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

I am a volunteer parent with over a year’s experience judging speech and debate events. I judge for a number of reasons, most importantly is that a seeing the skills and dedication students have for connecting community members and making society batter for all GIVES ME JOY AND HOPE!

In order for me to best judge events it helps me if students:

1. Speak slowly enough for people who may be unfamiliar with the subject vocabulary to follow what they are saying;
2. Project their voices and speak more loudly if they notice me leaning or cupping an ear toward them;
3. Are silent, still audience members; and,
4. Keep noise to a minimum in buildings where events are taking place.

In debates, as I do my best to follow the arguments, logic, supporting points, refutations, and how definitions and weighing mechanisms apply. When students explicitly indicate what points they are providing support or a critique for, and how they think their definitions and weighing mechanisms matter, it helps me be a better judge of these important factor.

Also, I recognize that critiquing and interrupting others, speaking loudly, dramatic gesturing, and heckling are all used in various debates, but I also pay close attention to any instances of people invading the personal space of others, yelling at or personally insulting their opponent, or otherwise not respecting the equal rights of all debaters, and I will ask coaches for guidance in how to judge what I think I have seen. I love the community I see among speech and debate teams!

I hope EVERY student feels proud and enjoys tournaments as I am impressed by the work and courage of EVERYONE participating. If students do not get the recognition they hoped for I encourage them to remember that judges such as me are not professionals and may make mistakes. That may be a reality we all have to accept, but if anything seems unfair please speak with a coach.

Best wishes and thank you for your consideration.

I'm a parent judge with over 4 years of congress experience. Here are a few things that I look for in a congress round

1. Keep the debate 2-sided, move the debate forward. I like it when you bring new points to the debate, please do not rehash
2. Everyone is responsible to keep the round efficient & smooth.
3. Respect is a must, make the round fun & enjoyable for everyone.
4. Show leadership by keeping the round efficient and being equitable

Hello, I am an associate professor in the Journalism dept. at Cal State Northridge. I have a Ph.D. in political sociology and mass communication so I can say I am knowledgeable about U.S. and global political and cultural affairs, so don't try to talk about issues unless you truly understand inside out. I've taught college level news reporting for more than 15 years and worked as a newspaper reporter so I favor concise logic, brevity, facts, objectivity, simple common sense instead of puffery, empty promises, pompous speech. Make your points simply so even the 4th graders can understand. Importantly, I strongly dislike spreading. If you're going to simply read your case like 100 mile per hour speed hyperventilating so no one can understand, what's the point of standing up? I am a big fan of BlackPink (Rose), by the way.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for the last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. A well-addressed bill agenda in the first speech is a critical start, and I value good first speeches on both sides if they address the core part of debating points. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I value students who participate actively in the debate with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

I’ve done mainly Parliamentary Debate and Public Forum all throughout High School.

I look for constructive arguments, Aff should be on topic, and I consider weighing mechanism

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

As always be kind and courteous to your opponents and be respectful.
And most importantly try to have fun.

I am an experienced parent judge, and I have been judging Congress for 4 years on all levels - district, league, state, national (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, ASU, Glen, MLK) - and seen some of the best kids in the circuit.

General: I value clash, round/audience engagement, presentation and referencing prior speakers. Do not give constructive speeches late in the round. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Keep questioning respectful and short - please do not preface.

Authors/Sponsors: explain the bill, why it works/solvency, what it does, why it’s needed. Authors can rank highly too! If there are final appeals, use this opportunity to summarize the round effectively.

POs: Be organized and know procedure! If there are elections, you should not be running unless you truly know your rules. I try to rank PO’s if you run a fast, fair, and effective chamber - PO’s don’t have to be perfect, but try your best not to mess up precedence and recency as it slows down the round.

Best of luck!

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

Clarity and Organization:

.Clear and Concise Communication.

.Articulate your argument logically and coherently.

.Speech has a clear structure with well defined points.

Argumentation:

.Well reasoned and supported arguments.

.Provide solid evidence and warranting to back up your claims.

.Explained concept for clarity.

Engagement with Opponent’s Arguments:

.Demonstrating an understanding of your opponent’s argument. .

Refute opposing points with logic and evidence.

.Acknowledge valid points made by opposition when applicable.

Cross-Examination:

.Both questioning and responding should be respectful and focused on substance and be respectful

.Use Cross-Examination to clarify and strengthen your argument.

Adaptability:

.Prepare to adjust your strategy based on your opponent’s case.

.Demonstrating Flexibility and responsiveness to flow of the debate.

Speaker Style:

.While speaking style is subjective and maintain professionalism.

.Clear and Strong Congress Voice.

.Non-verbal communication: body language and eye contact to enhance your presentation.

Hello!

I am currently a coach for Westridge and Speech and Debate institute (SDI).I AM NOT A DEBATER. During my time as a competitor, I focused on interp events. So, debate is not really my main thing. Actually, it's not even ONE of my things.

I believe in keeping debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive just keep it clear and respectful. I am not a huge fan of speed but if your style had moderate speed that is fine, within reason (do not spread),as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH. IMPLICATE YOUR IMPACTS/ RESPONSES!

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing Ks as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner).

Leland '24, UCSD '28

Hey y'all! I'm Steven Rapp, and you're probably looking at my paradigm because I'm judging you. I was a Speech and Debate competitor for three years in high school, and I'm now back to judge, mainly debate and Congress. I did Congress for two years, and went to basically every tournament on the West Coast for Congress, so I'm decently experienced

ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN! sbrapp@ucsd.edu

Judging Information:
Congress:
I think that first and foremost, Congress is a debate event. Hence, Congressional Debate. If your arguments make no sense, have little evidence supporting them, and are mostly conjecture, don't expect a high rank from me. Know your place in the round, the cycle that you speak in should determine the type of speech you're giving. I really don't want to hear a constructive in the fourth cycle, have some refutations! Every single debater in a round of Congress has the job of framing the round how it best suits their side. As an author or sponsor, that means doing some worldbuilding, how does your legislation actually solve the issue it plans to. Show me the solvency. As a crystal speaker, show me why your side of the debate is winning, what key arguments frame your side, and why should other members of Congress agree with you? If you're able to hold up in cross, ask good questions, and keep your points relevant in the round, I'll notice and rank you accordingly. If you stay silent and ask relatively few questions in cross, the same goes.

Presiding:

I have a nominal amount of experience presiding, and the main feedback I've ever gotten is to ensure your voice is heard. As long as you're able to efficiently and effectively run the chamber, your ranks will reflect as such. Presiding is a hard job. Stand up for yourself, be speedy, and you'll do well.

Lay Debates:
Lay debate is real debate. Please stop polluting my love with K's and unnecessary theory. I don't want to be judging a parli housing topic and hear set col or cap. If you read Baudrillard I will cry. Most importantly for lay debates overall. PLEASE CLASH. Do NOT debate past one another. Contest each other's arguments. If one side completely ignores the other, there is a 99% chance I'll be voting for the side that does their best to debate, not ignoring their opponents claims.

Parli:
Please stay topical. I know it can be very hard with some of the topics y'all get, but stay at least somewhat relevant. If there's a massive grounds abuse, I will listen to theory, but I'll only evaluate it if you tell me to. Explain why it's important. I feel like the main thing that every debater forgets is that judges aren't mindreaders. A link that might make perfect sense on your flow might come out jumbled when you say it. I can't figure out what you're saying without good signposting and a solid link story.

Name: Priti Singh

Pronouns: she/her/hers

General Information: Please keep in mind that I am not a flow judge, so I may not remember every single argument you bring up during rounds! I will listen to CX, but I won't take the information/empirics shared in CX into account while deciding who wins. However, if anyone is disrespectful or blatantly rude during CX - I will deduct speaker points.

Along with what you present, how you present is equally important - clarity, pace and posture count.

reminder: PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will just assume your opponent cannot either.

I am a debate parent. I always do my best to be fair. I appreciate a well-articulated speech with understandable speed, well organization, logic flow of framework, qualitive evidence supporting the arguments, and good delivery with adequate body gesture and audience communication. Crossfire plays a role too but being assertive not aggressive is very important. I look forward to a respectful, thoughtful and meaningful debate.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for a couple of years but have a long history of participating and winning speech and debate tournaments.

I value calm cogent coherent arguments over bombastic and aggressive harangue.

Be kind - to yourself and to your opponents.

Be yourself. 

Be the best person you can be.

Be respectful.

Ad hominem arguments are an immediate fail in my book.

I take a dim view of spreading; if I can't understand you, evidently you can't convince me of the soundness of your arguments.

If you are not clear or understandable, I'll call out "Clear!" Please heed it.  I will not be repeating the call more than twice. 

Time: I expect the candidates to time themselves and honor it. But I do keep watch.

If you are using frameworks, define them clearly at the outset.

I appreciate good rebuttals and cross examinations.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun.

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.