I'm a first-year student at UCLA and competed in speech and debate throughout my entire high school career, notably in varsity parli and in a variety of speech genres (OO, DI, and OA, to name a few). I was also the president of the Las Lomas High School team during my senior year.

If I'm judging you for parli: Please do NOT run K debates. Ks detract from the spirit of parli, which is to discuss the resolution itself, and a lot of times attempting to run a K backfires and doesn't add anything to your argument. Stick to the resolution of the round. I have no problem if you speak quickly, but I do ask that you slow down if your opponent requests it. Run logical arguments without too many pure appeals to emotion. Other than that, just be nice to your opponents!

If I'm judging you for speech: Project your voice and be respectful towards your fellow competitors.

I am a middle school speech and debate coach. I have been a coach for over ten years, and I have been a judge for the high school level speech and debate tournaments for over five years.

My decisions on debate are based on familiarity with the topic and the complexity of understanding the topic, and refuting the opponent's arguments. Also, important facts should be cited unless you are doing Parliamentary debate, then no citation is needed . Off time road maps also help me keep track of what I should be looking for in your structure.

As for speed, I do not mind speed of speeches but debater must be able to articulate what they are saying. Debater will need to present their speeches rather than just read them from a device or paper. Communicate with the judge .

For Policy debate: as long as I have the cards a head of time, spreading is okay and eye contact during spreading does not need to be made. But, eye contact should be made at some point during cross fire and rebuttals. Delivery of your debate rather than just reading off from your cards is a plus [ except when spreading].

Congressional Debate, I will need to know your names ahead of time and a seat chart is always helpful.

Structure of the speeches must be clear and when asking questions make them purposeful. Also when asking for cards, have a reason to do so. I have judged many debates where the opponent asks for a card and then finds a flaw with the source or finds the context was not as the opponent attended it to be. These are examples of what I am looking for when asking for cards.

I do appreciate the debaters standing when speaking. Try not to be monotone but I do not want a debater to yell at their opponent. Do not mock your opponent. Be respectful when debating. Always a good idea to fist bump or shake hands with your opponent/s after a round or simply saying great job. But DO NOT tell them good job DURING a round.

For World debate. Matter, Style and Strategy are all important. Often I see style dropped in this style of debate. Do not omit this in your debate.

As for Speech. I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye contact / camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Also, voices need to match character/s. I have seen EXCELLENT speeches judging online and in person. Both ways deliver great speeches. If doing online, try and make your lighting in front of you versus behind you. Also, make sure that camera is treated like the judge/audience. This way the energy can come through.

I am always impressed the moment I see you in a room. Joining the speech and debate team in school has so many advantages not only while in school but later in life as well.

Great job!

For Speech, I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye/camera contact is important. Enunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Evaluation criteria will be :

• Clarity & purpose
• Structure
• Engagement
• Voice and character match where applicable
• Depending on the type of speech, relevant examples, facts, etc.

If online, make sure you are in a well-lit room and that camera is treated like the judge/audience. I expect all competitors to have their mic's switched off while others are speaking.

I pay more attention to logical analysis based on facts instead of collection of evidences. Please speak as normal person communicating with each other, if you talk too fast, it sounds you are too nervous to me. Please only find the most important points to the topics you are debating, if you list too many points, it simply means you have no points at all. Also when you debate, please don't try to recite any papers. I prefer minimum debate Jargon used, no T or any other fancy methods to purposely exclude any people from the debates. I am ok with 1 or 2 POIs within the allowed time frame. If you have too many POIs or in protected time zones (first and last minute, summary) or each POI over about 8 seconds long, you might interrupt the debate intentionally or unintentionally, your points will be reduced accordingly. Be nice to your opponents, no laughing at someone even you are muted.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

I've debated for all four years of high school, and I continue to debate British Parliamentary on the collegiate level with the Debate Union @ UCLA. I have competition experience mainly in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate, but I have also competed in World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. Some notable competitions I've qualified to are CHSSA State Quals, NSDA Nationals, and NPDL TOC.

I'd say I'm a fairly standard judge. Some notes:

• I will judge as if I went into the round knowing nothing about the topic.
• Interact with your opponent's case. Either through rebuttal or weighing.
• Please signpost/have organization for your case. I can flow even if your case is a little all over the place, but not being organized increases the chance that a judge will miss something, plus it makes your case less effective.
• If you speak pretty quickly I can keep up, but don't do it to the point of incomprehensibility. AKA do not spread.
• Every claim should be warranted. Even if you don't have access to statistics/sources, you should explain with logical reasoning as to why an impact comes into being. Just asserting something without backing it up with some explanation does not get you your impact.
• Logic > statistics for being convincing.
• You should clearly state what your impacts are, and why I should consider your impacts over those of the other team. Not clearly weighing impacts means that the judge must make that consideration themselves, and that is not something which you typically want.
• I was not a super circuit debater during my time in high school, so I am not the best person to run a K with. Given that, I do know what it is, and I have heard some in round before. If you feel that you must, you can, but explain why your K takes precedence over the debate, and give clear explanation as to what kind of argument you are running, as your opponents may not have even heard of a K before.
• If you want extra feedback after the round, or need to add me to an email chain, my email is ellenakim0806@g.ucla.edu.

As always, please be courteous and respectful towards everyone in the round at all times- you know the drill. Good luck and have fun!

Hey!

I did Congress for 4 years and Speech and Debate for 6 on the National circuit as well as local.

I value and look for...

• Evidence and logical reasoning. Evidence is very important for making an argument legitimate. Clear warrants and links for evidence are crucial.
• Rebuttal and round awareness. After the first 2 cycles of each speech, I want to see the incorporation of refutation in your speech. I especially value refutation that is backed up with evidence. Minimize rehash as best as you can.
• Questioning should be utilized to poke holes in an argument. Avoid using it for questions on sources and clarification.
• Unique and clear impacts. Your impact is one of the most important parts of your speech make sure you are discussing how this will affect the people you serve as a lawmaker. I'm a big fan of impact weighing as well make sure to tell me why your impact is the most valuable in the round.

Speaking clearly and emulating a lawmaker is very important to me. Passion and rhetoric should be present throughout your speech. If you want to be silly or serious, your prerogative, I have no preference just remember to stay professional and polite in the round.

Overall have fun, Congress is a fun and creative event!

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Please time yourselves!
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

hi!

email: lydiapita8@gmail.com so please share ur cases if this is the kind of tournament for that(if you don't know about disclosure/are a novice don't worry about it)

schools: strath haven '23, wash u st. louis '27

coaches/great influences: Jeff Kahn, Ava manaker

events: i did ld in 2020-22, but I quit because I didn't like east coast circuit debate! I did go to ncfls twice in ld so I didn't stink. briefly had a stint in cx (attended nsdas 2021 in cx) so I can judge that too! never did pf but I can probably judge it just don't be super weird. I did extemp after that and loved it (NSDAs x2, TOC x1, NCFLsx1) so if I'm judging you for congress maybe keep that in mind.

TLDR: I will vote on the flow, but I don't love circuit debate beyond plan/cp/da stuff. I'm probably your judge if you're a traditional debater who wants a judge who will flow but won't love if somebody reads a dumb theory shell.

some general notes:

I'll do my best to flow but I flow on paper so if I miss something, I will assume you didn't say it so keep that in mind

anything plan/cp/da with me is fine and I love ridiculous impacts if they're good but don't read that stuff on a novice

the most you will get from me if you read theory/k/t in a novice is a veryyyyy low point win (be cool please it sucks for everybody if you make them hate debate)

if you are huge on tech k debate I'm likely not your gal but I'll do my best

same with most weird circuit things

let me know if there's like an equity issue in round or you feel unsafe or need ANY accommodations- I'm more than happy to help.

weighing/voters and signposting PLEASE.

email/ask if you have questions!

I am open-minded.

Current Coach at University HS Charter, former competitor at George Washington High School. NSDA national finalist, semifinalist, top speaker.

General:

Flow Judge. Will do flow judge things. Add me to the email chain, willryan@g.ucla.edu (or preferably, use speechdrop.net)

Generally tech>truth, but I have my limits. I will vote on truth before voting on presumption unless a team explicitly goes for a presumption warrant.

Fine with speed, keep it reasonable. This is an oral communication activity, understanding what you are saying is still very important. I accept speech docs for evidence, but won't flow off of them. I'll call clear if you are too fast.

I presume to whoever doesn't have the burden of proof. Explain why that's you if you want to win on presumption.

Debate is good and fairness is an intrinsic impact, and I am incredibly unlikely to pick up K teams that argue otherwise. These are views which I am highly unlikely to change.

LD:

Consider me a moderately prog judge. I vastly prefer a smaller number of well warranted positions to a high number of blippy positions, so I'm much more likely to vote for 1NC strategies that focus on 1-2 offs max if you are going for the K or theory, or 3-4 offs if you factor in DAs. That's not a hard limit or anything, but be aware of the risks of me missing something for going for more than that.

I quite enjoy Phil Affs and Negs, especially on value topics, since I both think it is more educational and engages with an area of philosophy that I personally know a lot about.

T is a part of the game, be prepared to hit it. I'd prefer it is reserved for instances of genuinely unfair 1ACs, but given that I am about 40 years behind the curve of T being read as a time suck I doubt that will ever happen.

Tricks/a prioris… not a fan of these kinds of arguments. Highly sympathetic to 1AR Theory responses. Read at your own risk.

I'm inherently incredibly skeptical of the solvency of most Kritiks, but in principle I don't have any objections to them. Read at your own risk.

Trichotomy is a voting issue that I am shocked more teams don't go for. If you run policy arguments on a value topic I'm highly sympathetic to T/Trichot responses.

PF:

Weigh.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

See LD for opinions on Kritiks and Theory. TLDR: Sure, why not.

IVI's seem very silly to me. Read a full theory shell if you want me to vote on some kind of procedural issue.

Please share speech docs before or after a speech so that we don't have to go through the burdensome process of calling for a dozen specific cards. If more than a single piece of evidence is called for please just share an entire doc of all of the cards you read in your speech.

UPDATE: I don't want to be one of those sanctimonious judges who yells at clouds on their paradigm, but evidence ethics has become unacceptably terrible in PF. I reserve the right to unconditionally drop a team if their evidence falls below the standards set in the NSDA unified comprehensive manual. This includes: egregious powertagging, fabricating warrants with bracketed text or miscuts, obviously fictitious evidence from Medium articles, etc. I have noticed this is especially bad with impact evidence. You've been warned.

WSD:

WSD is my favorite format so I will hold debaters to a high standard of performance. I will be very happy if I can see a nuanced debate and will likely award high points.

My stance on number of POIs is that 1st Prop sets the tone for the debate. So if 1st Prop takes 2 POIs, all other speeches should follow that trend. Same if 1st Prop only takes 1. I expect Opp teams to reciprocate at whatever level 1st Prop sets.

I marginally prefer all speeches to take 2 POIs, as I feel it makes the round more interactive and gives more clash during the Opp Bloc Speeches, but I will accommodate whatever the competitors set.

The prop should defend a reasonable interpretation of the motion and the opp should defend a reasonable inverse. Countermodels that are just "the model plus" are abusive and I will vote them down. Conversely, prop models that are just "we fiat the most perfect version of this policy ever because we said so" are very silly and I will likely not buy them.

Huge points for creative and unique argumentation. I hate when debates are stale and predictable, so unique stances can definitely give you a strategic edge. If you are willing to commit from 1st speeches to a creative position, you are likely to get major credit.

A good laugh is never unappreciated, and will bump style. Even a cringe worthy joke is likely going to be endearing, we are all nerds doing politics for fun, after all, so why not go for it :). (That said obviously know context, a super serious motion may not be the best time to crack a joke. All I'm saying is when applicable, try to have fun.)

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

UCLA '24

tajsmyname@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years at Lovejoy High School, in Lucas, Texas.

General Things

- I much prefer a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but you do you.

- Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

- Tech > Truth

- I don't keep up with topics so don't assume I know much about all topic-related jargon/acronyms.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Very experienced in BP Debate. Experienced in PF and other typical high school formats as well. I have limited experience with K's. I do my best to judge specifically by the rule book and rubric of the relevant format, but I also consider any tournament specific norms or instructions from conveners holistically.

Member of the Debate Union at UCLA.

go UCLA !

In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker.

Some general rules:

Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.
You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.
I appreciate off time road maps.
No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.

In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding!

email is megan@adcominc.us