David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and a NIETOC final in Informative. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

For debate:

Do talk to fast that the opponents and judge need to be reading your case with you. I will deduct points for talking to fast.

I do not like spreading and will not give you the win just because you spread and your opponents couldn't counter your spread arguments.

I prefer value or framework debates where both sides are clear on value or framework and build your arguments in the round around the main value or framework of the round.

In crossfire I want courteous speaking and questions. Do not use up the entire time with one question or one answer. This is a time for questioning, not making a speech

Do not belittle or degrade your opponents in final speeches. You can discuss the merits of evidence, but do not lead that into comments about your opponent and the type of debater they are. Those comments will be ignored

For speech:

I look at overall performance when ranking speakers for speech. If you are relaxed and poised, you will be fine. I do not count one flub against you, because you will be nervous. I like seeing intentional hand gestures and movements, but don't try to look robotic.

The following aspects will be observed and evaluated:

-- Face/body expressions

-- Explicitness and clearness of point statements

-- Organization of your arguments (logic and logistics)

-- Contentions and supporting evidences (examples, data, citations, etc.)

-- Speech fluency and tone

-- Question asking and answering (relevance and significance to the topic)

-- (Politeness to opponent and judge)

Cristian Medrano

Background: I used to do Parli and Congress all throughout my high school years. It's been awhile but I am mostly familiar with the rules and times. If it's anything else....uh I will try my best :)

To earn my vote (Parli or Congress) , you must show me that you are capable of using pathos, logos, and ethos in your argument and that your speeches have structure to them. Off-time road or explanation at the start are key to me. You argument must also be able to persuade any random stranger that would be listening as I am only basing my decision on the info in the round.(Also if you add jokes, puns, or witty lines that relate to your points it would different catch my attention). Please respect the opponent you may face, I do not look fondly nor do the rules at those who don't respect each other in Debate.

---PERSONAL INFO---

I did PF + Extemp. I mostly just like flowing stock, but I'll try to accept conversational Theory and Kritiks that I can understand; I prefer clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you read me an interp that can convince me otherwise.

In my paradigm, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly CLEAR why they won. Think about why you started debate and why you have continued to do it; this is a learning experience! Stay respectful and try new things.

--- DEBATE ---

Debaters, I will assume you know what you're doing. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful IN your speech. Remember that debate is more than fast talking and dubious leaps in logic. Debate is communication. While on that topic, a note on speed:

CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.

Generally, I don't vote for cases I don't understand. If you want my ballot, practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Contention taglines should be slow enough for me to copy down exactly.

---------------

Paradigm.

Speaks: Debate in good faith. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds. Unless there is a serious offense committed in round, I won't go below 25. If there is something that I see, I will let you know explicitly. If you see something, I expect you to kritik or address it in round.

Theory: Topicality specifically first, since it's come up the most. On the defense, the topicality of your case should be obvious. Anything on the edge of topicality needs to be preemptively justified in the constructive to convince me that it is actually relevant. On the offense, again, I need an obvious violation and a substantially better interpretation to buy a topicality argument. This applies to all theory: give me the shortest version of your full shell.

Kritikal: ONLY use it if necessary. I will judge you not only on your choice of K, but execution, clarity and structure before considering it as an integral part of the round. I want an obvious link and a full internal link to your impact. Explain the alternative and role clearly and slowly. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow.

Counter-plan: Do it only when there is a plan that precedes your counter-plan. Don't run counter-plans against traditional debaters.

Tricks: I appreciate a good trick. Remain respectful of the format.

---------------

With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

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.