Speak slowly and be nice to one another. Make sure to cite meaningful evidence and refute opposing claims! :)

Please speak clearly and concisely. Even during in-person speech/debate events, there is a tendency for participants to speak much too fast and then I am not able to accurately get the point that was trying to be made.

Now with this online forum, there are technical, sound issues, network issues, which exacerbate the challenge to hear everyone clearly. So that's my number one requirement to speak slower and clearer.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated, respect one another.

Background

I've debated Lincoln Douglas for two years, with success varying from winning lay tournaments to breaking at bid level tournaments. As a junior and senior I debated in Policy breaking at multiple bid level tournaments. My focus in policy was on critical philosophy, particularly concerning ableism and the prison industrial complex. I am currently a student at the University of California Berkeley where I major in history and legal studies.

Policy Paradigm

1. On Spreading and Slow Rounds. It's been a minute since I've competed, and thus my ear for spreading is not as great as it once was. Please be clear when listing tagline and citations, and demarcate clearly where one argument ends and another begins. I will say "clear" or "slow" if I feel you are just not clear enough. That said spreading isn't bad, it's not overly difficult to listen to, it just needs to be annunciated to the best of your degree.

If one team requests a slow round, that request will be granted. I spread and competed at the high school level but I firmly believe debate should be accessible, especially for people with disabilities and the best debaters can win spreading or not.

2. On Ks. I really like critiques, when I debated most of my focus was on identity critiques (critical disability studies mostly, but have experience with Wilderson, fem, cap). My threshold for Ks like Baudrillard is incredibly high, meaning that if your K relies on highly complex ideas and terminology to which I'm not familiar with, it must be near perfect to receive my ballot. Don't assume I know your literature, please specify, especially when your cards use terms specific to their philosophy or use particular terms of art.

On Policy. While I love Ks, I'm familiar with straight policy analysis. Please impact frame as early as possible in the debate, and make sure you do all the work in 2NRs, 2ARs, don't force me to intervene.

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Speaker points - Signpost well (this is also crucial for your ballot, if I miss a point because you are jumping all over the page thats on you). Condescending Behavior or rude cross examinations will result in severe point loss. Just be nice.

Prep - starts when the flash drive is in the computer, time yourselves. Don't be a dick, and if the times are different by a few seconds it ultimately doesn't matter.

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. I was a pufo debater and it shows :')

Judging preferences - Summary

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost. Always.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread, become a policy debater. A couple of my best friends in High School made it to Parli finals at the state championship without spreading, so there's no need to do it.

Flow Style is typically on an Excel sheet, so if you're speaking so fast that I can't type it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, but they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much.

About me:
Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
State Runner-up in Informative 2017
Stanford 2018 Informative Champion
Frequently hungry in round

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

I am a parent judge and have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please talk clearly and provide definitions. While I do not flow I will be taking notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to weigh. In order to win, please make sure to clearly outline your arguments and respond to arguments from your opponents clearly.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

I am a student at UCLA (Go Bruins!) who did speech & debate in high school for four years. I competed in LD for three years and Parli for one. I'm no stranger to debate lingo, so feel free to use it during the round.

I am not a big fan of off-time roadmaps, they waste my time and I think they're part of the reasons why tournaments run late. I would much prefer that you either give an on-time roadmap or just signpost during your speech.

I understand progressive debating, so you could run a kritik or a theory shell, though I don't think it makes for a very good debate. I am not a very fast writer, so if you spread I might accidentally drop a few arguments. I am not a fan of spreading and progressive debating as a whole, and I think it's often used as a way for debaters to strong-arm inexperienced debaters. If you choose to do any of these things I might dock you speaker points if I feel like it's being done in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Ultimately, the best thing that you can do for me as a debater is give me voter issues at the end of the round. Sum up the reasons why I should vote for your side, and it will make my job as a judge a lot easier.

I am a parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly and clearly at a reasonable pace.

I am a relatively new judge, so please explain everything clearly and thoroughly. If you want to run Theories or Ks, you can, but explain it to me as a parent judge, and not as a flow judge. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time. Please do not spread, and talk in a loud, clear tone which is easy to understand.

Hi there! My name is Wendy :) I did Speech and Debate as well as Mock Trial in high school and a little bit in college, but it's definitely been a while since I've been a competitor! As such, please view me as a layman judge for all intents and purposes. Especially now that judging is all virtual, I appreciate slow and deliberate speaking. I will never dock points for the type of content you choose to present and I will do my best to keep up with you because I know you all worked hard and I don't want you to cheapen that hard work on my behalf! I will, however, dock points for lack of decorum. I deeply value respect and kindness and I have no patience for intolerance of any kind. Please have fun and act in such a way that allows your opponents to have fun as well!

I'm a parent judge. I've been judging various tournaments, specifically debates, for many years. I prefer slow, clear, and structured arguments.

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

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!)

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

Hey there. My name is Junpei (pronounces like "June-pay"). I use they/them/theirs pronouns and am okay with being referred to as "Judge" or as "Junpei" during debates. If you have questions for me, feel free to contact me at jameriguchi+forensics@gmail.com

Table of Contents:
1. Overarching Paradigm

2. Speech Paradigm
--a. Experience
--b. General Info

3. Debate Paradigm
--a. Experience
--b. General Info

1. Overarching Paradigm

THINGS I CARE ABOUT: Execution of argumentation/performance. Cultural humility. "Sportingness" (aka: Don't be a jerk about winning, don't be sour about losing). Anti-bigotry. Kindness over Niceness (as in, I don't expect everything to sound "nice" or "polite," but I expect speakers to not be intentionally cruel to others).

THINGS I DON'T CARE ABOUT: "Professionality;" I will not judge you negatively for how you dress, for English being your second language, for having a stammer or stutter.

I critique on diction *when relevant* (e.g. if a word was impossible to understand, AND was critical to understanding the argument, then I have a problem with poor diction). Judging on the basis of clarity of speech is one of the last resort items I have when overall the content of the speech act are highly competitive to each other. If I understood you, then you succeeded in communicating what you needed to communicate.

WORDS THAT AUTOMATICALLY DOCK SPEAKER POINTS: Racial slurs (including: the N-slur for Black people, the E-slur for Inuit people, the G-slur for Romani people). Explicitly ableist language (Including: The R-slur for people with cognitive disabilities, the word "cripple" outside of reclaiming contexts like the CripplePunk movement--i.e. don't use phrases like "Crippled Economy").

I do my best to set my outside beliefs aside during a speech. However, bias is intrinsic to human nature. So, with that in mind, note that I am on the left end of the political spectrum if you wish to tailor your arguments to be easier for me to swallow and vote for.

---

2. Speech Paradigm
--a. Experience

My primary experience is in Limited Prep and Interpretation (particularly Poetry and POI). My prepped platform speaking experience is primary limited to my classroom experiences as I generally found Interp and LP to be more satisfying on the competition level. I encourage experimental performances on the Speech side, and spent my last competitive season wearing crop tops and other non-normatively "professional" clothing/makeup choices. I experimented with running a critical-type pseudo-prepared speech in Impromptu critiquing concepts of canning and perceived canning, as well as the pitfalls of professionality.

Performance matters. Content matters more. I hate canned limited prep speeches with a passion. THAT SAID, using examples and artifacts that you know and have used before is NOT what I consider a canned speech. There's only so much info we can hold in our heads. If you can move to use the room, please do so. If you cannot, please use another physical visual method to indicate when you are shifting gears from one point to another. Citations matter in all but impromptu. Going over time automatically lowers your standing by one rank per 5 seconds over. Finishing significantly under time (>30 seconds) likewise reduces your standing by one rank.

In Interp, Blocking is important. When we interpret literature, we need to express what we are performing physically. There are ways to do that even with limited mobility, so get creative if, like me, you have limited mobility for any particular reason. Your introduction must include a thesis statement and the credits to who wrote the piece. I encourage, again, unusual performances. However, I also want to see technical mastery with the skills associated with interp (e.g. memorization, effective and unobtrusive page turning, use of the book as a "prop," character pops, and effective use of space). I need to see how the literature connects to your thesis. I am unlikely to be favorable to identity interps that are not about an identity which you can claim for yourself.

---

3. Debate Paradigms
--a. Experience

I competed primarily in parliamentary debate on the Northern California NPDA circuit. While I was competitive within our region, I never branched out into national competition for a few reasons that are personal to myself. What that means is that my view of debate is largely isolated to local culture, and I have limited experience of debate culture in other parts of the country.

I have also competed in: LD, APDA, IPDA (do not recommend, frankly).

I have judged Public Forum.

I enjoyed running critical arguments that were not "Kritiks" per se, I also ran Kritiks. I enjoyed particularly "off the wall" type arguments, and have won debates on arguments like "Counterplan: Kill all Humans." I love arguments that pull knowledge from non poli-sci/econ subjects. I was an ecology major in college.

--b. General Info

If you are going to run a K, please understand your own literature base. That doesn't mean use a bunch of jargon and hope that your opponents don't understand. If you understand your Kritik, you should be able to frame it in a way that someone who has never engaged directly with the literature base can understand the core arguments of your position.

I dislike spread debate. Additionally, I've been out of debate for a while now and can no longer follow the way I could before. I am amenable to anti-speed theory, but you still have to win the theory position.

I consider myself to be as "tabula rasa" as I can be with the understanding that implicit human bias will always exist. I will happily vote a person down even if by the flow they won if and when they behave with bigotry in the debate. If you stan nazis, you get to lose like nazis.

the details
1. TIME: When you hit the end of your designated speech time, you may finish ONE sentence. After that, I will cease flowing. If you take a significant amount of time outside of prep or flex time "getting ready" to start speaking, I will tell you when I begin timing you.
2. JUDGE CONFUSION: If I'm not flowing and I'm just staring at you, I am likely not following your argument well enough to flow *OR* you are repeating yourself in a way that is unhelpful. Consider how to make your argument clearer, or if you need to move on to a different position.
3. BIGOTRY: If you make particularly bigoted arguments, I will not hesitate to drop your ballot.
4. SPEAKER POINTS: Speaker points typically privilege white, middle-class and up, cis, able-bodied boy/male debaters. I am very amenable to Speaker Points theory, even when tournament directors get mad at me. Otherwise, I assign speaker points as follows: ++ points for execution of argument (meaning use of debate terminology, succinctness, understanding of your position, correct application of theory or critiques). --points for bigotry, cruelty (not the same thing as "rudeness"), excessive rudeness, plagiarism.
5. RFD (REASON FOR DECISION): My RFDs are generally short (unlike my paradigm lol). The bulk of my feedback will be statements about what was and was not persuasive. Questions that are not going to get satisfying answers: "What argument would have worked here?" "How do I answer a T?" These are questions for your coaches, not for your judge. I am happy to give feedback on critical arguments through email. You're welcome to email me at jameriguchi+forensics@gmail.com
6. PROTECTION IN THE REBUTTAL: I do not protect in Parli. You are responsible with calling Points of Order. I protect in LD and Policy.
7. PARTNER COMMUNICATION: You don't have to whisper super carefully; I will only flow what the current speaker says. If you are puppeting your partner, expect a loss in speaker points. This will not, however, affect the overall choice on who wins the debate.
8. CROSS EXAMINATION: Don't use Cross Ex to make arguments. I can't stand hearing questions like "But, wouldn't you agree that (point)?" That's called a leading question. Use Cross Ex to clarify, and to poke holes in inconsistent or self-contradictory positions. I do not flow Cross Ex, but I do take notes about it.