My judgement is based on the following factors:

(1) Subject content presented and the correctness of the facts

(2) Strong oral and verbal communication skills

(3) Style of presentation

Kyle Hietala (he/him)

Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
Speech & Debate Teacher at Tessellations School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)

HS: mostly trad LD, a little circuit LD, a little OO
College: APDA parli, a little BP
Coaching/judging since 2014

_________________________________________

[UPDATE for UKTOC 2025 World Schools]
I absolutely love judging World Schools and am so excited to judge your round! As a former APDA/BP debater, I know a lot about the specific argumentative and stylistic conventions and really appreciate charitable clash, comparative worlds evaluation, actor-incentive analysis, etc. I tend to think teams under-leverage principled substantives and framework, so you'd be well-advised to think about how your principled material could sufficiently win you the round. I tend to prefer all substantives be introduced in 1st speeches and then cross-applied, extended and implicated in subsequent speeches; I usually find that net new material in 2nd speeches dilutes clash, makes rounds messier, and also delays crucial weighing. You'd also be well-advised to develop more nuanced criteria than simple net benefits/societal welfare, as I tend to be quite impressed by teams who excel at the 'meta' parts of the round, as it's both a more challenging and more educational way of debating. Most of the time, I vote for the team who won the key argument(s) first and then score points after, but in a very close round, I'll probably look to style as a tiebreaker if one team was noticeably better, rather than intervening to resolve substantive arguments. Lastly, if you try any uniquely memey prog/circuit metas in front of me (e.g. spreading a non-topical kritik; reading frivolous theory shells; spamming a priori tricks; etc.), I'll vote you down with the lowest possible points.

_________________________________________

SUMMARY:
Experienced 'truthful tech' flow judge from a mostly traditional background. I'm NOT an 'anything goes' circuit judge who will disregard the academic foundations of good arguments (like logical soundness and empirical rigor) in favor of trendy, insider norms of debate as a game. As an organizational leader and educator, I care about the real-world educational benefits of forensics and want our community to strive for popularity over obscurity.

The best way I can explain how I think about truth vs. tech is in terms of how I'd evaluate something like probability weighing: if your opponent concedes an unwarranted, logically-fallacious assertion you made, I don't think it becomes "100% probable and true in the round" for you because it was dropped. Probability as a weighing mechanism isn't a measurement of technical execution to me; it's an approximation of the expected truth value of the link/impact in question based on its comparative logical and/or evidentiary basis.

The kind of 'tech' I care about is the usage of techniques such as link-level comparison, impact weighing, framework application, etc. to give me a comparatively preferable explanation of truth based on the given resolution and round. As such, I will happily vote for arguments that I personally consider to be untrue if they're well-warranted, supported by credible evidence, and most importantly – comparatively weighed under the prevailing framework.

- topical case debate > stock critical debate > necessitated theory > everything else
- you should weigh well-warranted, terminalized impacts to get my ballot
- my threshold for warranting is high relative to other experienced judges
- big fan of strategic collapses, prioritize and go all-in on what matters
- smart analytics + good cards > smart analytics > good cards
- sit/stand/handstand, whatever’s comfortable for you works for me
- always be kind & respectful, try to learn something new in every round
- typically not receptive to non-topical, clash-evasive progressive debate
- liable to hack against tricks, frivolous theory, and the most memey tech
- tend not to like race-to-extinction scenarios and am skeptical of futurism
- speed is fine, but I don't follow along in speech docs, so take it easy

LARP/POLICY:
- write and pass the plantext please
- stronger links will win you most rounds
- AFFs must prove risk of solvency to win
- NEGs must disprove/outweigh the AFF
- love smart counterplans & perms
- don't love conditionality

THEORY:
- competing interpretations > reasonability
- education > fairness > access
- RVIs are probably good
- lean DTA > DTD, but pretty persuadable
- please don't run tricks/blippy aprioris
- friv is L20, unless mutually agreed in a down round

TOPICALITY:
- please be topical; stable resolutions are good
- reasonability > competing interpretations
- pragmatics > semantics
- RVIs are probably bad
- almost always DTD > DTA

KRITIK:
- most receptive to stock Ks (e.g. capitalism, anthropocentrism, securitization)
- links should be cited examples of wrongdoing; links of omission aren’t links
- explain the K’s thesis in plain English – don’t hide behind poorly cut gibberish
- open to performance Ks, but framework will be a significant uphill battle for you
- I won’t evaluate anything that asks me to judge a student’s innate identity
- rejecting the AFF/NEG is not an alternative; the alt must advocate for something
- don't be shy about impact turns and going after alts; you don't need to left-flank

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, avoid any debate jargon, and be organized in your speeches. Give me a clear RFD in your last speeches. 

I am lay parent judge, have done judging across multiple activities over the last two years.

things I look for, clear communication backed by data, addressing all the points made, clear story to what you are saying, and being kind to each other while doing so.

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

I am a lay judge. I have been judging speech and debate for quite a while now. When it comes to debate, please read your case TO me not AT me. Don't bore me with random facts. During the debate, assume I know nothing about the topic. When it comes to framework, keep it simple and make sure your case follows your framework the entire time. Please always explain and weigh impacts and arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a few jokes and be humorous during debate speeches. As long as you are respectful and still on topic, go for it. I appreciate off time road maps to help me with flowing and ballots. Please speak clearly, don't spread and most importantly have fun!

I'm a lay judge with some prior judging experience, mostly at locals.

Three things to keep in mind during your debate:

1. Speak slowly and articulate well

2. Explain and refute arguments thoughtfully, esp. for complicated positions

3. Be respectful to your opponents