Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

(This is his younger brother writing this)

My brother has a year's experience in college parliamentary debate. He was on the SDSU team and actually did pretty well. He's relatively ok with spreading but will probably drop your speaker points. If it is unintelligible he'll yell clear the first time but after that he will just stop flowing. Just drill a strong advocacy with clear advantages on AFF, and if you are NEG go with some DA's and CP's. If you are going to run a K, explain it well and go hard on framing. He's good with theory shells but doesn't default to competing interpretations. This is the big one, and I'm quoting him directly on this: "I HATE canned cases" Stay topical, no tricks, solid plan and you will be fine.

BACKGROUND

• I competed in CHSSA and NSDA all throughout high school with Valley International Prep High School. As far as debate goes, I competed in parli (7th at CHSSA State Championship, 2018), World Schools Debate, and Congress. With that being said, I'm familiar with all CHSSA and NSDA debate events. I also competed in many individual events.
• I also competed in high school Mock Trial for two years with VIPHS. In our first ever year as a program, we took 3rd in LA County. In our second year, we won the LA County Championship.
• Currently, I study rhetoric and economics at UC Berkeley, and I coach speech and debate online.

DEBATE PHILOSOPHY

• I see debate as a great platform to have interesting, educational discourse. I'm a big fan of cases that tell a story as to why this is important and why I should care. Using good word economy (I study rhetoric so I know the weight of diction and syntax well), strategy, and passion all help to create a good debater, and in turn, a good debate.

JUDGING PREFERENCES

• When flowing, I shouldn't have to do any decoding work for you. Signpost, let me know where you're going, and make it clear! I'll flow where you tell me to.
• I REALLY enjoy (and TEND to prefer) on case argumentation. I think it really shows your ability to adapt in round which shows your strength as debaters.
• I understand most (if not all) debate jargon but do not use debate terminology just because you can/want to. If you're going to use jargon, use it right and be ready/willing to define said terminology if another competitor, judge, or I don't understand.
• Like I said, I really like case debate, however, run theory arguments/kritiks if you want (IF you know how to use and frame them properly and be ready to explain if necessary). In short, don't run theory or Ks for no reason.
• It's great if you frame and define properly. That doesn't mean spend a lot of time framing/make the round into a framework debate, just use framework as a strategy to make the debate as clean as possible.
• I'm okay with speed (but I don't like spreading). However, talk fast/spread at your own risk. I am far more likely to drop a contention or response and/or give you lower speaker points if you're going too fast. I'll call clear once if I need to. If you don't slow down, I'll keep doing my best to flow, if I miss something, that's on you. Also, if your opponent calls clear, I'll expect you to slow down, too.
• Please, please, please have clear impacts and use impact calculus to tell me why it's important to vote for you. In other words, PLEASE WEIGH. I default to probability>magnitude>reversibility>time-frame, unless you tell me why I should be weighing differently in the round.
• Do turn when you can! I really like turns and often find myself voting on turns in close rounds.
• Don't just tell me your opponent/their argument is wrong, tell me why they're wrong.
• PLEASE do not outwardly lie in your cases! I hate judge intervention, but if you say something egregiously wrong in part of your case, I can't justify voting for it. With that being said, I'll vote tech over truth WITHIN REASON!
• FOR PARLI: I'm very flow-oriented and will keep up with tech arguments (of course, assuming you're clear and frame well)
• FOR PF, LD, & POLICY: While I'll flow and vote based on the flow, some lay appeal will do very well with me as I'm less familiar with norms.

Good luck and please have fun!

I compete in college debate, I primarily read policy arguments, but I'm familiar with Kritiks and high theory arguments. I'm willing to listen to any argument you have/want to read as long as it has a well explained link to the affirmative or the resolution. If the argument is more nuanced I suggest you spend more time on it as I will be hesitant to do the work for you at the end of the round. In order to win you should be able to give a clear picture of links to flushed out impacts. It's too often I see a team read a tagline like "poverty is the impact" then move on. Explain why it matters and how to weigh it against other impacts in the round and you stand a much higher chance of winning. As long as you can attach some reason to vote on it and give it actual impacts, you shouldn't have this problem.

Theory: I am willing to listen to it no matter how strange it is, it just has to have voters in the same way a disadvantage needs impacts. Don't blip out "this is bad for fairness and education" and then move on, spend time explaining how it impacts fairness and education in the round, then explain why fairness and education matter.

I will default to competing interpretations as a means of evaluating theory if there isn't another method given by either team.

Speed: I don't have issues with speed, but I ask you to respect others when they ask you to clear or slow.

Partner communication: I'm fine with it to any extent. I'll only flow what the speaker says. If it gets excessive I will punish you in the form of speaker points, especially if it is rude interjections, but it won't be a voting issue.

Non-Topical Affs: Not impossible win, but I expect some justification for not being topic. Just saying "We wanted to" is not enough.

I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account, as well as how you interact with your competitors before, after, and during the round.

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. Quality over quantity. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect are fine.

My experience is about a cumulative 2 years in parliamentary debate. I am receptive to well fleshed out impacts with clear links to compare to make things easy. I urge competitors to keep the pace slower and to emphasis clarity with arguments, and I will stick to the flow to the best of my ability. For non parli events most of my judging will stay the same, however for events like IPDA you should probably treat me like a lay judge because that's what I'll be expecting in round.

At the end of the day I vote for who provided the best arguments and told me why they matter. Debaters need to tell me what evidence/arguments are most important for resolving the round, and why. I appreciate a good overview. Tell me how, even in light of the opposition's best argument, you still win the round. Give me impact calculus. I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. The better team uses their arguments to outweigh the other side.

Flex Time: I allow for partner to partner communication in flex, but this is an opportunity to challenge your oppositions credibility so why waste it?

Topicality: I vote on well argued violations. T debates need not devolve into questions of "abuse" but ultimately boil down to limits. I prefer literature/expert based interpretations of the resolution. Negatives do well to provide case lists and to articulate why their interpretation isn't an arbitrary line to exclude the affirmative. For affirmatives to win reasonability, they must provide a qualified counter interpretation and make a compelling argument for why theirs is a quality/predictable limit for the topic.

Analytics: Smart, warranted arguments can have a lot of weight on my flow, especially when you expose weak internal links.

If you run theory make sure you understand what it is you are running. Just saying it is "fill-in-the-blank theory" doesn't mean it actually is.

Isabel C Fairclough

Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.

Background: I am a retired American Political Science professor with three years experience judging as a parent judge.

Judging Preferences: While I will entertain most arguments, I prefer rounds focused on substance. I look for plan clarity and an organized, strategic argument with the stock issues to be made explicit. If you make a theory argument, please give a detailed explanation for me and provide the standards, impacts, and how you advance the educational value. In non-policy debates, most of the above applies but also make sure your value criterion supports your value.

In communicating, please avoid jargon and don’t spread. If I am unable to understand you, I can’t judge your argument. Signposting is greatly appreciated as is a summary of voter issues in the last speech. Be professional and respectful. Speaker points given are generally between 27 and 30; below 27 suggests you’ve engaged in disrespectful communication, such as, racist, sexist, or homophobic language, bullying novices, etc. Have fun.

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and have been a little out of the game since starting college.

For all forms of debate, I value evidence based arguments over theory and please please please do not spread. I will not understand a word of what you are saying.

Be nice and enjoy.

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).

Hello,

Experience wise, I did Parli/LD at a college level.

I'm pretty flay

I am ok with speed but don't go super fast, or just let me see your case.

I'll listen to most positions, I'm not too familiar with K-debate so use at your own discretion

Time yourselves

I have never done debate before but i have heard a lot about it from my younger sister. Our paradigms are pretty much the same so check hers out, her name is Tori Jones. The more you yell about capitalism the higher speaks you get. I also really hate speed so do not spread unless you want me to laugh at you.

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

In general I should be considered a lay judge. I have a history with Speech and Debate as well as a background in political science, but I prefer debaters that can communicate with a diverse audience. I used to say that I was okay with fast talking, but found that students would either start to spread beyond my comfort zone or speak incoherently. I theoretically am open to all T and K arguments as I think policy debate gets stale after one year of the same debate. I have to warn all debaters though that I do not often vote for them as they are often presented as either a time suck or with unclear components.

Stock Issues: I know this is very basic, but my favorite debates are the ones where the AFF presents a well researched plan with clearly labeled stock issues and relevant evidence. The NEG then can bring up relevant DAs and convince me that the plan is somehow flawed. The debate should be sign posted, clean on the flow, and use logic or evidence to address all points of contention with one or more responses.

Counterplans: Most CPs are on the table as long as they take into account uniqueness. If you want to adjust the timeframe, there needs to be a compelling reason. There needs to be a clear piece of evidence about the harms of doing something at a particular time. The same logic applies to consult CPs, give me specific evidence about why your proposed org is better. AFFs should avoid the perm. Just argue the CP (weigh agency, timeframe, etc.). Likely unpopular: I don't like the 50 states fiat. There are legitimate reasons as to why a federal actor is uniquely important, depending on the situation. The only time 50 states unanimously adopt a policy is when its federally mandated ( feel free to tell me if I'm wrong). Mobilizing resources to fund a plan is different than mobilizing 50 state governments to incorporate an uniform policy.

T/K: I am never sure how to accurately convey my position on these arguments. I think in a perfect world, they are mechanisms that bridge educational/institutional gaps between debaters. However, I rarely vote on them because of poor links and labeling. The shell should be outlined somewhat like stock issues. Let me know the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. It should be noted, "education" isn't a voter. You have to tell me what education does for us outside of the round. If you're running topicality, you should do your best to address your opponents case. Too many times I have heard students run topicality and spend 8 full minutes talking about how they had no time to come up with an adequate response. Not only is that speech terribly repetitive, it seems self defeating. Topicality should be used to bridge legitimate gaps in research, but even in the worst case we are all still capable of debating with logic. A legitimate K will demonstrate an actual barrier that prevents a contextual discussion.

Oversimplified ex. I don't like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of more pressing impacts. Oversimplified ex. I do like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of specific reasons that prevent/affect a contextual discussion of the plan.

Extinction Arguments: The more steps/links it takes to get to Nuclear War the more likely you are to lose me. The argument needs to have uniqueness and probability.

Evidence sharing: This is wildly unpopular, but I do not believe that judges should be on the evidence chain. While there are occasions where the actual card in question is unclear, debate is about the speaker's ability to read, evaluate, and respond to the opponents evidence. When judges look over evidence they expose themselves to bias. Additionally I have found when I look over evidence, I start to make arguments for students myself. The best way to avoid this is to not get involved at all. If your opponents' evidence is poorly written, power tagged, etc. TELL ME. Read me the quote in question with your interpretation. That is the best way to evaluate these disputes.

Decorum: I absolutely do not need us to treat each other like we are in MUN. However, we need to set basic rules of respect. Ex, one speaker accuses another of cheating because they have a disagreement over interpretation is definitely disrespectful. Not only does that kind of behavior unnecessarily aggravate your opponents (or even your teammate I have seen), it makes me feel as though the character judgement is intended to manipulate judge perception.

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.

I am a graduate student studying Communication Studies at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020 and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI & POI, and IPDA.

Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll flow whatever is said but don't egregiously speak while it's your partner's turn.

Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate.

Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it. I might clear you if you're unclear.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a K in front of me at a high school tournament. It happened once and it was so fun. Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating and I love a fun cap K. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand framework and theory.

Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.

RVIS: RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.

Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency"

Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

A little bit about me, I've been doing college debate for 2 years now at El Camino College where I do Parliamentary debate and LD. As for my judging paradigm, the main thing I look for is a clear, concise argument with the analysis to back it up.

Some History

• I competed in NSDA all throughout High school. I went to both El Camino Real High and Redlands High though I became more involved with Academic Decathlons and Mathlons. It's important to know, I did this over 30 years ago and I must say, it has shaped my life in ways a simple narrative explanation could do no justice. As well, I was a Bee Kid. I loved competing in Spelling Bees, going to Nationals. Why? Because Bees shaped my concept of competition, prior to the Speech and Debate world. I learned I simply am always competing with myself, and competitive debate with others was simply a complex way of using theatre to support each other as we all truly worked hard to compete with ourselves in union. I did Parliamentary, Public and Novice. I cannot remember which I loved the most but as far as where I am with my life, Public is what has been the best vehicle for me to share, collaborate, inspire, encourage and compel.

• Having gone from singing on stage, doing Bees, performing Mock Trials and eventually participating in Speech and Debate, I had traumatic experiences in all (especially singing ;)) as much as I had absolute joyous experiences. There is not a week that goes by where I don't employ all of the above in my career, my personal life, and the integration of both as I fly through my journey. With that, it allows me to share the sense of urgency I feel in helping others by encouraging you to use your voice, use language and use your personal energy to impact the world in a positive way, and with a gift only you have been given which will help extend your reach and role to ultimately connect to everyone around you. I only ask you be conscious of that as you perform and exhibit all your hard work.

• My fellow peers who were also Speech and Debate or Decathlon Geeks have a special connection. After all these years, we find our people. It's just beautiful. Remember this as you take a breath before you begin. Know that this will be part of your story and it's a practice. Take a bow.

Debate Philosophy & Influence

• Debate is a form of Game Theory to me. I often think of not just the people in the room, or the judges and competitors around me, but about all the beings around me in that very moment I am at a podium. It's a shared moment, whether I know all of what is listening or who is listening, whether you know all of what is involved to have this moment. I'm a fan of cyphers, of poetry, of using phonetic tools, pauses, and breath so I think of all that when I speak.

• I also am a fan of cognitive dissonance. I like to be pushed, I like pushing, but only with the awareness that the brain, or the brains in the room can only handle what they can handle at that moment and the person debating me or debating in front of me showing they are aware of that impresses me. Doesn't mean you'll develop this instinct immediately. But try.

Judging Notes

• Use your mind, develop your tact and try your hardest to measure your ego. The display of this dance will come across in your debate. Even if you may not be correct, it will become clear that your mind understands your exceptional ability to partake in the debate.

• Be patient with me, this is my first time judging in my adult life. It's been a few decades since I've been in the competitive speech and debate world. I ask your forgiveness in advance as I pick things up. I will pay you back tenfold for that patience.

• I'm open to both Linear and Non Linear strategies. I love the idea of being creative. I know there are frameworks and formulas and those are very important to stress and to use. They are fundamentals. Feel free to. However, don't be afraid to take it to the next level or the last level if you need to.

• I suppose I am also asking you to utilise risk and impact calculus when stressing your sense of urgency or why your view is stronger than the other competitor.

• Humour is always, always welcomed.

All the Best! (They say that in India every day and and I just love it as there's nothing like those that say it and mean it so I'm repeating it, and I mean it. You rock for being here.)

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: send to shayansaadat0@gmail.com

I'm a pretty straightforward, laid-back judge. I vote based on who I think made the best arguments and responded to their opponents' arguments best. That being said, here's a few things to know when it comes to the debates themselves:

Theory: I am receptive to and love good theory positions. I believe that most resolutions have an implicit bias that leans toward one side more than the other, and that a team can easily abuse resolutional wording to skew other teams out of the round––both aff and neg. Explain your theory position and why it matters to the debate as a whole. That being said, I strongly dislike bad theory. Don't run bad T-shells or Kritiks if they aren't relevant to the round. Debate the resolution, not the definition of a single word in the definition of the definition that the PM used. It's irrelevant, doesn't get you any ground, and takes away from the debate as a whole.

Spreading: Spreading is totally okay with me. However, I am more than open to arguments against speed. If you are too fast for me I will say, "Slow" or "Clear," and I encourage other debaters to do the same.

Organization: Please, please, PLEASE signpost. It's the best way that I, and others in round, can follow your arguments. Good organization makes good debate. Tell me where you're going in your arguments so I know where to flow. If I don't know where/how to flow what you're saying it will hurt your chances of winning.

Communication: Partner to partner communication is fine. Puppeteering is fine. In any case I only flow what the person supposed to be talking is saying. I also only flow what is said during round, not in between speakers, or at any other time.

Impact Calc/Round Vision: Concisely impact out your own arguments. Do the work for me. Tell me why your arguments matter. Explain to me why your arguments are right and your opponents are wrong so that when it comes to voting I don't need to make any reaches.

I also won't disclose speaks.

TL:DR if you debate well, you'll do well.

Two years competing for El Camino Debate Team. Participated in Parli, NFALD, and IE's.

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.

I debated for for El Camino College for two years. I mostly compete in parliamentary debate, as well as some speech events (informative, impromptu, extemporaneous).

I am fine spreading as long as it doesn't effect your ability to communicate your arguments effectively. Also don't spread and sit down with time left. I enjoy good theory arguments. I like voters and impact calculus in the rebuttals. Tell me why you are winning and where to make it easy for me to vote for you.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

For reference, I am currently a college student and I did parliamentary debate for 4 years in high school, with bit of speech on the side. When it comes to judging, I value clearly structured arguments with sound logic the most. Well organized arguments only make it easier for everyone in the round to follow along and whoever can best uphold the criterion of the round with the strongest impacts will win my ballot. Remember to link your arguments to the criterion and please do not merely restate all of your points in the last speech. Presentation is important, but it will not be the sole factor upon which I decide my ballot. I will only flow what is said in the round and I will not infer anything from what you say. In other words, if you want me to take something into consideration for judging, literally spell it out for me. If I notice a fallacy or a dropped argument, I will not factor that into my judging unless it is pointed out. I'm open to all types of arguments, EXCEPT for kritiks. If you run a kritik, you will lose the round. Moreover, pathos arguments are the weakest form of appeal for me personally, so I don't recommend running a highly emotional argument where pathos is the main focus.