Pathos

Logos

Ethos

Are all important to me. If I had to rank them it would be in that order. Pathos, then Logos, then Ethos. If you can get me to be emotionally invested then you are winning. Don't be afraid to make your gestures big. Project to fill up the room with your voice. Use your diaphragm. Do NOT yell. Do NOT use your throat.

T A K E. Y O U R. T I M E.

This is NOT a race. If this is a Speech Event (e.g. Prose, INFO, IMP, et cetera) giving me moments to marinate over can positively impact your score. This is NOT a race. Don’t rush over key moments or points of your speech. If this is a Debate Event (e.g. LD, Parli, WORLDS, etc) speed reading is counterintuitive for me. If I struggle to follow your arguments, it will negatively impact your score.

This is essentially my paradigm. If you can get me to be emotionally invested, you're doing good. If it makes sense, even better. Ethos is also important but not as much as the other too. Be respectful, on time, etc.

The only thing I can think to add is I love CONTRAST and silence. If you can do that well, you're probably going to win one way or another.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I especially won't vote on disclosure theory if your opponent seems like they are new to debate or genuinely tried their best to reach out. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

World Schools:

I adhere to the rules of WSDC, which means 40% content (what you say), 40% style (how you say it), and 20% strategy (why you say it). My evaluation of content includes good analysis (logical, relevant, important, tracking evolution), quality of examples, and thorough rebuttal. Debate in good faith, without straw-manning the other team's arguments. Style includes appropriate word choice, eye contact, body movement/hand gestures, voice projection and control, speed/variation of delivery. Strategy would be the choices made in motion interpretation, time allocation, prioritization, speech structuring, correct identification of issues in the debate, taking adequate POIs, weighing and use of comparisons, and relevance of material to the debate.

Proposition has the burden of proof and has to define the motion, being clear and fair to both sides. They should describe their characterization of the status quo and present substantive arguments in favor of their case, and where appropriate, present a solution to the identified problem. The opposition should oppose the prop's motion and probably have their own substantives. No new constructive material or POIs in the reply.

There are only 3 people on the bench for each side. Non-speaking team members and other spectators must not make signs or signals to debaters on the bench and must maintain room decorum. POI's should be brief and no more than 15 seconds.

Good luck everyone!

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Hi! My name is Lailee and I'm a political science student at UCLA. I have been a debater since high school and compete primarily in parli although I'm very familiar with other styles of debate.

In general, I enjoy clear and concise arguments that are substantiated with ample evidence. Quality over quantity is a good principle to follow. I will only be able to maintain an accurate flow if you signpost ("our contention 1 is.... contention 2 is...."), so please be sure to do this during your speeches. Framework is important, but I almost never vote on it and think the debate should ultimately revolve around the contentions themselves.

Speaking: I almost always give high scores (27+) to debaters by default for just trying. I can understand a fast pace speech as long as it is very clear and you signpost consistently. Please do not spread, though. I won't be able to understand. If you say something disrespectful or laugh at your opponents, I will decimate your speaker points on god. Please remember that being assertive and confident is different than being rude.

Theory/Ks: Theory is okay although I am not a theory debater myself. I understand the terminology and can follow techy argumentation but think that truth>tech is a far more constructive and educational principle that debaters should follow. Don't intentionally overcomplicate, the entire point of debate is to learn about different issues, not to read the same pre written T shell every round.

Final speeches: I expect debaters to provide clear voter points and/or impact calculus (discussing why the impacts of your arguments outweigh those of the other team). You can quickly run through some of the most contentious arguments/points of clash in the final speech, but please do not just read every contention again.

Points of order: Only call if there is an absolutely egregious violation. I flow and thus will always catch moving targets (new evidence in the final speech), so don't worry about calling a point of order for this. Also, remember that a moving target consists of a completely new point; using a few new words to explain a concept already discussed is fine.

Overall, have fun! I know that you guys work really hard so I always try to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have any questions about my RFD, feel free to email me at golesorl@g.ucla.edu.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.