I am a lay judge with very little experience judging. I will vote for the side that explains their arguments clearly, interacts with the clash in the round, and speaks at a comprehensible speed (this doesn't have to be overly slow, but more so conversational). Also, please remain calm and be respectful toward your opponents!

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

I am a parent or lay judge, a low form of life just above single-cell.

In policy judging I pay attention to the stock issues.

I am interested in clashes and how they turn out, if the clash is substantive and is clearly connected to the resolution. I don't like judging rounds with no clashes where AFF and NEG talk past each other.

If you have a counterplan it must negate the resolution. If it is simply a better idea affirming the resolution, the round is simple for me - AFF wins because both sides are arguing AFF.

I favor claims with evidence. I prefer quantitative evidence to non-quantitative, and am open to hearing why your evidence is more on point than your opponent's.

I am open to kritik and theory but will reject most of it. I count frivolous and weak arguments (including kritik and theory that I think are very weak or far-fetched) as weighing in the opponent's favor, ie I don't simply discard them but view them as losses to that side.

An unanswered strong argument will influence me greatly. But, if you drop a very weak argument or element of an argument, particularly if your opponent made several arguments and you spent your time rebutting the more valid ones, I will mostly ignore the very weak argument and the fact that you dropped it.

I am open to some narrative but not to the exclusion of evidence etc.

I weigh ad hominem attacks including offensive diction as in the opponent's favor, or in extreme cases as deciding the round.

I am tolerant of going very slightly over time limits such as finishing a sentence but not more.

I flow; I am OK with moderate spreading but not 300wpm. I am also ok with persuasive speeds; in the case of persuasive debate I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity etc (along with artfulness of cross-ex) for speaker points but not for deciding the round.

I like signposting (remember I am just barely multi-cellular) and explicit linking. I will do my best to *not* fill in the blanks if there is a linkage you should have made, but didn't explicitly; I won't count it against you, but not for you either. When in doubt, draw the dotted line for me.

thanks for debating.

I am a former high school and collegiate debater (policy and parliamentary).

I can handle speed, but value clarity of speaking, as well some sort of signposting or narrative pauses soallyourargumentsandanalysisdontruntogetheronmyflow. I don't mind critiques/kritiks, performative debate, stock issues debate, or debate theory -- I do look for you to be convincing in your advocacy for any of these positions, and expect you to demonstrate that you understand the philosophy behind the arguments you're running, not just chasing taglines or casual "it's a voting issue" assertions.

I am happy to roll with whatever arguments you make in-round, but at the end of the round you must TELL ME WHERE AND WHY TO VOTE. What am I voting on, why is your argument/case/neg strategy better than your opponent's? Do the work for me so it's easy for me to sign the ballot in your favor (instead of having to look at my flow, examine the arguments that ended up in the final rebuttals, and decide where I want to vote because no one told me where/why to vote!).

I love a "big picture" story in final rebuttals - tell me the big picture of the round, of the world you're advocating for as aff or neg, of the world that the aff or neg wants us to live in, of debate (probably pick one, not all tho?) - tied in with your voting issues and arguments that remain in the final speeches, making it really easy for me to vote for you.

Also, be kind to each other - your debate partner and your opponents. We're all in this together.

Thank you!

Teams can always drop me an email post-round if you'd like any additional feedback / explanation of my decision - my email is my name at gmail.com

Former coach. Current debate boomer. Put me on the email chain, leokiminardo@gmail.com.

Please standardize the title of the email chain as [Tournament Name] [Round x] [Aff] v [Neg].

Zoom

1. I will say "slower" twice, and if it becomes more incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

2. I'll have my camera on during your speeches and my RFD.

Kindness

1. If a team asks you to not spread, please make the accommodation. If you don't, you can still win the debate, but I'll dunk your speaks.

2. If your arguments discuss sensitive issues, talk about it before the round. If there aren't any alternatives, please be thoughtful moving forward.

K Affs

1. I personally lean 80/20 in favor of reading a plan. I end up voting 50/50.

2. Debates should be about competing scholarship or literature, not about ones self.

3. DA/CP debate makes as many good people as it does bad people.

Speaks

1. I'm tough on speaker points.

2. I'm very expressive, so you'll know whether I vibe with what you're saying or not.

3. Technical, well organized policy debates make smooth brain feel good.

4. DA + Case or T 2NRs are always impressive and brilliant.

5. Copy/pasting cards into the body will drop your speaks .1 every time it happens.

Have fun!

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

I have judged a total of 7 policy debates. The first debates I have judged were in October of 2020. I was able to judge two rounds, round 2 and round 3. I was then able to judge again for a weekend tournament from Nov. 20-22, 2020. For this tournament, I judged three rounds the 1st, 5th, 6th, Quarters, and Finals.

I find that being able to judge is both rewarding and encouraging to be able to see some of the young people develop their speaking and debate skills.

I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).

This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)

As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.

Cheers!!

I am fairly new judge. I pay attention to what each team is saying, slowing down will help me.

Points for you:

- point for you if you have good arguments, of course

- if your opponent does not have good rebuttal for your argument

- if you can summarize coherently at the end what your opponent missed to rebut

Run whatever cases you want just signpost well and extend them clearly.

ellisonroycroft@gmail.com

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

I'am a lay judge, I had over one and a half years of judging. One years in PF, and this year in LD. I don't know anything about ks and please don't read theory.

Make your arguments straitforward, or else I won't be able to vote off you easily. I will take notes so don't lie, just because I'm a lay judge, I can catch stuff like that.