I am a parent judge new to speech and debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please just assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.

Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents

My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

I primarily judged speech events and coached limited prep speech for some students.

My judging criteria for extemp:

Content:
Analysis: Does the speech demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and its complexities? Does it go beyond simply summarizing the news?
Argumentation: Does the speech present a well-defined central thesis? Are there strong supporting arguments with evidence?
Source Consideration: Does the speaker utilize a variety of credible sources to support their claims?
Transitions: Does the speaker give a transition between points?

Delivery:
Voice: Is the speaker's voice clear, audible, and varied in pitch and pace?
Articulation: Does the speaker enunciate words clearly and avoid filler words ("um," "like")?
Stage Presence: Does the speaker exhibit good posture, eye contact, and use of gestures to engage the audience?
Time Management: Does the speech stay within the allotted time limit?

Hello! Thank you for giving me this opportunity to judge this round. I’d prefer to see the following:

1. Speak clearly
2. Show some emotion and look up from the paper once in a while
3. Be convincing and confident in your speeches and cross examination
4. Enjoy the debate and show it through your emotions!

Please add me to the email chain. I am not new to judging policy, however I’m sure you have much more experience than I do. Take a deep breath, have fun, and good luck!

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.