Email chain please: gdetuya@columbushs.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE. YOU RISK JUDGE INTERVENTION WHEN EVIDENCE ETHICS IS QUESTIONABLE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is... okay I guess. I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason. With that said I will still vote on T args like disco, but be clear on your interps hand harms.

LD: Though I used to judge policy years ago - in the intervening years y'all have gotten better at speed while also running tons of tech. Hard for me to keep up with both. My level of experience says I should be able to handle tech rounds, and I wont drop on some principal that all tech is bad ~(unless you're running tricks ), but be aware that you're running the risk that I dont catch something.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. I don’t like K debate. Most Ks stitch together noncontextual links, but if it isnt, I will vote on it if done well. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. Links should be lock tight. The round will be messy because of if not, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments >>> specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence.

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, keep it to 15 sec or less, dont badger your opponents with multiple back to back attempts at asking.

5. Framework is something that should basically be agreed on by the end of the second speeches. In instances where it isnt (and for most cases, it really shouldnt be - lets have reasonable grounds for debate here) disagreements should then be handled as permutations (their highest ground, our highest ground) so I at least have responses on each side if framework is a push or if I am eft to decide who presented the most common sense definitions/burdens/etc. Win on substance. Please.

Ridwan Himawan

My professional life has been a Chef, time after time, part of my day-to-day routine and/or tasks are to evaluate, review, and/or “judge” either certain food products, recipes, certain training materials, review financial statement or evaluate job performance of the subordinates, indirectly in my professional life is always involved with judging or review/evaluation. I started judging the speech and debate tournament in 2023. I judged over three tournaments.

These are my values in any debate or presentation:

Speech and language must be precise and clear, perfectly pronounced. The first or the last sentences of the introduction must make an impact on the argument, using simple, strong, and effective words.

Evidence must be back or reference to, sometime the factual evidence is correct but none of them related to the argument, either yay or nay. Make it short, concise, and simple to understand.

I watched the body language of each of the debaters and wording they are using in the debate to see if any of the argument is in support of each other, it’s about building up the team and how to support each other, very rare I heard, “as my colleague had presented or had mentioned….” It is a team effort. Evidence of team collaboration effort must be apparent.

Pronunciation must be clear and concise, and select the presentation style and be consistent throughout the debate.

Specific – To Add Point

Introduction to the team and where you stand.

Eye contact, body language and professionalism toward the other team, judges, moderator, and evidence of collaboration among each other.

Vocabulary that makes impact and correct pronunciation,

Reference to facts and figures, don’t elaborate, example, Good -> “Due to global warming drought becoming longer and more extreme around the world” Great ->”Due to global warming, drought in Asia continent has increase last year from x days to y days thus the production of agricultural has decrease from x tons to y tons per miles/km squares”

Judges need to listen to evaluate, so speak up, use intonation, flow should be seamless and without hesitation or losing your train of thought, use connect words.

Specific – Deduct Point

Reading fast off the laptop and missing 2-3 words in between. Do not repeat the sentence and miss the word again.

Watch time and for watch prep time.

Advice:

Practice, practice, and practice with yourself, then with your teammate until you can cite the material top to bottom with confidence.

Ask questions and feedback, be honest to yourself, if you cannot pronounce the word choose different word.

Simplicity, and less is more. Have fun and enjoy what you do.

Hello everyone.

I'm a parent judge and this is the second judging assignment, 1st for WSD. I previously judged PF for a few rounds. I should have no problem folloing your arguement if you speak clearly and audibly. As WSD doesn't require rapid speaking like PF then I don't think I need to mention speaking at a slower pace.

All in all, I want you to enjoy presenting your arguments and I will enjoy hearing you all do a spectacular job and enlightening me with topics and perspectives that are new to me.

Hi there,

My name is Kara, and I am a parent judge entering my third year of judging. I mostly do speech events but have also judged a variety of debate events. Since I am a parent of a competitor, I know how hard you work, how much effort you put forth and how incredibly courageous you are for putting yourself out there! With this in mind, I am always going to be upbeat, welcoming and full of smiles and words of encouragement for you! Since I know how nerve wracking these competitions can be, please don't let my presence ever be a source of stress for you as I truly want to see you do well!!

So far as my style is concerned, I must put "more volume" in just about every ballot I have filled out. Since every room you are in is different, make sure you adjust so that everyone in that room can hear every word you say clearly. I also appreciate it when you make eye contact throughout.

For debate events, I prefer slower speaking so that I know what you're saying. I LOVE politics so I have watched my fair share of politicians who go around in circles and don't answer the question. This means I can spot that technique from a mile away (i.e. you have a canned answer and pull it out even if it isn't what was asked of you). Please also make sure your sources are solid and referenced clearly.

I always check my biases at the door and while I may be vehemently opposed to something you are arguing or speaking about, I will judge you on how well you made that argument.

I can't wait to see what amazing speeches and debates you have in store!

Sincerely,

Kara Mathews

Hello! I am a first-time judge at this speech and debate tournament, and I am excited to be here. I approach judging with an open mind and value both the substance of your arguments and the quality of your delivery equally. Clear, well-reasoned arguments are more important to me than the use of technical jargon, so please focus on making your points accessible and easy to follow.

I will do my best to evaluate the round fairly and based on the criteria you present. If you are using a specific framework or technical terms, feel free to explain them as necessary. Respect for your opponents, persuasive reasoning, and effective communication will all stand out to me.

Looking forward to a great round—good luck to all competitors!

I mostly did PF in HS.

email: just_mar25@yahoo.com

read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.

1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I will not prescribe my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me.

2. On Speed/Spreading - Speed is fine but it must be purposeful. Speed is not purposeful if you're unclear and lack diction (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (you could literally just read more cards on legitimate arguments to strengthen your links instead of the blips). Speed is not purposeful if you're actively disenfranchising the other team by spreading (you do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them). Just because I might have your case doesn't mean it's all on my flow, I am not as familiar as you are with your own literature. If you're incomprehensible all you're doing is making me uninterested.

3. On Ks - Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with. Just because you're running doesn't a K doesn't mean you don't have to DEBATE and explain why you're winning on the K flow. Yeah if the K goes unresponded then its a winning argument but if you don't extend/explain to me why the K wins (aff or neg) beyond "they had no response to the K" then presume I drop the K. Extend the K.

4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out (it won't).

5. On Evidence Sharing - Just use an e-mail chain/Speechdrop. Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. I'm not saying you have to send over your cases (PF), I know that the norm on that is still being established (in PF) but no judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card, just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME THIS. TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card.

6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.

7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.

8. On Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire. If anything happens during Cross that you feel is relevant to winning then refer to it in your next speech so it is on paper. This doesn't mean saying something like "In Cross they said Nukes aren't real so they lose C2." I want you to tell me the other team conceded the link on C2 so I can put it on my flow (SIGNPOST WHERE THE RELEVANT CROSS INTERACTION SHOULD/WOULD BE ON MY FLOW). Aff always gets first question. Why are we doing the whole "may I have first question" song and dance still?

9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.

10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating? I'll nuke your speaks since I believe this actually "kills debate". To be clear, a funny tagline is funny and okay, but you know when something is a pun and when something is deliberately misleading.

11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.

12.Post-rounding - Post-rounding is educational. Be polite/curious - I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones. Overview below:

Speech score based on: intro purpose, argument basis & hard evidence warranted, impacts clear...answers in questioning can impact your speech score. - not a fan of "I'm sure you can tell me" or responding in anger. Remember you are trying to prove your knowledge on topic and convince others to vote with you.