Hello! I was a local congressional debater in high school and am most familiar with that debate/speech event. However, I do have some knowledge about LD and PF. You don't have to speak too slowly, but please make sure you enunciate and be transparent with everything you want to say. Be nice to your peers, and have fun!

Congress

I will flow each speech throughout the round and add comments on every speech when possible. I do believe that Congress is both speech and debate, so I value a congressperson with elements of both in their speech. These speeches should be appropriate because they aren't repeating old information without bringing up anything new. Don't forget about rebutting and crystalization when it's needed. As for questions, don't as for the sake of asking. Questions are supposed to be something that brings something new to the debate.

Hello,

I believe that debate is a sport of speaking, and as such if I can't understand what your saying because you're talking too fast, you will lose some points. Talking fast isn't usually the issue but annunciation is you can speak quickly as long as you separate each word well. In debate I participate in the Lincoln Douglas event so I am accustomed to the framework being the most vital part of a case, I understand it is not in all debates, but I will take your frameworks into account when Judging who won. I also listen and flow during Cross-examination which I recommend you use wisely as that is what I consider the most important part of the debate. The last thing is connections are good and showing me a chain of events is helpful to lead to a cause, but don't try to reach too far. Even if what you are saying is true and I could eventually understand it, it is not usually worth the time and effort in a fast-paced debate to make it understandable.

The most important part of a debate, have fun and be nice, I will not tolerate excessively rude behavior or ad hominem

Thank you

Heber Ford

Please add me to the email chain: cleomariemussettshaw@gmail.com

I am a sophomore at West High School, and I have been doing debate for two years now.

For Novice Policy

This is probably the only thing I will be judging, at least in the short term so here's my best shot at a Paradigm:

I think the most important thing in the debate is that you understand what your reading, don't try to read an argument just to get a competitive edge, if you don't understand what you are saying I probably won't either.

I am pretty much open to vote for anything so long as you explain your impacts and link story well, that excludes racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments, obviously.

I'm not sure how many of you will want to run Ks, but if you do a good job on the link debate and make sure you completely win the perm. I will vote on the K if you do a good job explaining it.

On Policy debate, I love it! Really just run what you are comfortable with, CPs, DAs, and Theory are all great for me.

I tend to lean Neg on Condo (if you know what that is, and want to run it) but I can be convinced otherwise.

I am okay with spreading, if you want to but please try to be clear.

PLEASE BE NICE. I'm okay with competitiveness in cross but please don't be rude to the other team or your partner.

Have fun, debate is really great so try to enjoy it!

Speaker Points

I will probably give speaker points in the 28-29 range.

Below 27: You have done something morally wrong, racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.

28-28.3: You probably needed a little work, but that's okay we are all learning!

28.4-28.7: I think that you did pretty well for a novice debater and are on the right track.

28.8-29: You should at least be in JV, really just an amazing novice debate.

Above 29: Why on earth are you in Novice Policy?

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

TLDR

Hi y'all, I'm Taisei (he/him pronouns). I did policy for five years and LD for one year.

Former West High Debater, L&C 2025

Please put me on the email chain, or feel free to email me if you have questions - lc21-0970@lclark.edu

Do what ever you do best - just know I'm not familiar with a lot of K literature (I feel best prepared to judge Cap, Security, Abolition, Orientalism, and Ks like that). So, if you want to read a different K (looking at you pomo Ks), make sure you explain your arguments well.

Golden Rule - Don't be a dick. If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I'll nuke your speaks.

Tech >Truth

I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to be clear. If you're not, I'll say "clear". If you keep speaking in a way I can't understand after having been warned, I'll stop flowing. Also, slow down for blocks and taglines. If you don't, I may miss something important.

If no impact framing mechanism is provided, I default to consequentialism.

For Middle Schoolers and Novices

If you read my online paradigm and mention it when I'm judging you, I'll boost your speaks. I think that online paradigms are very useful because it's a space for judges to explain their philosophies in-depth, and I'd like to encourage debaters get into the habit of checking paradigms.

I'll listen to and vote for any kind of argument. Just make sure to explain it and do impact calculus. If you need to choose between making a bunch of shallow arguments or one really well fleshed out argument, make the fleshed out argument. If you read an argument that isn't a part of the assigned evidence packet, I'm very likely to vote against you because the packet exists so that both teams are guaranteed to be prepared to debate. If you read beyond the packet, you're ruining the learning experience for your opponents.

This is just a pet peeve, but there are a few phrases that younger debaters use that are unnecessary and drive me crazy. Instead of saying "Now time for an off-time roadmap," you can just say "the order will be..." and then give the order. That's much more succinct and it makes you sound more like a person instead of someone who's just repeating what a coach told you to say.

For Policy

Most of my debate career has been in policy, and for most of that time I was a 2N that read mainly policy arguments. For my senior year, I was a 2A that read policy affs. If you're reading a policy aff, make sure you have a good solvency mechanism that is unique to your aff. If it can really solved by adv CPs really easily, that's not a good sign. I like DAs and CPs and that's mainly what I went for as a 2N.

So while I'm definitely the most comfortable judging policy arguments, I can judge Ks as well. Just make sure you flesh it out well, as you would for any other argument and don't keep reusing the same key words and phrases as if they replace a warranted argument. Especially if you're reading a Pomo K (I will be honest, while I will vote for it, I'm not personally fond of Pomo so you gotta explain it really well)! Links of omission aren't links.

I'm fine with either team reading theory, but if you go for it make sure you explain it out completely. If you read a T violation and don't have an impact, I don't see a reason to vote for it even if you win your standards.

Don't go for everything in the 2AR/2NR. There should only be a few arguments so you don't spread yourself too thin. If you go for theory, it should be 5 minutes of theory.

For LD

Most of what I said about policy will also apply for LD. I read mostly policy arguments (policy affs, CPs, DAs), but I have also read Ks and theory in LD. I'm okay voting for any of those, just be sure to flesh out your arguments and don't just keep repeating the same phrases without any analysis.

I default to 1AR theory is okay, no RVIs, and theory means drop the team/debater. If you want me to think otherwise, explain why these shouldn't be the standards.

I have no problem with debaters reading new ev in the 1AR or 2NR, as long as it's to support an argument that was previously read (you don't get a new DA in the 2NR).

I don't like T Nebel. If you're really convincing I'll still vote for it, but do be warned, I don't like it.

I don't think you need a value and criterion, and if none is provided I will default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. I've done both progressive and traditional LD, so feel free to do either with me. That being said - if you're doing progressive LD and your opponent is used to doing traditional, I'd encourage you to make the round as accessible to them as possible. I don't think you need to then pick up a value and criterion, but try to be nice (i.e. don't spread super fast, don't barrage the aff with 7 off in the 1NR, etc). Debate should be a place for learning as well as competing

Hi, my name is Tony Zhang and I am a member of the West High debate team and I am in the 10th grade.

Please be very clear when speaking and speak with confidence. I am completely fine with harsh criticisms of arguments however I will not tolerate anything said that is simply said to hurt your fellow debaters.

Make sure to have fun as well!