I was an LD debater/extemp kid for 3 years in a traditional circuit. I now teach PF at the University of Kentucky.

Email for email chain: barreiro.cayla@gmail.com

Tech over Truth!

I am a pretty hands off judge. I will not intervene in the round unless there is some sort of major issue that needs to be addressed.

I can deal with speed but know that if you try to trip up your opponent through tactics like that it will not score you extra points

I expect all competitors to treat each other with respect and dignity.

PF Breakdown:

All arguments need to be extended throughout the round. If you bring smth new up in final focus, I won't weigh it.

I do evaluate and weigh FW

I'll expect signposting and would prefer off-time roadmaps.

You should have your cards ready in a reasonable time if you get called to present them.

Cases:

Cases should be clear and evidence should be verbally stated in round. I’ll expect clearly defined contentions and signposting

Rebuttals:

2nd speaking team needs to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal if you want your arguments weighed.

Drops= Conceding! I will automatically flow through the other teams' arguments.

Summary: A good summary should summarize the round and make extensions. Don't let me forget anything that is important to your side.

Weighing: final focus should be solely focused on selling me your case. Do not spend an overwhelming time responding to your opponents.

I dont automatically side with the bigger, more catastrophic impacts. If your impacts are well researched and articulated I'll be more inclined to vote in your favor compared with a haphazard extinction arc.

Speaker Points: I don't necessarily have a set baseline. If you are clear, well spoken, respectful to everyone, and organized you will score well. Points start to drop from 30 when I count up mistakes or if I notice a consistent unflattering/unprofessional speaking style.

About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

I do not like spreading, especially online as I have a hard time understanding what you are saying if you spread. Also, please try not to mumble as I am somewhat hard of hearing.

I do not like Ks. I do not know how to judge a competitor using one or any kind of progressive debate in LD.

I value

1. a fluent delivery style with good eye contact.

2. good speech structure

3. all sources cited with source name and date

4. clash

5. depth of ideas and analysis

6. richness of language

7. smooth handling of questions

8. consistently active in the chamber

9. change agents--students who are not following a "herd" mentality, but who look for opportunities to make things happen and change things up a bit.

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

You could call my debate paradigm rather traditional as I competed in high school and collegiate debate in the early 2000s and have coached for seventeen years since. I value persuasion in argumentation, but I also flow and focus on the issues that the competitors want me to focus on to reach my decision. I like creative and interesting arguments, so make them!

Also, I do my best not to intervene so if you want me to focus on something in a round, then you better tell me. I am not going to carry across/impact arguments for you or make up arguments that you did not make against your opponent's position, even if their advocacy carries significant weaknesses. I am also not going to ask for evidence without being called upon to do so (and if you want me to look at evidence at the end there had better be a good reason).

Rudeness will not be tolerated. You can be assertive, yet polite. If you ask a question in CX/crossfire, allow time for the opponent to answer and do not prematurely cut them off. I hated that as a competitor and I hate it still.

Make sure evidence is ready to hand to the other competitor or team when they call for it. If you do not have it, it will negatively impact speaker points AND I will not start running prep time for the other side until they have the card(s) they need. So you will be forfeiting free prep time to the other team if you are not organized.

Keep in mind that time limits provide a maximum, not a minimum. I would rather have you make a really efficient and clear rebuttal or summary or Final Focus that is a minute rather than have someone "fill time" with nebulous issues that do not matter.

Finally, is very important in the final speeches for debaters to write my ballot for me. Tell me what argument(s) you are winning and why they win you the round. Do some weighing of issues there too.

I am the speech and debate coach at Hazard High School. Congressional Debate is my favorite event and I have coached many state finalist and champions and as well have had students do well at national tournaments. I enjoy all aspects of congressional debate but really like best is the role of Parli. I am here to facilitate a smooth chamber. My preference is to remain unobtrusive yet be of value and assistance to the PO, judges and the participants.

I also coach interp, limited prep events, and public speaking. I love to see the character come through the performance, the passion evident in the speech and the clear and concise analysis in delivery of your view on a topic.

My paradigm is pretty straight-forward. I believe debate is an educational opportunity designed to promote discourse. While I can handle speed, I do not prefer it as I believe that it detracts from the intentions of the activity. I prefer lots of clash. Having the ability to provide a strong line-by-line response is effective. Use your evidence to your advantage. Don't assume I will make the connections for you. If you want me to flow it, say it.

In Congressional Debate, there is no need to preface how many times you have spoken. It's a waste of time. Your name and your school is sufficient. As a Parliamentarian, I will be as hands off as possible. If you think there is an issue, that is up to you as representatives to ask the PO. Try to be as direct as possible in your questions. Lots of time is wasted in prefacing.