I have been a coach for one year and have judged all forms of debate. I would consider myself still a lay judge. I tend to be a slower processor, so spreading will not impress me. If you chose to do that, I definitely need an email of your case so I can follow along (alyssaalbee@cusd.com). Emotional arguments are good, but I will always choose statistical evidence over that. You won't win me over by telling me one sad story. I look forward to judging for you!

1. Talking fast is fine but no spreading.

2. I am okay with theory and kritik literature as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. I'd prefer you stick to the topic at hand, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me.

3. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

4. Tech > truth

5. Crazy args are fine as long as they are explained well.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFS

1. Please don't frontline case in your second speech ( that's what summary is for!). That is such a waste of time. I'd rather have you give me a full 4 minute rebuttal.

2. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.

3. If you drop something in summary I won't consider it at all if you bring it up in FF.

4. In final focus I put my pen down for the most part. I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.

PARLI PREFS

1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.

2. I hate parli because of the longer speech times. Please keep me interested. Being "performative" is a good way to do that.

3. Tag teaming is fine, but you need to repeat what your partner says.

I am a junior in college majoring in Political Science and Sociology. I was speech and debate team captain in high school & I competed all throughout high school in Policy, Parli, D.I, DUO, P.O.I.

Looking forward to judging :) best of luck

Hello!

I'm a parent judge, I am familiar with Speech & Debate because of my daughter.

I am very knowledgeable on real word issues occurring today. So no need to spend a lot of time on background or water it down. If your talking about it, I probably know about it.

I enjoy personal antidots connecting you with your topic. Be passionate with out being overly aggressive. Disrespect to opponents and unprofessionalism will be taken into consideration when making my final choice. Please be clear and signpost when responding to arguments. Speaking in a average pace is best (NO spreading) also don't use advanced debate terminology.

Factual evidence will win you the round. I don't care as much about impact weighing or small details. Debate the facts and the best side will win.

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

I am a new parent judge, please avoid spreading. :)

For speech I will focus on voice modulation, pace, professionalism, use of space and gestures, and facial expressions.

For debate I will focus on ability to convey the argument, use of cross examination and rebuttal, organization, clarity, and professionalism.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Hi, my name is Isabelle Bennette. I've competed and judged in Individual Events, Public Forum, and Congress.

I prefer a polite debate/speech space.

For debaters, time yourself. Speed is not a factor in my decision. Have sources for all content and do not purposely misinterpret your opponent's arguments. Impacts are the most important element of your case. Signpost everything.

For speakers, try your best to enunciate, use hand motions, and make eye contact. For dramatic speeches (Prose/Poetry, Duo, POI, HI, DI, etc.), I want to see and experience strong emotion. For informational speeches (Extemp, OO, etc.) try to include humor, speak clearly and conversationally.

Best of luck to all of you! I will try my best to be a fair judge.

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

Hey y'all-- I'm a sophomore in college and I debated Policy for 4 years at La Costa Canyon HS. Here are some general notes I would like you to read:

~ I mostly debate policy rather than K arguments, so if you read a K (which is 100% fine), then please impact it out. And I consider myself a very open-minded judge so please don't shy away from any arguments. Take risks in your argumentation but still be logical.

~ For spreading, I can keep up

~ In terms of cards, quality of evidence is so much more important than quantity.

Argument Stuff:

Case: Spend time on this. If these arguments go untouched, the probability of you winning goes down.

K: Don't trivialize the issues of marginalized groups for the sake of winning a debate. That being said, I respect K's & hold K debates to high standards. Please be sure the link is there/contextualized and the K has an impact that you should make clear.

DA/CP: I love me a good DA paired with an arguably cheating CP. Honestly though, take time to evaluate these arguments and be sure the link is clear.

T: I LOVE T debates. But, I am pretty reasonable about most of these arguments. Disclosure theory needs to take a hike. And if you read neg ground on a popular aff, you best be jokin.

Overall, have fun in the debate round, be kind and make a genuine effort. You'll do great.

If you have any questions, please email me: gcboyd@stanford.edu

Hey y'all-- I'm a sophomore in college and I debated Policy for 4 years at La Costa Canyon HS. Here are some general notes I would like you to read:

~ I mostly debate policy rather than K arguments, so if you read a K (which is 100% fine), then please impact it out. And I consider myself a very open-minded judge so please don't shy away from any arguments. Take risks in your argumentation but still be logical.

~ For spreading, I can keep up

~ In terms of cards, quality of evidence is so much more important than quantity.

Argument Stuff:

Case: Spend time on this. If these arguments go untouched, the probability of you winning goes down.

K: Don't trivialize the issues of marginalized groups for the sake of winning a debate. That being said, I respect K's & hold K debates to high standards. Please be sure the link is there/contextualized and the K has an impact that you should make clear.

DA/CP: I love me a good DA paired with an arguably cheating CP. Honestly though, take time to evaluate these arguments and be sure the link is clear.

T: I LOVE T debates. But, I am pretty reasonable about most of these arguments. Disclosure theory needs to take a hike. And if you read neg ground on a popular aff, you best be jokin.

Overall, have fun in the debate round, be kind and make a genuine effort. You'll do great.

If you have any questions, please email me: gcboyd@stanford.edu

This is my fourth year judging--I enjoy it and am so impressed with all the competitors.

I'm glad to judge across all speech and debate disciplines.

I base my winners on clarity, organization, dynamic speaking, engagement with/commitment to the topic, and respectfulness toward peers. Thank you.

Debaters,

I am a parent of two debaters, one is in college, one in high school. I've got 4-5 years of judging experience dating back to 2018. I like to be brief in my direction to debaters, so I will leave my guidance to you in the following points:

Please treat each other with respect.

Please ensure any ground rules set at the onset of each round are agreed by all participants.

Please do not speak over each other.

Please try to not speak too quickly.

Always approach each round ethically, with dignity and respect for your fellow competitors.

I will always follow your logic and will be more impressed by your argument. Confident speaking style is important - but it will not win me over without a strong, factual-based argument.

Good luck!

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Try not to spread, otherwise have fun!

I competed in LD in high school as well as other Speech Events. I've coached and judged LD and parli debate. Generally, I value the resolution and believe the Aff has the burden to show the resolution is true and neg's burden is to show its false. However, you can run Ks but provide some standard to weigh the round with persuasive arguments on why it is the appropriate standard. It is important for me that the value criterion is well defined and each party has to compare the criterion with that of their opponent. I will use the best criterion to decide the round and how contentions and impact-level arguments interact with the criterion.

Speed: I can keep up with speed to the point it is comprehensible but if I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not make it into my flow, which will ultimately be to your detriment. I like off-time road maps before your speech.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

This is my first time judging, I don't know what a paradigm is...

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

Last updated: December 4, 2020 before La Costa Canyon Tournament

DEBATE:
Going straight to the point: I can flow but act as if I am a lay judge!! I would appreciate it if you can do an off time roadmap as well :)

1. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.
2. Standards should be clearly established, framework at the top of the case is helpful
3. I dont flow during cross, you'll have my full attention and I will judge based off of how well you can reason w/ your opponent and how confident you are with you case.
4. Dont run theory or kritik literature as I will get confused (learned the hard way off of some crazy debate jargon). Does not matter how well you link or impact it, please stick to the topic at hand.
5. Voters at the end is the majority of helping me what my RFD will be!! Please include them!!

SPEECH:

If I am being honest with you, whenever I saw a judge with a speech paradigm as a competitor, it always made my day so I hope it makes yours!

1. Your social message is the most important thing I am looking forward to hear. Bonus points if you can talk about a general topic but find that unique twist to set you apart. I seriously love speeches like those.
2. Facial expressions! Hand gestures! Pauses for effect! OMG!!! Those are so important when delivering a powerful speech like yours. I will point out on what you did excellent and what you can improve... as presentation of your speech is what can make or break you.
3. Manners. Simply put, don’t let your ego get in the way when you step into a round. I hate when competitors stone wall or didn’t clap someone up as a tactic to seem better. Remember to be kind and have empathy, we're all here for the same reasons.

Video logistics

Even though your speech may or may not be pre-recorded, here are some critiques that I learned judging through the era of recorded videos! Use these tips to better enhance your performance for next tournament!

1. Platforms - Always stare at the camera. Dont worry, it wont look as awkward as it feels!

2. If possible, make sure you record full body! Especially in interp, it is hard to tell how when you pop/morph if your character stances aren't clear enough.

ABOUT ME: she/her

Hello! My name is Brianna, I was a competitor in my speech and debate team for 3 years. What got me into speech and debate was when I was volunteering for a state tournament that my school hosted and I had the honor to spectate one of my classmates in her HI round. Ever since, I have loved every second of this activity. Im a platform girl so if I’m judging your OO/OA/EXPOS round, just know I have a slight bias and I’m already excited to hear what you have to say. I’ve competed in NIETOC, TOC, NCFL and all those fun tournaments so I like to believe I know what I am doing lol! Oh– and don't worry, I will be sure to give you a long and completed ballot (I’ve always hated when judges would just say “good speech” on mines ugh).

Thank you for reading this far and I can’t wait to see you in round! Good luck to all :)

I judge based on persuasive debate. No spreading, please.

I am an experienced judge. I have participated in numerous tournaments over the past three years judging the following forms of debate LD, PF, and Congress.

I prefer a typical conversational speed rate of delivery; rate of delivery does heavily weigh on my decision making but I will not vote against a student solely based on the rate of delivery. Criterion rarely informs my decision; I do not consider it to be a required element but it may become a factor depending on how it’s used in a round.

Your final rebuttal should include voting issues or arguments and line by line analysis. I prefer students provide a coherent way for me to put it all together.

· Voting issues should be given as you move down your flow and at the end of the final speech.

· Voting issues should be arguments, not general ideas and are considered necessary.

· Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum.

· Evidence is necessary.

I keep detailed notes throughout the round, so please do not take offense if I fail to make consistent eye contact.

The way I decide who won a round is by the person who persuades me more on their position overall.

Judging Preferences: I would prefer if you keep the debate lay, as I am first time judge. Using circuit terms or spreading is not desirable. If you spread or talk to too fast for me to understand you will not win the round. If I do not hear it, you did not say it. I expect you to time yourself and be aware of the rules.

I recently graduated and have around five years of debate experience. I did PF, Congress, NX (or DX), and Impromptu throughout high school, but have a good understanding of all of the events.

For debate: I don't mind speed as long as you're clear, if I can't understand your argument I can't judge you on it. While I will not be flowing cross-fire, I will be paying attention to your conduct during it. I have a very low tolerance for rudeness, so please keep things polite.

I expect to hear the usual "Last name, Year" as a citation for verbally referenced cards, and you should be able to provide the card for me or your opponents within a reasonable amount of time.

As a judge, I am mostly tabula rasa, most things (within reason) that you say I will believe if it is not responded to. As a former debater, I understand the importance of calling for cards, so I will not mind if you call for multiple and it takes time (again, within reason of course). If calling for cards helps you debate better, feel free to do so, I will not get annoyed and count it against you. Above all else, I want clean, respectful debate.

In terms of framework, I think it can be incredibly useful, however, you must employ it in ALL of your arguments and clearly explain why it helps your side, if you just state your framework in your first speech, I will not take it into consideration for the round. However, if both sides do not use framework, I don't mind that either, as long as you can convince me why your side is correct, I don't care how you do it.

Confidence, voice projection, thought process/organization, eye contact and factual examples are the elements I would like to see during a speech and debate competition. Well thought out counter arguments can also make or break a competitor.

My name is Kyler (he/him/his), and I'm an undergraduate majoring in philosophy and economics at The University of Tennessee-Knoxville. I did speech and debate for four years in high school, and I have been judging tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I absolutely love speech and debate and think that it is one of the best activities you can do to prepare for college and for life.

Judging framework: I work to be a tabula rasa or "blank slate" judge. I use whatever framework debaters agree on to weigh the round, and I will hold any claim you make during a round as true until your opponent contests it. I look for logical, concise arguments and clear speaking/communication.

Also, while the goal of a debate is to win, you should still be kind to one another. Any personal attacks or discriminatory language will result in an automatic loss.

I am most interested in hearing your own personal style of speaking that represents you as an individual and not a copy of other speakers.

My use of the word "speechiness"

There is a tendency for speakers to overemphasize certain words at the ending of sentences sometimes unconnected to the inherent concept of the text and more just for performance. Often this comes off as over the top, or even unnatural bc it is unfounded. I hear this A LOT and most often in novice speakers.

Please make an effort to discover your unique presentational qualities!! It takes time and is hard to do, but discovering this will not only do wonders for your speeches, but also follow you in your life forever making you a better communicator in all areas of your life.

Like Oscar Wilde said, "Be yourself. Everyone else it taken".

Opinion on crying: while this is most certainly a valid way to express sadness, anger etc. It is not the only way, and certainly not the most used method by the great actors. So many other ways to express emotions. Sometimes, crying feels like the the easiest. Force yourself to explore other subtleties. Watch Meryl Streep. She'll make us cry as the audience before she does.

Grammar: I hear the same mistake over and over again in speeches.

Woman - wuh-men. Singular.

Women - wih-men. Plural.

This is one of those examples of the English language that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to learn it. How in the world can we explain these pronunciations!!?? Truth is we can't explain them. Just need to memorize them. Very often I hear the singular used, when the speaker means the plural. Yes, I am standing on a soap box like a pedantic parent! hahaha....you're right. Call me out on it. But since this is a SPEECH competition, I feel it is the exact place to be critical of the way we speak. Yes?

-PARADIGM-

"As you get older, you start to see how important privacy is. Not everyone needs to know your personal business, meaning I don't care about the useless words; and not everyone has your best interests at heart, so I forget the failed and weak rebuttals, so some things should be left between you and Allah, not including your opponent's arguments and your justifications. Maybe that way your happiness might actually last, and your medal might actually exist."

-----An intellectual Being, with a Ph.D. in Moral Philosophy at Rancho Bernardo High, Representative Andrew Han.

-----Inspired by the enlightened thoughts of the grouped minds of millions of intellectuals from Pinterest.

-Judges Dissatisfaction-

If Unhappy about the Evaluations:

I’m sorry, it is what it is. For I am the Judge, the all mighty and holy referee of the round. So my words are the one and only truth of the round, therefore please don't try to debate with me, for you will lose miserably.

-Round tactics-

-Never forget to emphasize how weak your opponent's arguments are and ought to be. For I may get bored and need some spicy arguments to hype up my dead brain and the round.

-Be clear on what y'all say, cuz if you slur the words I am going to perceive you to be unknowledgeable on the topic.

-I am a strong debater, so remember to make strong and GOOD rebuttals, or I will personally critique you after the round. And you will wish you never came.

-tech>truth

-DON'T spread. Can't write what I can't hear, so if you spread just know whatever you spread won't be considered. Say bye to your speaks too.

-MINI Paradigm for other debate events-

"You better watch out, you better not cry

Better not pout, I'm telling you why

Andrew Han is comin' to judge

He's making a list and checking it twice

Gonna find out who's good or not

Mr. Han is comin' to town

He sees you when you're writin'

He knows when you're talkin’

He knows if you've been bad or good

So be good for goodness sake

Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry

Better not pout, I'm telling you why

Andrew Han is comin' to town

With thicc red pen and yellow flow paper

You aint gonna win and ain't coming back

Andrew Han is comin' to town"

-acquainted by Santa Claus, and modified by the one and only Judge -Andrew *drumrolls...* Han

-Speaks-

30: You are like Fried Chicken, absolutely fabulous and amazing.

29.5: Run for presidency somewhere in DC Comics, even if you don't have any good policies.

29: You are a very good speaker. Run for mayor at Starling City, but only if you have good policies like Oliver Queen.

28.5: You are pretty clear, kinda like a muddy crystal, clear but could be better.

28: You are above average. You stutter occasionally, but my high intelligence allowed me to understand certain points and arguments.

27.5: You're an average speaker, I think I get your point but I might need glasses to open my eyes and see clearer.

27: You might need some help with pauses, clarity, or stuttering. Following your speech was like watching Instagram Feed on low data, laggy.

26.5: Your speaking was hard to listen to. Your arguments are like a dull knife— they don’t have a point.

26: You pause too often, stutter too often, or are at a lack of words often. Following your speech was like watching Avengers Infinity War, confusing and not getting the point.

25.5: You're making me doubt your willingness to be here .

25: No

0: How in the world are you alive

-999: I’m speechless :( , and so are you

-∞: Begone

About myself:

I am very self-conscious about my appearance, so if you read all the way here, let me tell you this: if you call me Mr. Good Looking or Mr. Handsome before the round or during the round, I will give you 2 extra speaker points and along 16.867% higher chance of winning.

Over a decade's experience of being a parent-judge. Feel free to spread - if the opposing team can track you and debate you, I can follow. I flow - help me by clearly enumerating your arguments. Theory and kritik arguments are ok to an extent - don’t make the entire debate about that.

In the end persuade me.

Lani Hollingsworth | UC Berkeley '24

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me @lanih444@gmail.com.

General Preferences:

Any speed for speaking is suitable so go at your own pace, but make sure that your opponent and I can understand your arguments. Theories will be taken into consideration, however they should be fairly straightforward. I prefer if you signpost your arguments as it makes it easier for me to follow, but it is not required.

A winning debater will clearly state their win condition and thoroughly explain why they have met it with sufficient evidence and detail.

Any disrespectful or inappropriate comments towards myself or an opponent will result in the deduction of speaker points or loss of round.

1. Please give me clear reasons why I should vote for you.

2. Please do not spread as I will not be able to follow your thoughts.

3. Have fun and you will be awarded.

LD Paradigm

While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.

Speed

It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.

Speaker Points

The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.

As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.

He/His

I did Congress, Extemp and PF for 3 years in high school. I competed at outrounds at Nationals, TOC and other national tournaments so I know what good Congress debating looks like. As a judge I look for the flow of debate to keep going and arguments to be advanced and refuted as the round progresses. It doesn't matter when you speak, I judge each competitor on the quality of their arguments and how they back up their points with proper sources. Having interesting and unique arguments is a plus but they must be supported by credible eternal sources otherwise I will not rank them high. Your own analysis is fine but do not bring up stats or facts without proper sourcing.

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. on GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech.

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Don't be afraid to give authorships and sponorships.Just have fun!

I have been part of this community since 2016 as a judge. I had judged debates, OO speech, Impromptu, Expos and many others. Among these, expose is my interest where I get to see so many informative and creative expression of thoughts where kids bring their perspective and allow me to learn. Very enjoyable.

I am a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, with degrees in Economics and Political Science. I have overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level. My primary event, however, was Impromptu.

DEBATE:

Things I look for:

1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.

2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.

3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.

SPEECH:

Things I look for:

I'm a little bit more flexible on IE events because by nature, they are supposed to represent and express who you are as a person. Unless excessive (greater than 10 seconds or whatever guidelines I receive by tournament), I don't penalize for going over time unless you and another competitor are equal in every other deliverable. Just make sure you address your chosen topic (for spontaneous/extemporaneous events like Extemp, IE, etc.) or clearly state why the topic you're speaking about matters (especially for prepared pieces). Sometimes, I have watched five consecutive pieces about death and suicide, but not a one told me/expressed to me why their piece was unique.

DEBATE:

Things I discourage:

1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.

2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.

Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.

SPEECH:

Things I discourage:

Again, there will be less things here for speech because of the flexibility of it. I think the only thing I'll say about this is don't do something super extreme or way out of the ordinary (e.g., asking for audience participation). Obviously, doing something like opting to use notes will heavily penalize you. Otherwise, speech is all about trial and error -- so don't be afraid to take risks and get feedback.

(B.A.N.)

I am a judge/parent.

Good luck students! In your debates please make your points clear and articulate. I will appreciate how the speaker walks through the points/arguments and ties it up all in the end.

Please be respectful and courteous of your fellow opponents and the judges time. Clarity in the speech, a pace which everyone can comprehend is greatly appreciated.

Do your best! stay positive and have fun! Best wishes.

I'm a new parent judge, so speak clearly and not too fast.

Former LD competitor, also did a bit of PF and Parli debate. I am way more comfortable judging traditional arguments and would like to avoid theory if at all possible. However, if it's important to you that you include theoretical arguments in the round then just make sure you explain them very clearly and without a lot of jargon that I probably won't have heard of. Apart from that, make sure you clearly engage with your opponent's arguments (CLASH!) and be conscientious of the issues you are discussing. Speak clearly and be nice! :)

I competed in both speech & debate on CHSSA (CA) and NSDA circuit for 4 years with a focus in platform events, but am familiar with all IEs.

I also competed in PF and Parliamentary but consider me a lay judge as I do not particularly like spreading. I will flow, however. As someone heavily trained in performance and delivery, I will take yours into account.

We may be virtual, but continue to behave appropriately and professionally.

I privately coach elementary, middle & high school speech and debate, as well as teach private speech writing and speech delivery classes. Contact me at jamiejjma@gmail.com for any comments, questions or concerns.

Hi, all who are reading this. My name is Julian Mackenzie, I've participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 7 years. In high school I debated for three years in mostly LD and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year I was a debate captain for my high school team. I am now three years graduated and I'm still participating in debate in college with Parli and IPDA. I competed two years for the Grossmont Community College team, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year. I've now been competing on the UCSD team for one year. So basically any argument you run in front of me I've probably seen before. As for how I judge, I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence. Although for me the best part of debate is the clash of arguments so you can't win on evidence alone you have to counter every point made by the opposing competitor. Also both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.

As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.

No Ida Behrouz Vazeri

I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.

I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.

Please have fun.

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?

I am a coach of 18 years in Southern California, but don't have a lot of debate judging experience, as my team was more Speech-focused for many years up until the last three or so. This means that I appreciate teams who speak clearly without speaking too quickly, and approach their arguments in an organized and logical manner. I have also taught rhetoric for 15 years, so the structure of logical arguments is central to how I evaluate the strength and efficacy of the argumentation as it is laid out. I also value teams who understand the practical, real-life applications of these events: the goal here would, in theory, be to move a room full of people on issues of policy and living in communities. And from the perspective of someone who can sometimes struggle with auditory processing without having the text in front of me to follow along, it's essentially that you avoid spreading, since I will NOT be able to follow you if I don't have your speech in front of me.

When I am taking notes, I generally make note of your contentions/claims/reasons and identify evidence, but I also write notes to myself about the relative efficacy or feedback I wish to provide, or questions that I will hope you'll answer during the round as it continues. It's essentially a stream of consciousness that I jot down so I don't have to type while you're speaking. It's also why I'll be scribbling and sometimes changing pens while you're speaking; I create a little code for myself to remind myself what feedback to provide, especially if I'm can't get to it until later in the tournament.

I prefer when debates remain productive and maintain a thoughtful, rationally calm(ish) tone. A little sass and a little passion here and there is okay, but when it gets overly shouty, I have a hard time remaining engaged.

Typically when making my decisions, I weigh the strength of the logical architecture of the case along with the depth and specificity of evidence - when evidence is too broad or too generic, it can hurt the ultimate success of a case for me. The other thing that in my experience can affect my decisions is when teams seem to have little knowledge or understanding of historical context of some of the resolutions being discussed, or are overly dismissive of what might potentially be the lived experiences of the judges in the room. I generally do weigh the content and logic over the delivery and style, but if the debate is really balanced and the round is really great, sometimes the only thing that distinguishes one team from the other is their style and speaking ability.

I am a lay judge with 1 year of debate and speech judging experience.

Personally, I have no speech or debate experience.

I am not skilled in the technicalities of the various speech/debate events. I judge based on my perception of overall performance.

I take notes during the event.

I prefer speech events.

This is my fourth year as a parent debate judge. My high school daughter has participated in speech and debate every year for the last four years.

I’m an educator with over 25 years of experience, and I value evidence and sources as well as argument. I have taken speech and debate courses in high school and college. I have taught public speaking to students and I value public speaking.

Couple of points:

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn to adapt. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round because I have no idea what you are saying.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

3. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. Do not be rude. Be respectful to other participants and the judge. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. Be professional.

5. Stay calm don't rush and you and/or partner will be successful. Make eye contact with judge and convince the judge with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.

Debate:

In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.

I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.

I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.

If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.

I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.

I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!

Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.

IEs:

These events are my jam. :)

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

I am a lay parent judge. Please avoid spreading, speak clearly and concisely. Make your information and arguments palatable to the general public, and stick to the merit of the debate. I do not appreciate K's and theory. I value civility in debaters, overall just be civil and respectful. Be well researched and prepared for your topic, and for logic based arguments make your link chain clear. Signposting is absolutely necessary for clarity in the debate, and is greatly appreciated and aids in flowing the debate. Most importantly, have fun!

Kai Ogawa

Hello, it is so nice to meet you! From past judging experiences, I have developed some preferences that I expect from students including dedication, preparation, and respect. Otherwise, I am always open to hear your story or argument.

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

I am a parent judge, and I’m in my fourth year of judging Public Forum, Parli, LD, and extemp. While I’m not an expert at judging debate, I have a Master’s in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, and so I do have more than a basic knowledge of US and international politics and current events.

Here’s what I like in a speaker:

Speak clearly, NO SPREADING, and present your arguments and analysis in a respectable manner, as those are important for speaker points.

Present your case in a way that is clearly connected to supporting evidence, and fully explain your analysis.

I expect all of you to time yourselves.

To convince me to vote for your team, present clearly what arguments you are winning on, but make sure you do so with respect and dignity. Do not assume that the judge is incapable of making that decision correctly.

I'm a parent judge and I have only judged a few debates. I work as an engineer. I prefer to have a clear communication round with no speed.

I have previously judged local league tournaments, but I have yet to judge at an invitational. When judging a round, I prefer when the debaters have a medium talking speed and enunciate their words well, as it makes it easier to understand what points they are trying to make. During the crossfire, I prefer to have a respectful and professional environment with a demonstration of a deep understanding of the topic. To me, the team that wins is the team that demonstrates a full understanding of the resolution. I find it to be better when teams focus more on factual evidence that can be solidly proven, rather than theories and assumptions.

However, I am always amazed by the bright minds that give me hope for the future, you are all fantastic and should be proud of yourselves.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

I am a former competitor and I judge on pacing, volume, and energy that feels relevant to the context of the speech. If blocking is into your speech, I will be judging on how clean and organic it is. If this speech is an original I will also be critiquing the context of your speech as well as the organizational structure. Good luck! I will make sure to give you the best feedback I can :)

Hello!

I am a beginner judge! For debate please speak slowly and clearly. Please tell me why your impacts are important.

Hi o/

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

General Debate Notes

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

Kritiks & Theory

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

Speaking

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

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

glhf

Please no theory, no Ks, no spreading. I am a lawyer (first 9 years as a litigator), I debated policy in high school, and I’ve been judging speech and debate since 2020. If you debate the topic and speak clearly, I will flow the round and it allows me to make a more thoughtful decision and provide better feedback.

Focus on clear articulation and strong final focus. Discussions during cross is important for me to understand the contentions better.

I did speech and debate for four years. Most of my experience was in PF and LD.

I prefer you to stay on topic and not run Ks, but as long as I can understand you I will accept your arguments.

"In terms of speed, I generally don't take it" Josh Baxt

I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case. DON'T SPREAD!!!

Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.

LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.

Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.

My philosophy is that as long as both you and I are having fun and enjoying the round, that's all that should matter at the end of the day. Let's relax and take a deep breath - you got this!

That being said, here's what I generally look for so know what to expect and hopefully this can release some pre-round nerves:

Speech:

Speech is pretty self-explanatory - good writing, good energy, good enunciation, and performance (hand gestures, blocking, etc.). I also always look for the message behind the piece.

I did speech for 3 years, mainly OO, OA, and impromptu so those are my expertise.

Debate:

- I don't prefer spreading, it doesn't really help your argument and I won't be flowing as thoroughly.

- If you speak fast, please speak clearly.

- Don't bring up anything in your final focus that wasn't elaborated on beforehand.

- I'll flow but I don't flow cross ex. Whatever you say in cross-examination, remember to bring it up again in your next speech.

- Give me voters: tell me why you won that round.

- I'd like a classy round, no ad hominem debate and stay civil during cross-examination (that's a must!)

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

• winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
• High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
• High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
• Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
• IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

Put me on the email chain: s_s_stevens@yahoo.com

This is my 4th year as a judge. I have judged pretty much everything in Speech and Debate.

General thoughts

No matter what event I judge, I will do my best to be as prepared, professional and fair as possible. I expect no less from competitors. I value integrity and will not tolerate rudeness while understanding aggressive argument.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery- Should be clear and understandable, speeding is not preferred.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Prefer the bigger picture but don't drop responses

Role of the Final Focus- Neatly tie up everything in the round

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Extensions should be clear and relevant to the debate

Topicality- Truth > tech

Kritiks- Avoid theory, I perfect substance

Flowing/note-taking- I will take notes on every speech

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?- Argument and style should be equally present

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Summary

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

Final Focus

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Nothing else to add

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Hello! I am a fairly novice judge. Please bear with me if my connection is poor. If I am lagging or you cannot hear me, let me know and I will turn my camera off to improve the connection.

I am a lay judge who believes in persuasive debate that adheres to the rules. Style and eloquence are more important than speed.

In debate, I prefer clear, concise, well-expressed, and concrete arguments that are logically coherent and focus on impacts that would be meaningful to the decision makers in the real world. Tell me what to view as most important in your round. If not, I am compelled to make that choice myself. Do NOT read your case off of a screen or a piece of paper--deliver it while making eye contact, using only words you are comfortable using and pronouncing, and expressing yourself clearly. All things being equal, I am persuaded by a debater who knows their stuff rather than a debater who reads a prepared text.

Spreading is very strongly discouraged. If I can't hear or understand the points you are making when you first make them, those points will not figure in my decision. Put succinctly: a case presented too quickly for me to grasp will ALWAYS lose to a case that I can understand.

For speech events, I value fluidity, eloquence, eye contact, and natural expressions that neither over dramatize things or present them without emotion.

Do not be abusive to other competitors. Repeated interruptions, demeaning comments, and other disrespectful conduct will NOT win my vote.

Hi there! I'm a freshman in college who competed in O.A, D.I, P.O.I, and DUO in high school! Since it will be my first time judging debate, I don't have any specific preferences to cover, but please enunciate and, most importantly, do your best! I look forward to seeing everyone.

Hi there! I'm a freshman in college who competed in O.A, D.I, P.O.I, and DUO in high school! Since it will be my first time judging debate, I don't have any specific preferences to cover, but please enunciate and, most importantly, do your best! I look forward to seeing everyone.

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

I competed in both Lincoln Douglas and policy debate, and had some success in Lincoln Douglas at the circuit level. It has been a awhile since I’ve been in a fast round so although I’m comfortable with some speed, I would not go your fastest with me. I’m okay with whatever arguments you want to run, but do tend to like a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate.

Have fun!

I don’t like to see excessive aggression in debates.

I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.

Clarity with emphasis on the most important points of your arguments are very helpful. Please do not rush - 'slow down' is a comment I find myself writing over and over. Please introduce yourself.

add me to the email chain/doc share alexzavaladebate@gmail.com

Not a fan of tricks/friv theory but will vote on it only if opponent responds poorly enough

Pretty OK with theory/tshells but they tend to dominate rounds when brought up

K Aff’s force you to do so much work for me the understand. I just wouldn’t

K’s are interesting and can make compelling round winning arguments but again my threshold for understanding it completely are low

Prefer impact heavy/analysis focused rounds

Clash is great

Topical affs >>>>> questionably topical affs

Likelihood of your DA probably matters more than how much it turns case

Being respectful to your opponents gets you far

Slow down for most important voters

COLLAPSE IN THE DEBATE please