For public forum, I feel the best competitors stand out for their level of preparation and ability to concisely re-state their argument while parrying their opponents points. Some of the best arguments reinforce their opening statements thru to their conclusion/final focus.

The ability to respectfully and tactfully debate is important.

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

I have 2 years of college debate experience. In a round, I like seeing a clear top of case with clear criteria. Voters are essential at the end and I want to see clear comprehensive arguments. I'm not a fan of Ks unless they are actually relevant to the rez. Be creative in your round!

I competed in LD in high school as well as other Speech Events. I've coached and judged LD and parli debate. Generally, I value the resolution and believe the Aff has the burden to show the resolution is true and neg's burden is to show its false. However, you can run Ks but provide some standard to weigh the round with persuasive arguments on why it is the appropriate standard. It is important for me that the value criterion is well defined and each party has to compare the criterion with that of their opponent. I will use the best criterion to decide the round and how contentions and impact-level arguments interact with the criterion.

Speed: I can keep up with speed to the point it is comprehensible but if I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not make it into my flow, which will ultimately be to your detriment. I like off-time road maps before your speech.

I judged parli at Jack Howe, and I judged both parli and pf at La Costa. I look for arguments that are well thought out and not far reaching, though I will vote for "new" or "unusual" arguments if you can thoroughly explain your logic. I am not familiar with kritik structure and literature or theory, but if you frame it as more of a regular argument and explain its importance I might vote for it (depends on the rest of the debate material). Don't hinge the entire round on a theory argument. Please do definitions and be clear about why a counter-definition is important if you provide one.

Logic > Evidence (usually)

Be polite during your rounds, respect your opponents, and I will immediately vote against anything that is racist, homophobic, or sexist.

I am a lay judge and a parent. I am primarily looking for arguments that are well structured, supported and presented in a clear and understandable manner. Feedback I often give is to slow down while you are speaking. If the information is presented so quickly that I can’t catch it all, you can’t get credit for it. I also encourage you to be professional and treat your opponents with respect.

I am a parent judge new to debate.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

I’m a new judge. I won’t count your arguments unless I understand you so don’t talk too fast. I enjoy a clear, concise argument.

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

For all debate events- I don’t encourage spreading, though it is allowed. I prefer to have debaters speak at a normal pace so that I am able to hear all of your arguments and use them to help make my decision.

I am a lay parent judge. Please avoid spreading, speak clearly and concisely. Make your information and arguments palatable to the general public, and stick to the merit of the debate. I do not appreciate K's and theory. I value civility in debaters, overall just be civil and respectful. Be well researched and prepared for your topic, and for logic based arguments make your link chain clear. Signposting is absolutely necessary for clarity in the debate, and is greatly appreciated and aids in flowing the debate. Most importantly, have fun!

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

Hello- I am looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm:

- I am a parent judge

- I didn't debate in high school or college but I have judged a number of high school tournaments virtually

- I have judged a variety of events but primarily parli

- I am lawyer and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments

- Please speak at a reasonable pace - I take notes

- Please avoid debate jargon

- I appreciate sign posting or you telling me where you are in your argument e.g. My first contention is ...

- I don't care for dramatics, theatrics or exaggeration- be substantively persuasive

- Be respectful not aggressive

- Have fun!

I have judged for the past 9 years so I have experience. I debate with my wife everyday as well. I am a laidback judge, but I will flow the debate. Do not run "circuit" or "tech" arguments.

For PF, I trust evidence but I NEED analysis to weigh arguments (DO NOT CARD-DUMP). Give me voter issues.

For LD and Parli, logical arguments are necessary to get my ballot. Bring up evidence, but logic is as important if not more.

When you use evidence (especially empirics), make sure to explain how the study was conducted if possible (just helps me weigh "equal" evidence)

In every debate, signpost every argument.

Spreading = Loss

Disrespect = Loss

Feel free to ask my for any clarifications on preferences prior to the round.

I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.

Debaters:

I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.

If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.

I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.

Speechies:

Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.

Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.