she/they

Hi! I did policy debate for four years of high school, but I am a little rusty. Speaking clearly is the biggest thing, and knowing the smart arguments to prioritize will definitely do you favors. Spreading is possible but if you want the most applicable feedback I wouldn't recommend it. Be respectful of your opponents, making debate a fun safe competitive space is the best way to keep the activity alive, so you'll lose speaker points for being rude both in speeches and between them. I am a big fan of close reading your opponent's evidence to make sure it says what it says instead of just throwing cards back and forth. Don't just read the cards, evaluate them, know them, love them, and USE them. Explain why your evidence is best and theirs fails.
Have fun!

History:

Former debater and speaker (2014 - 2018) - my main events were policy debate, impromptu, and national extemporaneous; however, I did compete at least once in LD, Congress, and Public Forum. I have judged each debate, but you can consider me a lay judge in everything but policy or unprepared speech.

• Regional qualifier in policy debate (15-16 and 17-18)
• State qualifier in NX (17-18)
• Won varying awards in local competitions for policy, impromptu, and NX

Post-debate, I was in collegiate Model UN for 2.5 years, and I've competed across the country.My study/work background is in applied math, computational biology, business, management, and finance.

If you have any questions about the below info or anything regarding the debate/speech event, ask before the round starts. I am not likely to give verbal comments or feedback after the debate.

Respectful Conduct:

Please be mindful of how you're interacting with your opponents and your judges. I ask you maintain a certain level of respect before, during, and after the round. It's difficult to watch two teams of debaters interact without respect and/or manners, and it's even harder to make an RFD or provide helpful feedback when this is happening. So, please keep the following in mind:

• no bigotry, no misgendering your opponent, etc.
• do your best to avoid making faces/reacting during other speeches. I know it can get frustrating sitting in a debate when someone is misinterpreting you, but if it's consistent, exaggerated, and/or deliberate (and you don't warn me beforehand), it will affect your speaker points.
• no talking during speeches (regardless if it's your partner or your opponent)
• CX / CF - things can get heated, but don't purposefully use up time or ask run-on questions, if avoidable. More info under "General Items".

General items:

• Respect - see section above. I won't inherently dock points unless any disrespect seems deliberate or excessive.
• Signposting - I am more likely to understand where you're going with your case / arguments / comments if you very clearly signpost. This applies all around, but the debates I have judged LD, PF, or Parli without clear signposting get messy. It's easy to get lost in how many cards there are in a debate, so if I hear "VALUE - X [1-2 second pause]. Next...", I can be a more effective judge and decide accordingly.
• Links - I will not be making assumptions or conclusions on your behalf. If you are not clearly stating your arguments and how it impacts your opponents' case, they won't reflect on my ballot.
• CX/CF - should be for questions to clarify items for yourselves or for me as your judge. No "responding" to your opponents answer without a question. I will only allow asking for evidence if it's for clarity (you can share cards after), but you shouldn't be reading cards out loud in your limited time.
• Dropped arguments - I will be taking notes on what you do/don't bring up, but if anything is unaddressed by both teams once we get to rebuttal speeches, I'll be ignoring it.
• No spreading - I prefer quality > quantity for your arguments, and I've seen many debates lose (as a competitor and judge) because they didn't speak clearly, so their arguments were either not established well or they dropped items later on.
• Time-keeping - If you want me as a judge to keep time, please ask before the round begins. I'm trusting you as debaters to be honorable with your prep and speech times,BUTI am still keeping time regardless if you ask for me to announce or not. While I may not say "speaker, you're over time" or "you have 1 min left of prep", if you run over on-purpose, it will reflect negatively on your ballot.

Policy

• K-arguments - unless you have completed A LOT of research and know the argument backwards and forwards, don't attempt it. I don't have the research background to follow your Kritik unless you lay it out clearly and concisely.
• Policy is heavily evidence-based, and if you can't back up an argument with a card, I won't be able to vote on it.
• I want you to emphasize impacts of your cases, but I would prefer you not use your rebuttal speeches to give a story ("judge, imagine you're a victim of this issue" *insert storytelling here*). I'll allow it in some cases, but please use your final speeches to effectively respond to arguments.

Speech

• I will give time signals for NX, IX, or impromptu. If this is any other speech event and you want time signals, I'm happy to do so if you ask beforehand.
• for impromptu, you will get a higher ranking if you improvise your speeches to match the topic at hand. If I can tell your improvising your introduction but using "back-pocket" examples (f.e. if you make a point to use Catcher in the Rye in every speech regardless of topic), you will likely score lower. There is a notable difference in having multiple reference points / preparing for impromptu vs. using essentially the same speech each round but changing the intro/conclusion for the topic.

don't be annoying

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!

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!

I am a former California High School LD debater, and a former Speech and Debate Coach. I am currently an Environmental Economics and Data Science student at UC Berkeley. I am not necessarily a fan of spreading, so if you really want to spread, do it well and in a way that your case will not suffer. Other than that, I have no specific do's or don'ts. Best of luck, and if you are still unsure about a certain style or strategy, feel free to ask me before the round.

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.”

-Assistant Coach for Debate

-Most familiar with Parliamentary Debate

-Familiar with and have judged LD, PoFo, CX

-For any file sharing email chain, I prefer File Share in the online room.

-Familiar with and have judged nearly all speech types.

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.

Hello there. I am definitely more of a lay judge. If you want to spread, go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend it. I will flow what I hear and that's it. Spouting evidence just to spout evidence doesn't do it for me. Make sure to include some type of analysis. Off-time roadmaps are fine, but don't use it to make an off-time argument. Blatant disrespect will tank your speaker points. I am not a fan of K debates, and I do not allow tag team cross X. :)