I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023. I have recently moved to Nevada.

I have judged IEs for 26 years.

I have judged Congress for 23 years.

I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 20 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.

I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.

Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.

As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.

I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.

Hale, David

Instructor at California State University Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles College 
Assistant Director of Forensics at La Canada High School (La Canada) since 2014
Assistant Director of Forensics at East Los Angeles College (Los Angeles) since 2014
Coach at Nova42 & Wilshire Academy (Los Angeles) since 2012


Experience
I primarily competed in the realm of interpretation (8 years). However, as a coach my focus has expanded into platform, limited prep, as well as debate (2009 - present). In my time as a debate coach I have had several PuFo teams place at middle school nats. Outside of the activity of speech and debate I have obtained a B.A. and M.A. in Communication Studies. In terms of fields of study I have narrowed my areas of specialization to Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Performance Studies. 

General Paradigm
I am a firm believer in the perspective that argumentation is part logic, rhetoric, and dialectic. Specifically I will take into consideration; the logic of the cases presented, whether or not you assessed the available means to persuade me, and lastly if you have attempted to advance the argument by sussing out the most relevant issues. That being said, it is your round and I will do my best to let you determine how you wish me to judge the round -- with the exception of any procedural errors. 

Speed/Delivery
In terms of speed I am mildly competent, on a scale of 1-10 I would say my skill is a 6. With regards to delivery, I tend to evaluate what is communicated through the rubric of delivery, arrangement, invention, memory, and style. (If you are unfamiliar with Neo-Aristotelian theory feel free to ask me in round)

Speaker Points
I'll quote from another paradigm that I think best states my view "I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 30 points, second best, 29.5 points, third, 29, and worst, 28.5. I will only give you below a 28.5 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action during the round. I will also deduct an entire point if you are not flowing the majority of the time that you should be. The trend to stop flowing because you are looking at a document (that, mind you, the judge can't see) is gradually excluding us from the rounds....plus, it is creating debates that are more shallow and debaters who think they are "too good" to practice sound debate skills. FLOW THE ROUND." (Megan West)

Technology
Have at it, just make it quick. I won't be forgiving of technological failures.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.