my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

Please no spreading. I am a lay judge even though In high school I did Parli and PF. I mostly want the debaters to have a good time! So please have fun.

As a debater with three years of experience, having participated in public forum, CARD, IPDA, and some speech at CSU Northridge, I prefer a debate style where people avoid speaking extremely fast. I value clarity and the ability to engage with the arguments, rather than rushing through content. I appreciate when debaters get passionate and have fun with their speeches because I believe it enhances the intellectual and persuasive power of debate. For me, debate should be a space where ideas are communicated effectively and where both participants and judges can follow and enjoy the discourse.

WSDC asks us to debate on balance and engage with the essential clash of the motion directly. I want to see teams making solid impact analysis and taking the other team's highest ground on directly, while demonstrating to me that they would still prefer their world given a best case scenario outcome on both sides. I also would encourage you all to summarize the debate by the third and reply and give me clash categories / big picture themes. This will help me (and all of your judges) make a clearer decision and process the information of the debate more easily. A judge will find it easier to vote your your side if you make it easy for them to do so by giving the judge what is essentially RFD in your impact analysis and weighing.

I have experience debating in Worlds in high school and British Parliamentary in undergrad and coach a Worlds team currently.

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!

Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

Graduated from CSULB

Preferences-

I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances, I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)

I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, or any offensive arguments so don’t try it. If you do, I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.

Onto specific arguments

T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah etc I love it when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.

Kritiks- I love Kritiks, especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ Give me an actual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same with Kritiks on the negative but just give me clear links and reasons I should prefer.

Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer kritiks.

DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.

CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outweighs. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.

More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to emphasize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absolutely love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).

The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.

That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!

P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker!

.

Thank you for looking at the paradigm and taking debate seriously. I'm a former World School Debater but did learn some policy a couple years ago. When debating please be clear with permutations using the specific language to indicate turns and such. I will take into account some questions in cross-ex that concern the cases but please take your time to answer the questions – I do not count long pauses as a points for winning. I don't have a preference for what y'all run but please clash. Please speak clearly and stay topical. I do give points for speaker style: you just have to be clear and use voice inflection. Please time your speeches for yourself however I will time prep-time. My scoring will be a bit off so don't be surprised of high scores. I'm not the biggest policy person so please accommodate for that. Good luck >:3

email: mmarc053106@gmail.com

My debate background is in IPDA, but I am familiar with other formats. I like to see all types of arguments, but I dislike when the focus of the round shifts away from the main point and the debate becomes centered on semantics and rules. My general philosophy is just stick with the spirit of debate. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Hello Debaters,

My name is Heather Platon, a graduate from CSUN and former debater and speech competitor for Impromptu and Extemporaneous speeches I have experience in IPDA, Public Forum and CARD debate and have an intermediate experience in judging policy debate.

While I can understand policy forms of debate,(speed reading, spreading) I do want to emphasize the persuasive power of annunciation and clear speaking and reading. Please remember this for speaker points. It is definitely possible to have clear annunciation and spread.

This will not affect my decision in a winner but will affect speaker points.

I appreciate a good use of Cross Examination and line by line in your speeches, If your opponents offer a framework that framework must absolutely allow for a proper debate round or will be apart of your argument to contest it or challenge it.

Overall my decision will be definitive at the end of the debate, so use all speeches effectively. You must warrant and use logic and reasoning for your arguments and impacts do not assume I am adequately convinced just because you stated something, you must also be convincing.

I like arguments appealing to structural violence over existential impacts, if you do use this please again use logic and reasoning.

I am a parent of a competitor who has been involved in both speech and debate for the past 9 years and have been a judge for all types of events on multiple levels and circuits. I have seen it all, and neither appreciate excessive pandering to us judges nor losing sight of who your audience is, especially in your speeches. Shaking my hand after the round, while appreciated, will ultimately not impact my scoring, just as trying to make me laugh with a reference I don't understand will not help your chances (depending on the event). I always look to judge a round with utmost fairness and recognize the most deserving and prepared competitors for their hard work. I wish the best of luck to each of you and an enriching learning experience.

I am the Assistant Debate Coach for Notre Dame High School in charge of World School Debate and IPPF (essay writing form of debate). I have extensive public speaking experience, presenting at multiple conferences in front of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people.

I competed in Policy Debate for 3 years in high school at Notre Dame, so my biases tend towards the quality of arguments. As such, most rounds will be won for me in Content, and sometimes in Strategy. Although I will grade Style as an important factor, there is almost no world where a team will win a World School debate round based on Style as the primary factor. Good speaking habits, flow, inflection, and use of creative language can only help you, but it will not determine the round for me. That will be decided primarily on Content and how you address the primary issues of the debate.

Although some judges may frown upon a framework debate (definitions, models, values, burdens, etc.), I welcome them. Give me the framework by which I should judge the round, give me a reason to prefer your overall framework/definitions/values/burdens, and most importantly, explicitly "connect the dots" and explain how you meet those burdens better than the other team. Even if you agree on burdens and definitions, you must still explain how you meet these burdens better than your opponents. Failing to do this (primarily in the 3rd and reply speeches, but can be helpful to begin this discussion as early as the 2nd speech) and leaving it up to me to connect the dots will cost you both Content and Strategy points in your speaker scores, and could lead to some flukey results when I'm left to determine how best to judge the round.

On framework: if you offer a "hard" model as the Prop, you need to make sure it's "topical" and fully meets the motion of the round. I think very few World School debates (especially for impromptu motions) specifically call for or need a "hard" model. This isn't policy debate. I'm willing to grant you a decent amount of leniency on the mechanism(s) for achieving the world of the motion, so a "soft" model will help you. But if you paint yourself into a corner with a "hard" model or "plan," and it doesn't fully meet the motion's requirements, I'm open to hearing that debate from the Opp if they call you out on it.

Additionally, I will apply a reasonable sense of “reality” when judging the debate. In other words, if you make a factually untrue argument or give an blatantly false or mischaracterized example, it’s not gonna hold a lot of water with me, regardless of whether or not the other team calls it out. That said, I will refrain as much as possible from applying any of my own personal opinions or values in the debate. That’s up to you to shape, but be careful about crossing any ethical lines that could be considered disparaging to another group.

On that note, "sportsmanship" is very important to me. Respect the competition, respect your teammates, and respect your opponents. Shake hands, congratulate people, and do not use disparaging language towards any person or group. If you do so, I will absolutely make a note of it in my RFD and you will likely lose speaker points. This is a bare minimum expectation.

That said, debate doesn’t need to be a “stuffy” activity. Feel free to smile, crack a joke, try to make me laugh. The best speeches are the ones that you enjoy delivering and people delight in having heard. At the end of the day, HAVE FUN!

Finally, my RFD notes are typically short. I prefer to give my decision directly to debaters after the round, offer individual notes and feedback, and break down why I came to the conclusion I did. This can take maybe 5-15 minutes, but this is where people can learn and grow the most. I know people are anxious to leave after a debate, but please take the time to learn and respect what I have to say for a few minutes after I listened to you and your team for an hour. I'm an open book, so take the opportunity to ask me questions, request feedback, and I'll do all I can to help.

Best of luck, Debaters!