Please put me on the email chain (rburns@svudl.org) and if you have any questions about what follows, don't hesitate to ask! .

12+ years coaching and directing college and high school debate programs on national and local circuits.

I primarily judge policy, but have also judged a fair amount of LD, PF, and WSD. The teams I've coached on the nat circuit run primarily critical arguments. Most of my local judging involves more traditional policy rounds.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about.

I see my role as an educator, center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate (while trying to bracket my own preferences), and am flow centered as my default (unless arguments are made for a different approach to adjudicating - if you can win a different approach is better, I'm open).

Here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame and weight the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. If you choose to examine philosophical questions, or explore how identity and subjectivity are formed by debate, I will enjoy the discussion more than a procedural CP + politics DA. But I'll work hard to fairly adjudicate whatever your interest is.

Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have done graduate work in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

I have done policy debate, LD and Congress, competing at State (CA) and Nationals when I was in high school.

I am truth over technical putting a premium on understanding your argument and on the logic both teams use to explain why the evidence and the expert is relevant to the argument. Bad evidence loses to good logic and common sense. Good evidence plus logic wins. Stated another way, in making your arguments around impacts, I listen carefully for logical fallacies -- while I won't vote against you if I hear a slippery slope, or a correlation/ causation fallacy, I will keenly listen to see how your opponent responds. I share this because as you develop your speaking skills for life (amazing by the way), your goal will be to persuade whether in business, law, medicine, science or politics -- few things undermine one's credibiilty more than arguments that tend to extremes based on unsubstantiated logical or reasoning errors, so it's good to start to learn and practive now how to build structurally and logical sound arguments, relying on evidence, early in your journey.

Debate is about testing logic and evidence to communicate a Point of View that can be understood and is compelling, so expect me to be a critical judge who will weight what each team tells me about the arguments presented; I vote for the argument I find most persuasive. I will look to frame my assessment against the main stock issues, unless you convince me another standard should be used. Also, if I can't understand the argument, I can't very well score it in your favor.

Beyond my debate experience, my perspective on policy is shaped by being involved in lobbying the Federal Government for Procter and Gamble and time at a leading think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I worked as a management consult for Booz Allen & Hamilton, where I created business facts and strategies for the Mayo Clinic and NYH Cornell. I have an undergraduate degree in History and a MBA degree, so I feel very comfortable listening to arguments that weight and test the quality of the expert as well as the merits of the evidence; I will even accept your use of common sense or logic to call out logical fallacies, and to sanity test or refute a piece of evidence that just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement, so I will notice rude, sarcastic or condesending behavior and that will detract heavily from the weight I attribute to your argument or position. Please enjoy a spirited discussion and I will do my best to flow and follow.

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year judging in policy, PF, and LD events. Please do not spread or speak super fast: If I cannot understand you and follow your flow, I will not be able to judge you.

I am a scientist by training so I am mostly looking for the logic connecting the evidence with the statement, and if the opposing side was able to identify the conflict of evidence either existing in assumption and study methodology. I do not judge the credibility of the evidence by its author or organization but more on what the opposing team picks up to clash and answers to.

Veritas et brevitas.

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

Speech & Debate Teacher Coach (2020 - Present)

DCP El Primero High School

She/Her Pronouns

Add me to your email chain: jlew-munoz@dcp.org

Personal Background

Consider me as a lay judge. Never competed in speech or debate events in high school or college. Earned a BS in Mathematics and MA in Teaching. Became a teacher coach as there is an alignment with constructing mathematical proofs and constructing logical arguments as seen in both speech and debate. Main experience teaching/judging policy debate and impromptu speech.

Policy Debate

Please, please, please …

• No spreading. I am okay with normal to moderate speed. Talk clearly and enunciate.

• Explicitly state your claims (arguments), warrants (evidence/reasoning), and impacts (why it matters/net impact).

• Signpost and give me an off-time road map. Make it easy for me to flow.

• Rebut/Clash. Attack your opponent's case as much as possible. So make sure to keep track of what they are saying. (FLOW!) Note: I’ll vote on dropped arguments if I catch it. Also, if there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

• On a similar note, weigh all arguments using impact calculus. Talk about magnitude, scope, probability, etc. Show me how the plan can either create a net positive or net negative impact on the world.

No K’s, theory, or tricks.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging speech and debate. I have judged OA, Policy and Parli and I have reviewed all the other speech and debate formats to become familiar with them. Please send me your evidence and include me on the email chain at markedwardlewis@gmail.com

I would like to see that you have an understanding of the issue(s) and the arguments and that you provide credible evidence that supports your case. If you want me to evaluate something then warrant it, don’t rely on the existence of evidence to explain your argument. Please avoid using jargon and explain your arguments in a way that is easy to understand – you are very familiar with what you are talking about but I am not so make sure that I will be able to understand your points.

On those same lines, if you spread then be clear so that I can understand you, remember this is my first year so I want to be able to flow. In my opinion, debate is about making a point and if you fail to do that just by speaking fast and expecting that to all get across it won’t work for me.

I don’t like when teams run arguments just to throw off their opponents or when they attempt any stunts thinking that will help their case. Stay on topic, don’t misrepresent evidence, debate fairly be professional and respectful.

Good luck

Debate:

I am a parent judge who doesn't have any experience in judging circuit/fast debate; please refrain from spreading or some of the jargon used in those faster styles.

For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on evidence and stock issues; I will take your framing into account, but I will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the times. If you bring up any other technical arguments outside the stock issues, please be clear and specific for me to follow.

No Kritik please!

For LD:Please state your value and criterion clearly and don't rush through them!

I am a parent judge, do not spread. Present yourself confidently and be organized. Don't interrupt each other in cross-examination.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD, as long as your clear. I prefer traditional slow PF, Parli, local circuit LD, but both people want to spread and be technical, I guess it’s fine.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks, but I think I'm less inclined to than most, especially in PF. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I think I’m more likely open to anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to competing interps, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse or reasonability convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason).

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and like it when your contentions clearly link to the topic (eg I’m not a fan of a 50 States CP paired with a DA without a topic specific link). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

I did not participate in S&D in high school or undergraduate or graduate school.

I have been judging for about one year, so this Paradigm is a work in progress.

I am a Chemistry Professor. This leads me to analyze your presentation from a science and academic background (my viewpoint, not yours). You should explain your warrants and arguments clearly.

I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to follow everything.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com & mittypolicydocs@gmail.com. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

I am a parent judge.

I don't believe I can give advices on how you can better improve your skills; however, being very logical, I strive to give my best decision. I appreciate

• well-arranged and logical arguments
• how one team really listens to another and find flaws in their arguments
• respectful exchanges

Personally I don't like

• excessive repeating of points already spoken
• excessing questioning the other team's evidence without a follow-up agenda