I am a former high school and college debater. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in high school and CEDA debate in college (1990 - 1995 as CEDA was becoming more policy oriented). I coached college debate teams at Saint Louis University and the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. I am currently a teacher of art history and philosophy at Cleveland High School's Humanities Magnet in Reseda, CA. I have been coaching high school debate for over 15 years and have sent at least one team to the quarter-finals of the CA state debate tournament for the last seven years.

What I like to see in debate rounds.

I can handle a moderate speed policy round and a full spread Parli or LD round. I have lost hearing in my left ear and wear hearing aides, so I simply cannot flow a full speed policy debate round, but have had no problems in LD or Parli. I prefer plan versus counterplan and disad debate. I try to be a tabula rasa judge, but I admit that I am not a fan of performance debate and find most kritik debate to be too esoteric to vote on in most rounds. I will vote on critical theory, but it needs to clearly articulated, providing a specific alternative and weighing mechanism versus the plan or case offered by the affirmative. Reject the aff is not a persuasive alternative for me. I also do not like most plan inclusive counterplans (PIC's). I find them abusive because the negative is basically affirming the plan/resolution in order to negate. I automatically sever any topical portions of the PIC and just evaluate the non-topical portions versus plan benefits. I rarely, if ever, vote on PICs. I also despise rude debate. You can be assertive without being aggressive and rude. I will deduct speaker points for debaters who are overtly rude, abusive, or have offensive body language (rolling eyes or laughing at opponents - even if you are trying to be discrete).

Bottom Line

Be smart, be courteous, debate well, and tell me why you win the round (write my ballot for me in the final speech), and you are likely to win the round and get high speaker points in the process.

Hello, I'm Sandeep Bhuta I debated for Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, Washington from 1998-2001, judged LD and Speech events for Gonzaga Prep and other various high schools between 2001 and 2005, and am currently in my fourth year serving as debate coach for St. Ignatius College Prep.

Etiquette is supreme when I judge, so outbursts (or even whispered side conversations) from supporters in the audience or general rudeness will effect your speaks and potentially my decision on the round. I am okay with speed, but clarity is key. If I put my pen down and stop flowing, I'm having issues with your clarity and am in the process of mentally docking speaks. I have a low tolerance for spreading, so use your speed wisely.

 

I also love judging Congress and IEs when I have the chance!  

Flow judge, preference to impacts and real world application.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

I am an LD debater from the distant past (2009-2012). I did 4 years of high school debate and coached Palo Alto for 4 years as well.

I'm not up to date with all the fashionable arguments and I'm a little rusty in terms of flowing speed, so go easy on me and explain your args. Other than that, I don't have strong preferences. I'm happy to go along with whatever the debaters tell me to do. If I had to pick a favorite style, I'd pick framework debate with strong warrants and good explanation of how fw interacts with the arguments in the round.

Bio
Out of the night comes a man who saves lives at the risk of his own. Once a circus performer, an aerialist who refused the net. Once a cat burglar, a master among jewel thieves. Now a professional bodyguard. Primitive... savage... in love with danger. Judge Nate Day.

Experience
11 years judging at ~15 national circuit tournaments, tons of local tournaments
5 year public high school coach, specializing in PF, DX, and IX
3 years competing in speech and debate (2 years of PF, 1 year mix of LD and CX, every speech event but interps)
~1500 NSDA points when my time as a competitor wrapped up in 2012 (made it to premier distinction yeaaaah black sticker baybeeeee)

Style
I try to be stone cold and as unreadable as possible in round, to maximize neutrality for all competitors and give you, as a competitor, some practice speaking to a difficult-to-read audience member. I take extensive notes in speech events, and flow debate rounds digitally, so expect to see my typing like mad through round.

Paradigm
I strongly prefer for YOU as a competitor tell me in round how I ought to judge, because that's a better exercise to develop your persuasion skills than me unilaterally declaring how round MUST go (I ain't one of those self important judges who demands you debate a certain way every round and invents new rules). I'm here to help you improve your skillset, not to be entertained by you contorting yourselves to accommodate made up rules or ridiculous imagined standards. Without your guidance or direction, here's what I'll do:

In PF, LD, and Congress, I default to judging as a policymaker (RPing as a person who votes for the side that presents the best policy option).

In CX, I'll default to judging as a game theorist. Any coherent logical argument is "fair play" - as long as you can prove whatever lunacy you're advocating for is the best choice in round, you win!

Philosophy / Miscellanea
I treat my paradigm as a set of not-too-serious guidelines, not ironclad rules - the NSDA rules exist for a reason, and paradigms ought to be compliments to the rulebook, not substitutions for it.

In LD or PF, I categorically won't buy into Ks or "reject the team" theory args outside the NSDA rules.

Due to the way NSDA rules are written, I will not vote for counterplans or anything outside the context of the resolution in PF or LD. If you wanna run off-case or performative arguments, do Policy.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into your debate category. You knew the rules when you signed up. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum.

If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow (unless no one in round extends their arguments, in which case I have to pick and choose whatever arguments I found most persuasive throughout the round).

I flow in a spreadsheet, I don't flow cross, and I write a lot of feedback during cross to expedite ballot submission at the end of round.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments in Policy, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I'm actively developing an alternative to Tabroom.com and frequently test the limits of this service to try to find break points. If my name, paradigm, contact info, pronouns, etc. appear weird, that's why. Check out this article on ???? HOW TO BE A HACKER ???? to learn how to exploit user editable fields.

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

I am a traditional judge. I have judged extensively at high school league Speech and Debate tournaments and States. I value speaks and argumentation in round.

Please do not spread. If I don’t understand your arguments, I will not vote off of them. I appreciate clash in rounds. Directly engage in your opponent’s arguments.

I will vote off of Ks and Theory provided you explain them very very well. I will not vote off of tricks.

I believe that speech and debate is an educational experience. That being said, be respectful to your opponent.

Have fun and enjoy!

I debated for Mission San Jose from 2000-2003, winning the TOC my senior year. I then coached the team while in college. I taught at several camps. I moved on in 2006, but I try to judge a couple times each year, and coach on the side on occasion.

Key Issues

Speed: Nearly any pace is fine. Emphasize with inflection the rhetoric you want me to record. I will say 'Clear' if I cannot understand you. If it is obvious that either your opponent or a spectator cannot follow your speed, I will reward you with higher speaker points for slowing down.

Theory: Theory is meant to check abuse. As a no-risk issue itself - particularly in the context of a 5-speech activity - theory is often employed in an abusive manner. So, I evaluate theory differently than I do the rest of the debate. Feel free to run theory against actual abuse. But, if the strategy is borderline abusive or not abusive at all, please do not run theory. The 'reject the argument' vs. 'reject the debater' distinction is usually moot since what is being questioned is usually fundamental to the person's strategy.

To be explicit - If you run theory for its strategic value, and not as a response to real abuse, give me a low preference. I will intervene against theory arguments where I believe the violation or interpretation is weak. If the violation is borderline, I will discount theory heavily in my decision-making. My stance is aggressive, so make sure to adapt if I judge you. Ask me questions to clarify beforehand if you are worried.

Abuse: The difficulty with taking a hard line on theory is that what counts as abuse is not objective. As an attempt to define it broadly and succinctly, 'abuse' is the employ of a strategy that skews competitive balance. Here are examples of strategies I believe are abusive:

- multiple no-risk, asymmetric ways to win (e.g. multiple sufficient standards as the AFF, or multiple burdens as the NEG)
- non-textual advocacies (i.e. a plan with no text to be bound to)
- severance

Again, ask me questions before the round if you are worried.

Non-Traditional Arguments: I am open to any substantive argument regardless of how weird it is either in content or in form. This means that I am more amenable to critiques and narratives than the average judge (and, of course, plans/counterplans, etc.). That being said, I think about things intuitively and simply, so give adequate translation of your 'ballot story'.

Speaker Points: I give below average speaker points with high variance. The average score I give is between 26.5 and 27, though I will regularly give scores from 24 to 29. Higher scores are associated with politeness, responsiveness, weighing, clarity, substantive argumentation, and effective use of CX.

General Thoughts/Miscellaneous:

1) Compare the arguments you are winning to the arguments your opponent is winning at the end of the round. A key phrase to use is, "Even if she's winning X, that doesn't matter because Y". Even an unsuccessful attempt to evaluate the big picture will net you higher speaker points.

2) I give a lot of weight to empirical arguments. If you have strong analysis leading to an impact, but your opponent has empirics showing that impact, in actual fact, hasn't materialized, you'll have a tough time recovering.

3) Extinction link-stories - as well as the conjoined 'infinite risk' weighing argument - are extremely weak.

4) If there is a logical connection between arguments on different parts of the flow, I will consider their implicit interaction. Weighing/big picture analysis that crystallizes this interaction is welcome, but avoid the phrase 'cross apply' in the early speeches.

5) Flash/email/Dropbox what you intend to read before the round. If you decide what to run just before your speech, transfer the files quickly before your speech. If the transfer is taking too long I will let you know and deduct from your prep time. If you don't have a means to transfer your files, (a) why? you can buy flash drives at the dollar store, and (b) you must provide your computer/papers to your opponent at their request.

Finally, I give long critiques, offering advice before my decision. Don't hesitate to ask if you would like help improving your arguments or strategy.

I can flow. No problem with speed. I can and do vote on T and solvency. Not a big fan of kritiks but I'll listen if you provide a legit framework. See myself as a policy maker.

I am the LD coach at Loyola.

I have coached traditional and circuit LD for over 30 years and am comfortable judging most rounds—having judged at many Circuit tournaments, elim rounds, and even TOC finals. That said, I am NOT one of the coaches who is super familiar with ALL of the arguments that are currently in vogue. What does that mean? You make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you, because I happen to know what argument you’re trying to make. And I don’t have “preconceived” notions of how certain arguments are “generally” evaluated by circuit judges nowadays. What you’ll get is a fresh/independent/flow-based look by an impartial judge on those arguments. I don’t have the benefit of knowing how those debates are SUPPOSED to come out.

I can handle spread, but NOT if you’re incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable. If you want to include me on an email chain that helps.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and will generally NOT like to vote on undeveloped blips.

10/20/17 I did LD in high school and coached LD at Palo Alto High School while I was a student at Stanford.  Since graduating, I've worked at various legal and educational nonprofits, including my current role as the Director of Programs at Silicon Valley Urban Debate League. Although I competed mostly on the national circuit, and qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years, I have never competed in or coached policy, and as such I'll expect your standards and voters on any T or theory arguments to be **crystal** clear.   

The following is pasted from my existing judge philosophy on judging LD, and holds true for my adjudication of policy rounds as well:

I'm ok voting on just about any type of argument as long as it's warranted and its relevance to the ballot is explained. The best way to win my ballot is to be comparative and to prioritize arguments for me. Your arguments on weighing, decision calculus, etc. should write the ballot for my decision. Absent such explanation, I'll have to determine for myself how arguments interact. This comparison should not be entirely new in your last speech; if your argument was blippy/totally unwarranted the first time around, I probably won't buy huge new impacts that crop up in later speeches. That said, I would encourage you to use embedded clash and comparison of multiple arguments to be smart and efficient. Weigh early and often. 

I'm fine with critical arguments, provided they are well explained in terms of the link story and the ballot, and I'll vote on both prefiat and postfiat impacts (with the same requirements for critical args in general). If you're making arguments that appeal to my role or opinion as the judge, you should be extremely clear on how and why I evaluate the round they way you're asking me to.

I'm also fine with theory, though like any other argument it needs to be properly warranted and impacted. I default to a competing interps view of theory, though I'll look to reasonability arguments if they are well-developed and clearly won. If you run bad theory and/or clearly use it as a poor strategic ploy your speaks will definitely suffer.

Please only go as fast as you can be clear. I'm cool with most speeds so long as you are still clear, and I'll let you know once (twice if you're especially bad) if I need you to be clearer. Actually slow down and enunciate for card names, as well as tags and signposting. If you're you reading Deleuze and Guattari or something equivalently dense, you should probably slow down a notch or two for the substance of your case too.

For good speaks, make smart arguments and make them well, employ good strategy, and don't act like a jerk in CX. 

If you've got any other questions just let me know before the round.

Conflicts/Association: DebateDrills Roster

I have not judged a competitive debate round since 2019. I am - at best - loosely familiar with the topic. I know you have worked hard to prepare. I don't think that I will adjudicate complex debates well, so please do with that information what you will.

I have no strong dispositions about arguments. I know you want to win, so please consider the round yours—do with it as you please. Take time to enjoy the process though because once it’s done, it’s done forever. I look back at my time in high school debate with great fondness. Good luck!

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

UCSD'15 Monte Vista High School'11 I'm fine with everything except narratives, performances, poetry and the like. Go as fast/slow as you want. All the standard caveats about quality of argumentation, how intelligible you are, and your in round demeanor apply to these preferences. I really enjoy theory debates and will reward well executed strategies and punish poorly executed ones. Feel free to ask me any and all questions you have before the round.

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

THIS PARADIGM IS UPDATED FOR TOC 2014

FOR EXTRA INCOMPREHENSION, JUST READ THE BOLDED STUFF.

People often claim to have read my paradigm. Then they debate in front of me and I see that they have either ignored it (which is perfectly fine) or have very poor reading comprehension. As a general note: I would prefer that you do something you're comfortable with as opposed to something you'd think I'd like, but I like to see debaters take risks and do innovative things - so do what you will.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT CONSTRUCTING A MONOLITHIC NOTION OF WHAT DEBATE SHOULD BE OR CAN DO IS RIDICULOUS AND I AM WILLING TO TOLERATE NEARLY ANY METHOD OR TECHNIQUE OF DEBATING WITH A FEW CAVEATS:

1. I've long enjoyed many strategies in debate that are tools to deceive and dominate. I have lost a lot of interest or enjoyment of them. This would include storms of nibs, a prioris, theory, "triggers," arguments via definition, skep, and other results-focused approaches to debating. Sometimes these can be interesting. By and large they are not interesting to watch or judge, and increasingly I feel that there are better styles of argument to engage in.
2. I think debate needs new methods and voices far more than it needs more of the same. I like and encourage "risks" and unique styles of debate. I don't think they're risky. 
3. I would basically at this point rather just judge performance and K debates with the occasional philosophy/framework debate thrown in, but that just is my honest preference for my fave kinds of debate. If you don't want to/can't give me that, I will settle for Plan/CP/DA stuff or like Kant. Honestly I'm good at judging Kant even tho I ain't that into him. 

In the past I have been a very good judge for:

• Framework Debates

• Heavy phil

• K Debates

• Performance

• Plan/DA/CP debates

Some people thought I was a very good theory judge, others probably not.

To sum up my paradigm in two words: "Least Intervention"

 

Personal Style Point/Rough Defaults/Misc.

1. The thing about prep: basically its a matter of - if you misuse prep time in my subjective perspective (waste it pulling blocks, or generally use a bunch and then make like 3 responses that are original and not even give an overview or any weighing) I will give you worse speaks because bad debaters waste prep and I'm trying to train you for some bizarre reason. ALSO - THE LESS PREP YOU USE PERIOD, THE MORE I WILL BE IMPRESSED. To sum up my views: using lots or all of your prep is absolutely fine, but actually use it effectively. You will only improve you speaks and my perception of your skill by using less prep and skill being effective.
2. If forced to intervene, I typically intervene for the aff before the neg, for strength of link over magnitude of impact, on framework before offense, and towards better argument interaction over unexplained extensions. THIS LIST IS NOT IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE - IT VARIES ROUND TO ROUND BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS I LOOK FOR.
3. I think layering and sequencing are probably some of the most important things to do. Big fan of well structured overviews.


NOTES ON THEORY B/C PEOPLE ALWAYS WANNA B KNOWING
1. Theory is comparison of offense to interpretations. I would prefer theory debates that are ways of getting to substance or pointing out something that stops us from getting to substance rather than ways of getting rid of substance.
2. I have voted on theory a lot. That said, I try not to artificially resolve theory debates and I am unsatisfied by tiny amounts of offense to barely defensible interpretations.
3. My default is text of interp matters. You should be held accountable for the text. I am sympathetic to semantic I meets for this reason. I am open to arguments against these things, but would probably need to have them made in round to evaluate that way.
4. Things I think theory should not be run against but will grudgingly accept listening to a theory debate on if you really deem it necessary: single side-constraint neg strategies that are like a deont nc plus turns (If you can't beat that strategy straight up, you should throw your ac out), affs that use a skeptical premise to found a positive normative system but do not access skepticism, various critical negative strategies that are mistakenly characterized as "skep or nibs or both"
5. Key things I like: weighing, offense, not trying to be sleaze, weighing, offense

LD DEBATE PARADIGM:
-The first place I start is that I care about the act of judging. I care because I enjoyed debating in front of judges who cared, and because I don't know how to not care about debate. I want you to care about the debates you have, because they might just be debates, but you're doing them and spending time/money on it, or someone is, right?
-I'M HERE FOR YOU, YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR ME.
-Any type or style of argument is acceptable and nothing is off limits in front of me, but I want you to do it well and in a manner that shows you care and that I should care.
-Speed is not an issue, but clarity and structure are issues.
-You are free to argue any type of paradigmatic or theoretical claim you wish, but you cannot sign my ballot. It is only under the most dire of circumstances (which I have not encountered yet) that I will resort to full intervention that costs you the ballot. I will definitely be forced to intervene on micro-issues if you do not debate well. Intervention is required when debaters do not fully explicate their arguments or compare them directly, which I expect you to do.
-Some level of intervention is inevitable in every round - I try to minimize it by going off what you give me, not what I think.
-If forced to intervene, I typically intervene for the aff before the neg, for strength of link over magnitude of impact, on framework before offense, and towards better argument interaction over unexplained extensions.
-I think you need to extend and impact arguments and if you can't do this then you will lose unless your opponent also cannot do this at which point I will be forced to intervene
-Capital T truth is impossible, but you can claim and win truth-testing. In mind mind debate will always be the manufacturing of advantages to one contingent truth against other contingent truths.
-No debate argument is perfect, no debate argument could possibly ever be fully complete, no link chain ever ends, very few things have exactly "true" and "right" answers.
-A debate argument functions because we believe it so and because we convince others through discourse that it is so. Your object as debaters is to meet the explanatory burden of the arguments you select and convince me to care about their function.


LD SPEAKS PARADIGM:
I have a fairly normal speaks range. I do think that when you're a bad speaker, its typically your own fault and you should be punished for it. If I could assign you reading, I would, because reading makes people better speakers and no one reads these days. If you try and show me you've tried, it will be hard to get that low of speaks in front of me.

Communal inflation initially made me a member of the median group of judges but I might be a slight outlier on the lower end now. I believe you can get a 30 without being a TOC level debater. I believe each debater needs to do different contextual things to get a 30, and so there is no master standard. I have likes and dislikes - some of them are enumerated in this paradigm, but as a general rule of thumb: your arguments should be intelligent, strategic, and most importantly yours. You just can't get a 30 in front of me doing what everyone else is doing. If I think you present me with a unique and impressive performance that combines skill, intelligent preparation, and in-round cunning, you will get high speaks. You can't get a 30 if your analysis is stupid, if you don't fully extend things/force me to do work for you, if you act like a brat, etc. If you win and are an outrounds worthy competitor but nothing more, you'll probably get a 28.5 in front of me.

Finally, YES STRUCTURAL PAUSES, YES PAUSES BEFORE AND AFTER AUTHORS, YES SLOWER TAGS/ANALYTICS, NO YOU CAN'T GET A 30 JUST BEING FAST, START SLOW AND GET FASTER, IF YOU USE TOO MUCH PREP AS THE NEGATIVE, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST THE LEAD.

Last Updated: October 26, 2017

I have not judged or coached debate since 2014. From 2012-14, I primarily judged parli (NPTE/NPDA) for UC Berkeley and worked with the team throughout the season. I graduated from UC Berkeley where I competed in parli from 2008-12. In high school, I debated policy for four years. I have limited experience judging high school. 

Basic Questions/FAQs:

• I did not have problems with speed, however, I have not judged in a long time. I will say "slow" if you are going too fast. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand you.
• I don't mind if you prompt your partner or if you tag team cx, but if you do either of these poorly it may affect your speaks.
• You can use your prep time however you like.
• I don't care if you use your cell phone as a timer. If you use it for any other purpose (texting, etc.) it will negatively affect your speaks. Airplane mode is always good.
• You may flow and read cards off your laptop. If you use it for any other purpose (facebook, etc.) it will negatively affect your speaks.

General Argument/Debate Preferences:

• I have no preference for which arguments you run or which strategy you choose.
• While you should tell me how to evaluate every argument you're going for by your final speech, if you do not tell me otherwise I will default to net-benefits on case and competing interpretations on T.
• If you choose to do a performance you must explain why it matters in the round/context of the debate and you must explain the role of the ballot. Every performance debate is different and I will not know how to evaluate your position if you do not tell me. Keep in mind that, without framework/explanation of how your argument functions, you have no offense in the traditional style of debate. I've been told debate has changed a lot in the last three years. I'm sorry if this sounds lame, but please accomodate me and feel free to ask questions before the round. 
• Theory positions should have an interpretation. Don't just say that Conditionality is bad; give me the actual rule of the game. For example: the aff can only fiat the USFG, they fiat individual people, this is bad because...

HS Parli:

• I do not enforce the trichotomy (the belief that certain topics are fact/value/policy). I believe the debaters should decide this question themselves in the round if necessary.
• I would like you to call points of order in both rebuttals if you feel it is necessary.
• I do not time roadmaps, but if you and the other team would like to I don't mind.
• Points of order should proceed like this: one team calls a point of order and gives a concise uninterrupted explanation of their objection. The other team gives a concise uninterrupted response. The judge decides if the point is or is not well taken. Ongoing argumentation or interrupting the other team will negatively affect your speaks.
• You do not have to stand up at any point in the debate, including points of information or points of order. Choosing to do so is, of course, ok as well.
• I do not enforce protected time. If you do not want to take their question that is totally fine, but if you would like to answer a question I don't think it's fair to enforce this arbitrary rule.
• You do not have to engage in the "parliamentary pageantry", including rounds of thank yous, but if you would like to that's ok. Just be respectful to everyone and you will not lose any speaker points.

HS Policy:

• I have not researched this topic and therefore do not know anything outside of common knowledge. Acronyms can be very confusing if you don't know what they mean.

HS LD:

• I have been around debate enough to be familiar with LD style value-criterion debate, but please do not assume I know the nuances of the theory behind it.
• When you run a K or CP, explain to me how the arguments matter in lieu of the value-criteria. If you reject the value-criteria style of debate and choose an alternate framework, make sure to do some comparison with the aff framework and tell me how the arguments function. When there is heavy framework debate at the top and then no articulation on how the CPs and Ks function within those arguments the debate becomes very difficult to adjudicate.
• I have not researched this topic and therefore do not know anything outside of common knowledge. Acronyms can be very confusing if you don't know what they mean.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.



LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.



Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.




Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli


Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.

I used to do Lincoln-Douglas on the circuit in high school.

I'll vote for very nearly anything as long as the debater making the argument justifies the chain of logic every step of the way back to my ballot. Off-topic arguments, interpretive dance, performances, anything goes. If you're particularly worried, you can ask me before the round. The only qualm I have is theory used to do something other than to check abuse. At the moment, I'm leaning towards not liking it, but I can definitely see myself being convinced to vote for it.

I'll try my best to call "clear" if your speed is too much for me. This most likely shouldn't be a problem unless you're doing a page a minute (actually something more like 350 wpm is where you'll start losing me).

One thing that all judges say and that I understand so clearly now is that debaters don't impact their arguments enough. Tell me what they do in terms of the round as you make them; don't wait for the end of your last speech to throw in a bunch of implications for what you've said for the past half an hour. Weigh arguments against each other, tell me where links are forged and die, etc.

I probably average around 27.5-28 for speaker points. For more points, I'm looking for good debate -- efficient time management, responsive arguments, an easy to follow ballot story, and just a bit of brilliant cleverness.

Currently a junior at UC Berkeley, studying Integrative Biology. LD experience at James Logan High. I don't care for speed; I'll flow as long as you make yourself understandable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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