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.

Winner of the 2008 MTV best smiler award.

I can handle speed and tech

roadmaps are great. Shorter overviews are even better.

If you say smt demonstrably false or untrue, i will disregard it. Evidence ethics in PF and Parli, and even LD and Policy are lax. Should it matter in the context of the round, I will ask you to produce the evidence.

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!

Hey y'all. Just a few preferences I have for LD Debate:

• Do not make outright false claims in your case/rebuttals. I will fact check, and will not appreciate anything as such. I will also be checking the evidence used, to assess the validity of it before making me decision.
• Cross can get heated, I understand. Don't let it get out of hand. The instigator will be docked down on my ballot.
• I was a debater for three years in Highschool and always performed well: that's to say that I know all the technicalities and tricks. So please please please do not try to convince me of something that is not true in terms of your case structure, rules, etc.
• Lastly, it is your burden to explain the link between your contentions, VC, and Value. If you fail to do so on your case or throughout the round, it will go across the flow for your opponent. Respect LD Debate for what it is.
• I look forward to seeing your talent and hard-work. Have fun!

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.”

Judging Preferences

DEBATE

Flow

I am a flow heavy judge, so organized debate is good debate for me. Clash in arguments is a priority for me, and I would prefer you go in order of the flow, or at least let me know where you are in it. I want to give you your best chances, so don't leave it up to me where to put your arguments.

I do not flow cross, but I will evaluate it if you bring it up in your speeches.

Tech v. Truth

I lean more toward tech. If you don't say it, it doesn't exist for me in round. That being said, if it is a blatant lie, it will not be accepted. If it is completely analytical, I will weigh it less than arguments supported by in-round evidence. If they take the time to give me evidence as to why I should believe it, I expect the same level of consideration when people tell me why I shouldn't.

Cross

Again, I do not flow cross. It is up to you to bring it up in your speeches.

I also appreciate assertiveness in cross (you don't have to let your opponents walk all over you), but it is possible to be assertive without being aggressive. Will I make my decision based on cross? No. But I will be sure to include it in my RFD, and I will also take when you say your opponent didn't answer with a grain of salt if you don't let your opponent give an answer at all.

K Debate:

I am very open to K debate. Explain your framework to me and do significant work linking your Kritik to the specific resolution. The better you are with this, the less likely I am to buy arguments talking about how "the same K's are rehashed no matter the resolution"

K v. Policy/Topical

K Teams: I need significant work done on framework. You know a policy-oriented team is going to have framework. Tell me why I should prefer yours.

Policy/Topical: If you give me framework, make sure you have answers to how the specific K interacts with the framework. I would pay extra attention to the role of the ballot. Interact with the K; don't completely rely on your framework to solve everything for you.

K v. K

I need to know how your K's intersect and interact with each other. I don't just want to hear "but mine is better". I want to hear how each part affects systemic issues addressed by the other side. I will have a hard time with teams that read independent K's, don't do the legwork on clash, and just end up making parallel arguments that I as a judge have to weigh alone.

Other

I always appreciate when debaters frame the round for me. Of course, I will evaluate my decision for the round independently, but I'm much more swayed when you tell me WHY you won. Which arguments are your strongest? Which ones can you admit that you may be behind on, but aren't going to lose you the round because [insert explanation]

HATE SPEECH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN ROUND, ESPECIALLY IF DIRECTED TOWARD YOUR FELLOW DEBATERS. At best, you can expect a CONSIDERABLE loss in speaker points. At worse, I will be stopping the round and contacting your coach.

Experience

I did speech in high school, but debate in college. I was a policy debater for Fresno State for two years, then another year at Fresno City College. I was one of the coaches for Fresno City College's Forensics team, and I currently co-coach Clovis North's Forensics Team.

Message to debaters:

As long as my paradigm is, what I really want is for you to have a good time and enjoy what you're doing. I'm very specific on here to give you all the best chance and be very clear so you're not stressing out, wondering in round. As much as debate is an amazingly educational and useful activity for your future, it is also something that should be fun and community building.

SPEECH

I have the same standards for interp events as I do for original.

When you speak, I try to look at everything, from the structure of your content to the actual presentation. I am a firm believer that what you choose to include in your speech has as much sway as your actual presentation. This goes for interp events as much as original; while you don't have the same freedom, you are able to choose what you include and where it is cut, and that has a huge bearing on the message you get across.

In terms of content, I'm looking for something that has impact. Whether you are first, last, or in between, I want to remember your speech after the round has finished. I'm looking for a cohesive structure of course, and I'm looking to see if everything you include does something to forward the point or the message. Think of Chekhov's Gun: “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”

As for presentation, I want your performance to make me feel as much as the content is asking me to. If you are doing an interp, it's not enough to tell me that someone has died; I want to see it in your movement. In my opinion, every movement should be intentional, whether it's interp, persuasive speaking, or anything in between.

Also, don't be afraid of silence! I'm looking for what you don't say as much as what you say out loud!

But overall, I really want you to have fun and to deliver a speech that you've worked hard on. You deserve to be proud of yourself for all the work you put in throughout the year. Let this be the moment it pays off.

I wish you all the best!

Greetings,

I am Jonathan Pusavat, The Speech Coach for Stockdale High School, and I have been passionate about Forensics ever since my high school days. I have competed in TI, HI, OPP, just to name a few, and I was also a Policy Debate Student.

For my Debate Standards, I am a Flow Judge, I am writing down whatever takes place during the round in order to help make my decision. I will base my decision on the flow, so if you wish for something to count, make sure to say it and to say it clearly. I also write copious notes for Speech Judging.

As an Asian American son of Thai Immigrants, I hope to bring a diverse and unique worldview.

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).

Speak loudly and clearly. I will be tracking offense and defense from both sides as well as contentions and framework, so leave no stone unturned.
Best of luck debaters.

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.

In a strong debate, arguments clash. I prefer strategies where students try to win by addressing their competitor's arguments head-on with stronger evidence and clear reasoning.