extremely fast it becomes hard to follow and as such I will probably miss some of your points and impacts which can affect my decision.

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Background: Lay judge with 3 years experience judging high school Parli and PF (and a couple LD rounds).

General comments: I flow the constructive speeches, but usually just take notes on the rebuttals. I understand basic debate terminology (contentions, framework, impact, cards, value, criterion, weighing, etc.), but if you're going to debate theory, topicality, kritiks, or any philosophy more complicated than utilitarianism, you have to explain them to me. I will try to vote based on content only, but your clarity and presentation as a speaker affect how well I understand the content, so don't write them off as unimportant.

Plans/CPs: I understand what they are, but explain any issues with competitiveness, inherency, solvency, fiat, etc. very clearly because I am not familiar with those terms.

Speed: Okay with speed, but not spreading.

I am a parent Judge, however do not mistake that for being ignorant of the debate community. This is the second year judging debate and I graduated from CSU Long Beach with a degree in communications. 

Be respectful. If someone asks to see your evidence give it to them. 

Please be clear! Talk as fast as you want, but I need to be able to understand what you are saying. I won't flow what I don't understand.

Framework and impact calc are key! Give me a clear way to evaluate the round. Do not leave me without a mechanism to judge. 

Explain your warrants. Give me a play-by-play of the scenario and always state your reasons WHY. 

Kritiks are fine, run them all you want, but make sure you understand the material you're reading. Make sure they are warrented. This needs to be done well.  If a kritik is being run I expect you very knowledgeable about the topic. I need a clear idea of what I'm voting for. 

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.

I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.

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.

I competed in Public Forum for one year and this is my second year as a Lincoln Douglas debater. This is my first year officially judging so make your arguments clear and explain to my why it is obvious that you have won this round.

no spreading (I have sensory overload, so it is hard for me to comprehend spreading) if i can’t understand you, i can’t vote for you. Quality over quantity!

if your opponent says anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, they will automatically be dropped and given 24 speaker points as long as you mention it in a speech and you will get 29. 

i hate frivolous theory, don’t run it, i won’t vote on it. 

confidence is key!

I have competitive debate experience in both NPDA and British Parliamentary (BP) styles at the Community College and University levels. As a debater, I have passed the break at several tournaments, advanced to finals twice, and took first overall with my partner once. I have judging experience both while on a competitive debate team and, now, as a volunteer (NPDA, BP, LD).

First and foremost, debate is not about being "right," but finding truth. It is a fast-paced, fun, and very expressive activity. Keep your speeches professional and do not make it or take it personally. This is not an activity for people who have thin skin or are not receptive to criticism. Admire those with skills greater than your own and learn from them. Some of my favorite and most memorable rounds are also some of the rounds where I was rhetorically annihilated.

Speak audibly...spreading will get you nowhere. If I cannot understand you, then I cannot give you any credit for your arguments. It's as if they don't exist. Two or three strong points are better than fifty-three weak ones.

Attack the arguments, not the person giving them. Also, don't simply say that an argument is "dumb." Deconstruct it and convince me of that without showing that laziness. This is directed more at the High School debaters.

Be friendly. This is debate, not football. We're here to learn from each other - not be jerks to each other.

ROADMAP!!

RESOLUTION ANALYSIS!!

SIGNPOST!!

POINT - ARGUMENT - EVIDENCE!!

If you're going to combine your refutation and new material...say that at the start.

HAVE FUN!!

Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.

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.

I graduated with a degree in Communications and Psychology. My areas of study include speech, logic, argumentation, persuasive speaking, non verbal communication, interpersonal communication, public relations, and strategic and consultative selling. Early in my career I worked in broadcast journalism then transitioned to public relations and business development.

I understand the rules and flow of debate. I remain completely unbiased and will never impose my beliefs, preconceptions or knowledge of the topic in my evaluation of a round. I am flexible on preferences. Road mapping is fine and actually stating clearly your contentions and subpoints is beneficial (i.e. "moving on to contention #2, subpoint a"). Spreading is okay as long as you are annunciating. If you spread too fast where it is impossible to even hear what you are saying then I will have difficulty judging your framework. I expect professionalism, decorum and good sportsmanship. Any verbal and/or non verbal signs of poor sportsmanship will lose you points.

Enjoy and good luck!

The debater who makes the best logical arguments supporting his/her assigned position wins.

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

AFA NIET All American 2008.

8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.

Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.

1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.

3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)

2 year NFA qualifier.

Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.

Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.

Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.

*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.

Public Forum Debate is not Policy debate. While evidence helps an argument, it does not replace and argument and it does not win a debate on its own. I am more swayed by logical, persuasive argumentation that is supported by evidence than a policy round of sparring cards read at a high speed montone. 

I DO flow crossfire and I feel the best debate can come out of crossfire. Polite, respectful questions that cut to the core of the argument and help establish direct clash in the round are the best kind of debate.

Be clear in linking arguments to the resolution and give clear voters in final focus as to why one argument wins over another.

Remember this is a learning, activity based around persuasion. Have fun!!

I am a lay judge. Please no spreading, tricks, theory, K's etc. If I can't understand you, I will be forced to vote against you. Make sure to clearly identify why you won through weighing and impacts. Make sure you have links and proper evidence - no jargon.

I believe that debate is a game. Play to win. Run your theory shells, specs, whatever you need to. Be strategic. Literally everything is up for debate, including the in-round rules. Keep that in mind when you decide what your voters are.

Speed is fine to a point. If it becomes too much I will make it obvious.

If you're going to run any critical arguments, clarity becomes paramount, since I likely won't be as well read on the subject as you.

Write my ballot for me. Make my job easy.

LD:  I am an experienced LD judge.  I am comfortable will all arguments and frameworks provided the internal.links and impact calculations are well constructed. I prefer impact calc. with a probability bent. I prefer to vote on theory, but it must be logicall cohesive.  I also expect we'll researched theory.  I am not inclined to pick up debaters who kick theory arguments although it's not unheard of.  I am comfortable with speed and will yell clear if diction becomes an issue. Do what you are trained to do and I will follow. Obviously looking for strong flow work and detailed clash and turns of both arguments, links and evidence. I still believe in manners in all aspects of my life and this extends to debate discourse.  

I was a national HS circuit debater in the 1980s (policy) and did a little coaching at the college level in policy as well. As a parent volunteer the last couple years, I’ve judged most events and genuinely enjoy these rounds . . . so have fun when you’re debating in front of me!  

A few specifics/preferences:  

*    I start out with Tabula Rosa paradigm unless/until I’m persuaded to bring a different model to the debate. I’m open to all sorts of arguments, just make sure that you explain to me why something should be a voter — it’s not enough to win an arcane argument, it needs to make sense to me why it should win you the ballot.  

*    In spite of the above, I’m pre-disposed to treat the “stock issues” (especially Topicality) with reverence.  

*    I’m all about the flow. It’s not only the road map that I use to keep my brain organized throughout the debate, it’s also my record of the debate for post-round decision making. You’ll make things a lot easier on me (and therefore yourself) if you sign-post clearly before your constructives/rebuttals and make sure I stay on the same page with you during each speech.  

*    I’m comfortable with speed and will flow whatever I can hear. But one word of caution: I’m more impressed by smart arguments than I am by quantity of arguments.  

*    I’m old school when it comes to speaker points (let’s just say that 30s were a lot more rare in my day) but I’ll work hard to award them as close as I can to the current points scale. Fastest way to get dinged by me, though, is to be a jerk to other competitors — no matter how good you are. No excuse for rudeness.  

*    I like to call for evidence after rounds, from obscure definitions of terms in the resolution to cards buried in the middle of contentions. Don’t read anything into the stuff I ask to see, sometimes it’s crucial to my RFD and other times I’m just curious about a source citation.  

Last thing to understand about my judging philosophy: I was away from debate for many years, so some of the progressive arguments (e.g., Kritiks) are new to me. I’m open to them, but just be forewarned that you’ll need to explain the theory of your argument and how I should weigh it in the round.  

Competitive debate is awesome and will help you in every aspect of your academics, but it also teaches you skills that will be a competitive advantage for you in your professional careers. Have fun!

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

Background

Coach at New Roads School, Santa Monica, CA (2016-Present). MSPDP coach for a couple of years prior to New Roads.

Decorum

Keep in mind the spirit and purpose of this activity during round. Effective communication and politeness goes a long way. Being rude to another team will result in lower speaker points. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, etc rhetoric will not be tolerated and will also result in lower speaker points. If you have to wonder, chances are your evidence, etc may fit the bill. Then don't use it!

Speed

A notch below spreading is most enjoyable, but I’ll flow any speed.

Judging Arguments

I will try to keep my own experience and knowledge outside of the round. If an argument does not make sense, and is dropped, it may be considered a less significant argument because it just isn't convincing.

Framework

A clear framework is important because it dictates how I will judge a round. Make sure the framework is presented clearly and then remind me how you won.

Theory

Use of theory is great, but make it very clear how it relates to your argument. Don't simply read a pre-prepared statement and expect for me to make the connections while reviewing my flow.

Weighing

I will almost always default to probability over magnitude unless a strong rationale convinces me to do otherwise.

Speaker Points

Are determined by clarity of speeches, ability to respond to opponents during POIs, and general considerations of ethos and pathos.

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.

I am a parent/lay judge, with 3 years of experience judge "traditional" lay debate in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I am not experienced at judging "circuit' debate. I do not prefer spreading. I appreciate how a debater puts thought into the delivery and communicates ideas, as well as shows a healthy respect for her/his opponent. I like to see that a debater has done the work of researching and producing evidence. I will deduct speaker points for disrespectful debaters.

**Please feel free to ask me for more specifics prior to the round.

**I personally prefer having a paper copy of cards but am fine with digital. I don't have a flash drive compatible laptop, but I can use Google Drive (email: jeanjiwooyi07@gmail.com) and AirDrop. You certainly don't have to provide me a copy if you don't feel comfortable, but I can guarantee you that it will be a better judging experience for the both of us. Flashing will not be counted as prep.

- General thoughts: As a general rule, I believe that specificity in theory is more important than reading a bunch of blocks of evidence. Ultimately, I believe it is your responsibility as a competitor to TELL me how I should judge. Of course my own biases and past experiences color my ability to judge; my responsibility is to evaluate every debater based on their performance and standards set in-round, even if it's not a style or type of argument I am familiar with. I love a good case debate with sparring and policy; I also love a kritikal debate that challenges traditional epistemology. Ultimately, you do you. Present whatever arguments you feel comfortable with, and I will judge based on how you frame it for me.

- Topicality: I don't often go for vague "fairness" arguments as I believe that debate should be competitive and challenging, even if that means stretching yourself a little. In varsity CX, you shouldn't be surprised by facing novel arguments unless it is WAY out of bounds. You need clear examples of in-round abuse that make the debate totally illegitimate. I generally don't take RVIs seriously.

- Framework: Make sure this is rock solid, as this is how I evaluate the debate. If there are two competing frameworks, explain clearly why one is better. This should preferably be done in the later stages of the debate through a comparative approach that clearly weighs both sides. I'm not often convinced by arguments that say the aff should have a clear plan, as I don't believe that necessarily falls under the grounds of the resolution. I support impact calculus and weighing relative harms. Ultimately I tend not to be very convinced by procedural arguments.

- K: I will happily vote on K, as long as you explain why your alternative is better. Please don't subject me to two competing K debates that pass each other like ships in the night. Winning a major K claim can be what I vote on; on the contrary, pointing out an inherent contradiction or flaw in logic can be enough to seal your loss.

- Advantages/Disadvantages/Case Stuff: Always fun to read. Keep in mind that the best disads are not about having the best cards; it's about pointing out flaws in logic on the affirmative side. Make sure the 1NC is tailored to the 1A; the more specific the better. Make sure your link is solid. Evidence comparison is beautiful and a great analytical way to explain why your link, solvency, etc. is stronger.

- CPs: Generally fine with them. I like CPs that clearly distinguish themselves, which is why I'm generally not a fan of PICs. I like strong CPs that I can judge on their own merits; you must explain why they are both 1) mutually exclusive and 2) provide a net benefit. If you're going to get into a perm/CP slapfight, please make sure it is cleanly executed and well explained. Impact calculus above everything. On conditionality arguments: generally pro-conditionality as I believe it contributes to the educational benefit of debate (exceptions for extremely abusive cases where the aff is clearly being pounded over the head by conditional arguments).

I'm sure you're all pros by now, so I won't lecture you about staying civil. I am fairly generous with speaker points, but I will mark points off if I get the perception that you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Spreading is fine but make sure you are intelligible. I like to think I have a fairly open mind and can be convinced by many types of arguments as long as the theory and explanation behind it are strong.

I am the parent of a debater and have judged at various tournaments.

general

- please do not spread — I won’t be able to understand you

- I am more persuaded by practical approaches to the resolution

- debate is still a communicative activity so you’ll be well served to persuading me as opposed to getting caught up in the technical aspects of the debate that I don’t really understand

- seem like you’re having fun

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.