Updated for NSDA WSDC 2024:

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. I keep track of time, and at the 1-minute mark and 7-minute mark, I will knock on the table, opening the speech for POI's (which should be brief and no more than 15 seconds), for the first 6 speeches.

Older paradigm below:

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'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.

Good luck everyone!

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

flae judge
ask for prefs before round

I debated in High School and College and am in my seventh year coaching.

I have experience in judging Policy, LD, Parli, PuFo, World Schools and Congress. My primary experience is in Policy.

Address for the email chain: chris.ryan@lmusd.org (this is a relic that may completely disappear soon).

Judging Preferences:

I am big on courteous debate. A national champion or top talent must to be able remain professional under all circumstances, whether debating other top talent or a heavy mismatch. I can and will drop arrogant debaters for violations of decorum. No one should leave a round and be discouraged because of how they were treated by their opponent(s). Similarly, partners that write speeches or handle all of the CX are not "partners". When will your partner learn if they are not given the chance to succeed or fail on their own merits?

I enjoy hearing creative arguments/positions but am not willing to follow you down a rabbit hole with weird authors and alt philosophies.

Policy Specific:

I would like a well debated round. The resolution is for conflict between the Aff and the Neg. Speed should not be at the expense of logic and well crafted arguments. Barfing cards or precanned responses is not debate. Just because you've shared your case/evidence doesn't mean that you can be unintelligible. I can understand speed (and deployed it as a student) I just don't think that it furthers our activity. Explain why your arguments are important and how they create a narrative to capture my ballot. I can be convinced to evaluate kritiks but please don't test my patience.

I typically am a policy making critic.

LD Specific:

I prefer classic LD that warrants deep philosophical thought about a topic. I'd prefer if it not devolve into single competitor policy debate, (ie, plans, counter-plans and kritiks).