Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

For IE: Entertain me :) I want to believe what you're saying and that you care about your topic!

General Philosophy

I have competed in debate for two years in Parliamentary and IPDA debate, and coached LD/PF debate for 4 years. I am very much a flow judge - don't make me do work for you. Be sure to explain what your points are, show me how you got to your point, and tell me the impacts clearly. If I do not get the relation to real-world, big picture events, I will not weigh it out for you if the other team does. I do my best to be tab, but if I don't get what I need from either team, I'll intervene to make my decision. I can follow speed, but if it's abusive to the other team and it's brought up and not addressed I will drop you - this is an educational event, treat it as such. Impact hard in final speeches, and try to not bring up new arguments (this is the only place I'll protect flow).

Do's:

Show me your critical thinking skills. Use the game of debate to your advantage if need be: kritiks, framework, whatever. I can follow it if you do it well. Cite warrants. Give roadmaps, structure.

Don't's:

Don't be offensive. If it happens once and it's called out, I'll heavily dock it in speaks. If it happens twice or more, even if it isn't called, I will weigh it heavily on team and probably have a chat with you afterwards. Don't be abusive - if a team is unable to keep up with whatever is happening and you play an advantage off of that even if asked to cool it, I'll dock speaks. Don't run debate heavy stuff if it isn't understood - know your theory, framework, arguments. If you do it wrong and are called on it that'll be an easy decision for me.

Disclaimer that these are just guidelines, not requirements - do what you want to do, it is your round. I encourage fun, learning, and active discourse. If you have questions in round or afterwards I'll always be glad to help out.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If you’re going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have some incredibly strong evidence.
-Don’t be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, don’t ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

I judge off who makes the better argument. This does not mean I think all arguments are created equal, they aren't. Say for example you were to argue the sky is purple, you and I both know the sky is not purple, thus I am not inclined to vote on that argument. However, if you can make a compelling case that the sky is purple, and your opponent does not sufficiently refute, or refute at all the point you made, then I will vote on it. Don't make hyperbolic impact calculus, like how not giving some country foreign aid or cutting minimum wage leads to nuclear war. In fact, outside of a direct resolutional link to the nuclear war, it's best not to even mention nuclear war as an impact. It's hyper unrealistic, it's never happened before, and I highly doubt you will be the one to convince me that it's gonna happen as one of your impacts. Same goes with human extinction, just don't. You don't gotta promise me the sky or tell me we'll be at world's end for you to have a compelling case. Be realistic, make good arguments, and just be reasonable. Nuanced debaters with nuanced arguments tend to get my ballot more often than not.

I

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and parliamentary debate for four years, as well as competing in various speech vents. Currently, I am both a college competitor and do freelance debate and speech coaching.

Speed/Preferred Style : I prefer speakers that are clear and concise, and ultimately do you prefer a slower debate. Well I am not opposed to debaters to do speed or spread relatively fast, be clear you are, the more likely I will be able to understand your position and evaluate effectively.

Main Philosophy: Ultimately, I mainly judge other tabula rasa. I honestly am for anything within the debate as long as the debaters are able to explain it in a way that is both effective, concise, and competitive. It is the role of a competitor to tell me what is important, and as long as they effectively do so over their opponent they do deserve the ballot. I do come from a Lincoln Douglas/value centric background, so admittedly I am partial to moral theory and arguments.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

I am a fourth year philosophy and American studies major at CSUF. I competed in LD debate in high school for two years and competeted in policy debate at CSUF for two years. Most of my college debate experience has been that of critical/performance argumentation, however I’ve also had experience running traditional CP’s, DA’s, T and framework arguments. Because I am more used to making critical/performance arguments my feedback for those types of arguments will be stronger, however that doesn’t mean that I will prefer those arguments over traditional arguments. I judge based on how well each team executes their particular type of argument, and will hold them to their own standards.

I don’t mind any kind of debating (whether this be spreading, a performance, or some other creative way of presenting your case), as long as whatever is done within the round doesn’t cause either physical or emotional harm to anyone. I understand that at times particular arguments can personally resonate with someone and cause emotional harm, however as long as what is said within the round isn’t said with ill-intent I will be okay with it.

I appreciate clarity and in-depth analysis. The less work I have to do as a judge the better it will be for the teams I am judging. Also, I like to be able to easily flow the debate, so sticking to the organization of the the way in which the arguments are being presented is important. Because of my experience as a critical/performance debater, I think that framework is a very good way to test the practicality of any argument being made, especially that of a critical aff. So when seeing traditional teams against critical teams or even k’s against k’s I like to see how the teams justify their framework for the debate, since in essence it’s justifying a particular way of approaching a certain issue, which is essentially what debate does as a community.  

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

My judging paradigm is fairly simple, keep the debate educational and fair. I understand we all have our own debate styles which is 100% okay, but I don't want things like spreading, or overuse of lingo that make the debate seem more so "who's a better debater" than the actual topic. I don't flow every argument as I want to be able to put my full attention into analyzing your arguments, but will make notes of the significant arguments and your ability to break down your arguments. Lastly, be respectful and have fun! You can get so much out of debate when you actually just debate rather than focusing on winning, so really take this opportunity to absorb everything you can.

Have some experience in judging policy.

I'm fine with everything except for Kritiks.

Please go slow and make sure to be clear.