Background:

Written for Loyola.

Debated lay and circuit LD for Arcadia HS. Coached lay and circuit LD for three years while teaching. Now privately coaching and judging from time to time. arc.changwinston@gmail.com for the email chain.

"I'm dumb" disclaimer:

1) I haven't spent as much time on the circuit as most others and I don't have policy background so while I have a baseline familiarity with all the jargon/args you use, help me out by explaining your links because I'm not drawing them in my head as quickly as other judges can. The more esoteric the debate gets the more likely it is that you'll be unhappy with my RFD.

2) I'm not in rounds nearly as much as I used to be so my flowing is a step slower now. Slow for tags, cites, and plan texts. I'll clear you if I feel like you're not even speaking English and if it gets bad enough you'll lose speaks and/or I'll stop flowing. My face will tell you how I feel about your arguments (not just concerning speed).

Big picture:

The main thing is I hate it when debaters get blippy. Less is almost always more. I'm not going to extrapolate very much from your ten responses each comprising two-second tags so you don't have to worry too much when opponents do that. But if they spend 15+ seconds on stuff, don't drop it.

I do think debate is a game and tech > truth. The only real standard is that you can't be violent, verbally or physically (we all know what these look like). You tell me what the ROB is.

Reasoning > cards. I think cards are helpful when you need empirics or if someone worded it so beautifully you just have to quote them, but otherwise I really don't see why you can't just tell me how it is in your own words. Prefer clear explanations every time. Also, I've noticed that a lot of people mistag their cards so make sure your opponents are saying their cards say what they really say.

Others:

FW: down with any phil you want to read. Big fan of positional debating.

Topicality: prefer reasonability but that's beatable.

Theory: high threshold on everything besides topicality. I don't care for hypothetical abuse very much. Whatever you run, just spend time on it (especially, impact your standards and explain why I should drop the arg/case/debater in particular). Threshold for RVIs is relatively low too - if they're really not cheating, don't say they're cheating. See this.

DAs: straightforward. Fine with generics, if the links are there, but I'll love it if you've prepped a plan-specific one.

K: not my strong suit. Can hang with your cap and security Ks but the more obscure it gets the more you've got to help me out. Thanks for your patience.

CX/prep: I listen to CX. Feel free to ask questions during prep. Don't try to steal prep time - the moment the email's sent or the flash is out, we're on.

Disclosure: I will disclose and I would love to have a conversation about the round after it's over so feel free to ask me anything. I'm not perfect and I want to talk about how we can all get better.

Have fun!

Hello y'all!

It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.

Background:

My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.

I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.

Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:

I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"

Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.

Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.

Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.

And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.

There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.

I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.

I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.

LD:

Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.

Policy:

If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.

Parli:

I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.

I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.

Public Forum:

I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.

Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.