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

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

HI. I am a high school English teacher and a Speech and Debate Coach/Teacher.

I have equal experience in PF, LD, and Parli debates. Below are some general points regarding my judging philosophy (general for all debates)

I put equal value on delivery/performance as I do on case content/structure (win on delivery + win on flow).

Evidence RQ: If you need your opponent to show you a piece of evidence by all means ask for it, but don’t be abusive. Ask for what you really need and ask for it all at once. Make sure you can send evidence in 1 minute if you are asked for it. I don’t need to be on the chain/email.

Speed is fine with me but I generally hate spreading. I can hear you and follow but if the information is important enough to say, it’s important enough to get on my flow, and I just can’t flow that fast nor should I have to. Why is my flow important? (“If I must answer that, I will leave and I will not come back again!”). In general: this is a debate not a contest to see who can get the most words in. Spread at your own risk.

Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and evidence. No K’s attacking the “safety of debate”: won’t buy it. If you feel the opponent is abusive or using trigger words, that shouldn’t be the “case” - that is something you stop debate for and tell the judge, your coach, tournament staff, etc.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on paper or in a spreadsheet depending on where I am. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches. I may, however, update or add points if needed on my flow. Note that if you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Cross: I value high quality arguments and courtesy. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive but it's possible to be aggressive and polite at the same time. (In other words - don’t ask a question then speak over the opponent when they try to answer it. Don’t abuse the use of follow up questions...etc).

Weighing and voter issues: If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will choose based on the flow. I prefer you set the framework up and weigh on it telling me specifically wheat you want me to focus on. I see often that new or intermediate debaters forget to clash. Don't just tell me why your case wins!

Off time roadmaps: On time, off time, don't care, but yes, do provide a roadmap. Be brief and please signpost during your speech.

FINAL NOTE: Remember that just because we are online doesn’t mean everything has to change. I prefer cam on and good eye contact. Have fun and be polite to each other! Have a great debate!

No spreading

Debate: I judge based on clash (in their speeches, not necessarily cross-x).

Congratulations competitors!

I am a "flow" judge in the sense that I will be flowing every round I judge and looking for good clash, cross-application, and analysis of one another's arguments.

I care that you weigh your impacts against your opponents. Good research and evidence is important, but strong impacts will be my primary basis for voting.

I do not have a speed preference, but ask that you do not spread.

Good luck and have fun!

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).

Hi! I am Isabel Jeronimo pronouns She/her/hers/ella. I competed in both traditional and circuit LD in high school and competed in Parli and Policy for Saint Mary's College of California (SMC) for four years between 2016-2020. The most recent partnership being with Kathryn Magee (SMC JM). I have coached LD and Policy at the high school level for about 7 years and coached Parli and Policy at the college level for 2 years.

General Preferences:

-Speed is Speed, go as fast as you want, I can handle it. Do slow down on tags, cites, Alts, plan texts. Those i want to have down verbatim. Judging over internet is kinda wonky though so air on the side of caution here

-I am probably more well know as a "K hack", which is probably true. I love the K, ran the K, coach the K, but that does not mean I won't vote on anything else. I am pretty well versed in sett-col, feminism, Chicano Futurism and Pessimism. I have basic understandings on pretty much any type of K out there at the time, but as I do not know authors or details so anything out of the specific lits i mentioned above will require some explaining for me. Me loving the K also probably means I have a higher threshold for Ks, I expect more out of the, so don't just run a backfile because you think I like Ks. You do you, I'll judge either way.

-Even though I did not really compete using "traditional debate", I am still good with judging that type of round. I won't say that I am happy about it, as I don't think its like the best way to be engaging in the debate space, but I won't hold that against you.

-If you misgender me, the other judges, or your competitors, or generally commit any acts of ableism/sexism/homophobia/racism/etc., I reserve the right to vote you down. I genuinely believe that the debate space has the ability to empower and bring about change, but it also has the potential to create serious damage or harm to people when certain things are done. I am willing to use my limited power as a judge to vote down behaviors that are deemed reprehensible and harmful.

Policy specifics:

-Yes I would like to be on the email chain: isabeljeronimo14@gmail.com

-I flow on paper so please give me pen time and time to switch between sheets.

-DAs/CPs/Plans: I'm down, just make sure its well explained

-Theory/T: So they aren't the same thing, but I do believe they should be structured the same way: Clear Interp, Clear Violations, Clear Standards, and Clear Evaluation/voters. Key word being clear. Good theory debates rock, bad theory debates are... well just bad.

-K V. K.: K's should always have some kind of framing so I know how I am supposed to evaluate the round, and this is especially critical in K debates. These debates often take me the longest to evaluate because framing gets so muddy, so the easy way to my ballot is through framing.

Speech and debate judging paradigm criteria (link to google doc)

My name is Michael Lynch. I am an English teacher. I did four years of forensics in high school. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, impromptu, national/international extemporaneous, congress, and parliamentary debate. I went to state twice in speech/debate and once to nationals in congress. For five years, I was an assistant coach for the Kern Regional Forensics League. I started a debate team at Arvin High School in 2022.

THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE RULE IN FORENSICS: Treat your opponent as you want to be treated. If you don’t want your opponent to go over time, don’t do it yourself. If you want your opponent to play fair and not fabricate evidence, do the same. Treat your opponents with dignity and respect. You are expected to be professional; go out of your way to be ethical. Never roll your eyes, lose your composure, or resort to insults.

I hate the following things: spreading, speaking so fast you sound like an auctioneer, improper English, critiques, and off topic arguments. I expect debates to be about the resolution at hand. Do not come up with an irreverent point such as “Before we can debate, we need to declare the official language of Saturn to be Swedish.” Please do not go over time.

I prefer a few strong, well-developed arguments rather than ten weak attacks. I evaluate rounds equally on content and delivery. I care about eye contact, clarity, voice inflections, body language, and persuasiveness.

I have heard the following sentence hundreds of times: "As a 'brief' off time roadmap. I will address the arguments that my opponent made and then I will strengthen my own." This is not necessary.

A special note for impromptu speakers: please make sure your speech is about the topic. I am fine with stock examples as long as it actually works with your topic. I despise the canned “book—person—movie” formula. It is obvious if your “impromptu” speech is always “To Kill a Mockingbird, Steve Jobs, and Finding Nemo.”

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).

I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.

Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.

I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.

I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.

I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.

Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.

Flow judge who can't deny the power of a good narrative. Journalist by trade so I value organization. Former college debater and former HS debate coach.

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

I enjoy a good debate with a lot of clashing. Debates over definitions are fine but rarely have meaningful impact on the round. Evidence will only be considered if the debator makes an explicit link/impact to the case. Weaker evidence with an explicit impact will trump stronger evidence with no (or only implied) impact.

At the end of the day, I am here to judge you on your abilities to debate and not someone else's. Please keep that in mind. I look forward to a good round.

David Wells

Head Coach Bakersfield High School

dmwells101@yahoo.com

Policy Debate Experience

4 years HS policy debate 1992-1996

3 time College NDT qualifier 2000-2002  CSU, Bakersfield 

Policy and LD Judging Philosophies below

Policy Judging Philosophy

Tech vs. Truth

Truth is often determined in round by the argumetns presented so I guess I lean toward technique that has well explained arguments.  Blippy arguments are rarely persuasive and often easily grouped and defeated.

Prep Time

Please don't use the restroom right before your speech and expect it not to take your preptime.  

Prep time can be used before or after CX.

Flashing docs is not considered prep time, unless you "realize" you need something that requires prep.

Evidence vs Analysis (The lost Art of Argumentation)

Good analysis beats bad evidence most of the time.  My HS Coach was fond of saying, "Debate with your brains not with your briefs."  That being said, good evidence with good analysis is best.

AFF

I prefer Affirmatives that defend a topical policy action, preferably with a plan.  The topical case can be big impact, systemic impact or critical in nature. I can be persuaded that other ways of debating are worthwhile, but the burden of proof falls heavily on the AFF without a plan as to how they actually affirm the resolution, not just an identity or issue unrelated to the Nationally chosen topic.

I have no problem voting for performance AFFs that are well debated.  I do not care at all for Adhom. attacks.

I dislike blip theory debates.  I do like theory debates that are developed, well articulated, and impacted.  I have no problem voting on theory.  Just make it good theory.

NEG

Counterplans, DAs, Kritiks, Case Debates, and Topicality are all fine.  The more specific the evidence/links the more likely you will get weight for your arguments.

Be ready and able to defend your Neg Strategy.  2NR should make strategic decisions and no go for everything.

LD Judging Philosophy

Speed/Clarity: I debated Policy at the national level in college so speed is fine.  Let me clarify, clear speed is fine.  I determine your clarity.  So I will say clearer twice, then slower, then stop flowing if you fail to adjust.  If you do "speed" drills but not "clarity" drills, you probably should speak slower.

Strategies: I really just want to see a clash of ideas.  Arguments that avoid a directly clash can be persuasive but rarely get high speaker points.  Preferably, an actual debate about values and value criterions is preferred.  The move toward LD becoming individual policy debate is interesting...not decided if it is beneficial.  If you debate policy style, you need to be clear why that is to be preferred and how it stays germane to the Resolution.

The Topic: I like LD cases that embrace the value question of the resolution head on and develop their position.  If you run a policy it should be germane to the topic and ought to be a reasonably predictable case for competitive equity.  This can be debated out in the round.

If you have questions of me, just ask.  I'm not perfect.  I'm getting older.  You know the topic better than me.  So, teach me your position and you have a better chance of winning.  If you just read a lot without analysis, you let me be the learner with a poor teacher and who knows what I may think...?

Be Polite and enjoy the debate.

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

Have fun!