Talk slow, don’t use jargon, keep it simple and focus on conveying your arguments. Try to talk to me as much as you can, act as if you're teaching me about the subject, don't merely read your case/flow. No need to send me any documents. I don't respect arguments that catastrophize or claim that everyone will die unless you have very strong reasoning and evidence, all of which is articulated.

I am a lay judge/parent.In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. More contentions does not mean better contentions, make me understand your definitions, weighing mechanism and why your speeches show you win the debate. It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.Tell me why you have the winning case

I have been judging for over 3 years, absolutely love it and I take it seriously. I just ask that you bring out your best. I prefer that students do not speak too fast when debating. No “SpReading” please. Looking forward to judging for all of you!

I am familiar with all forms of debate and have a particular interest in LD, Public Forum and Parli. I debated on the national circuit in college and have been coaching for almost 10 years. I am fine with speed, as long as I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not a fan of extreme spreading and do not think it is a skill set that benefits competitive debate, nor is it a skill set that I believe will help students in their future lives. I am familiar with all forms of arguments, theory, etc. I am open to all of them as long as they are well articulated. To be honest I am not a fan of kritiks based on semantics.

I most greatly appreciate debate that uses logic and sound reasoning supported by relevant and credible sources. In LD make sure you are supporting your value and criterion with the rest of your case. I find it disappointing when a debater presents their value/criterion and then almost never references them again throughout the debate; novice mistake!

I believe I evaluate every round with fairness and expectations deserving of the division you are entered (novice/JV/open). Do not make up facts and/or evidence. If I feel like you present false evidence intentionally I will inform Tabroom and urge them to punish you accordingly. I definitely will increase speaker points for those who speak with respectful conviction and enthusiasm. If you sound bored, I will be twice as bored. I do not award wins to those who speak "pretty" just because they speak "pretty". I will increase your speaker points but I award wins based overwhelmingly on the logic and comparative analysis you offer.

Email chain and questions: gerbiesean@gmail.com

About me: DMHS 21'; UCSD 26'. Pronouns are he/him. I debated policy all four years of high school. 2ac/1nc.

General: Tech > Truth but truth frames how I should evaluate arguments. Debate is a game but not JUST a game. The team that sets up a framework for how and why I should evaluate impacts often gets my ballot. Read whatever you want. Sometimes I vote on presumption.
Spreading: Feel free to spread, but at least be clear about it and whenever you move on, always say "next/and" and have a different voice between the tag and the warrant. If you sacrifice speed over clarity, I'll dock speaker points. Also, it is up to you to make sure I heard an argument clearly, otherwise, don't blame me for not flowing it.

T/Theory: I like a good T debate, theory is also nice to judge if you flesh it out.

DA/CP: Impact calc. Do the link work. Case turns + timeframes. Make your scenario clear. UQ overwhelms the link makes me happy.

K: I almost always went for capitalism. Don't assume I'm familiar with your lit. Contextualize your explanations. Aff gets to weigh the plan. Have specific links.

K affs: Explain what the aff does.

Framework: Win why your impacts outweigh. Education impacts > fairness impacts.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

I have been involved in forensics since 2019, first as a competitor and now as a coach. My main focus has always been public forum but I am well experienced in judging and overall consuming all forms of debate. Put simply even with that said I prefer to be treated as a lay judge; I like explanations, I like consumable argumentation, and I hate spreading. With that said one thing I will accept is very "techy" approaches that the average lay judge may not pick up on, most notably Ks. With that said in each form of debate I expect you to be able to relate your arguments to the natural conditions of a win within your round that being a frame work, value, or simple Cost/Benefit analysis. Over all I'm here for the spirit of debate and only have 3 rules: be respectful, try your hardest, and do not spread.

I am a lay judge and a parent. I am primarily looking for arguments that are well structured, supported and presented in a clear and understandable manner. Feedback I often give is to slow down while you are speaking. If the information is presented so quickly that I can’t catch it all, you can’t get credit for it. I also encourage you to be professional and treat your opponents with respect.

I am a parent judge who is passionate about speech & debate. I personally feel the ability to address an audience & eloquence is a great skillset for anyone to have in their professional life. So to me material, delivery and logic to support the facts are important. Maintain eye contact with audience, smile even if you disagree, be respectful, speak clearly and dont just state facts (use facts to convey your point). And most importantly - have fun.

Hello,

I am a parent judge and have judging experience. My preferences are as follows:

Debate:

Speaking:

Do: I am comfortable with slang terms. Speak clearly and comfortably. I generally don't care about speed as long as it's clear and understandable.

Don't: Speak extremely fast(spread).On the topic of speed, spreading is an easy way to lose me and also an easy way to lose the round and/or speaker points. In my experience, someone who spreads is trying to hide something in their case. A debate isn't a "who can speak faster" contest. I want to see who has the better arguments and understanding of the resolution. I understand that a debate can get heated(which I'm fine with), but don't get overly aggressive. There's a difference between taking a stance and attacking your opponent.

Content:

Do: Give me a clear outline of your points. Don't assume I know when you're moving on to a new point. Off-time roadmaps are fine and help me follow along, just don't make them super long, and don't bring up arguments in the roadmap. I weigh heavily on rebuttals and clashes, so make sure those are good. Cross-examination will most likely not be a big part of my decision, but it's a good area to earn extra speaker points(Ask good questions and have good responses).

Don't: Faking evidence is not acceptable. Don't go over the allotted prep time or the speech time+grace period. If someone asks for a piece of evidence I want to see you guys look at it during your prep time. I'm not a big fan of sharing a piece of evidence through email because there is a lot of room for problems and errors, but if that's what both sides are comfortable with then go for it. If you refuse to show a piece of evidence, I will take it as you have no evidence, and could lead to you losing the round. I am also heavily against using duplicate cases. I see duplicate cases as plagiarism. So, if I watch a round and a few rounds after someone has an identical case, it will be judged heavily against. I take duplicate cases as a sign that you didn't want to put in the effort to create a case with your own creativity. I also think it's unfair to have an entire debate team work on one case that they all use and then go against someone who actually put in the effort to create an original and unique case. A duplicate case won't result in an automatic loss, but you would really need to show me that you can put your own thoughts and interpretation into a duplicate case.

Speech:

Platform: In a platform speech you have the freedom to talk about basically anything. Thus, in the majority of platform speeches, I want to see some sort of advocacy. I also weigh heavily on humor, I think humor is a good way to lighten a heavy topic and can also help keep the audience engaged. Don't plagiarise and make sure to be creative.

Interp: I understand people can be limited on interps, but I still want to see some form of advocacy in your speech. However, an opt-out of advocacy could be a really funny interp. Typically the highest-ranking interps are the ones that have a good advocacy and have some light(or dark) humor.

Spontaneous: For impromptu, I like to see creative points. I see that the most successful impromptu speeches are the ones that just talk about what's on their mind(while still related to the topic). I'm not the biggest fan of making long stretches(ex. connecting football to US economic problems), but a good connection can lead to a higher ranking. Let loose on jokes. I think Impromptu is one of those events that really allows you to make the audience laugh. For extemp(both IX and NX) I enjoy a speech that has 3 really strong points that convince me to believe your answer/interpretation of the question. Jokes are also really useful in extemp.

I was on the speech and debate team when I was in high school. I've also been judging for the league for the last 3 years. I prefer when debaters make strong points spoken with clarity and emphasis over a huge amount of facts spoken so quickly that it is hard to even comprehend the stats and figures given. I keep track of the points made and expect points that are made by one side to be re-butted by the other side. I really enjoy seeing good logic and creative solutions used in both presenting an argument and re-butting an argument of an opponent.

The one major thing that I despise, is when one team is making their argument and the other team is having a full volume conversation, or clicking a pen, or tapping, or making other distractions. It is rude. I understand that a team should be strategizing while another team is presenting, but it should be done at a whisper. Don't be rude. :-)

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

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.

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

This is geared to Parli debaters...

I'm a debater's parent, but I like and respect arguments. I have watched a lot of rounds and PRs, and learned/read/thought about parli more than the average lay parent (as far as I can tell).

Reach an agreement among the teams on how you will indicate a POI.

How to win:

Talk to me calmly and logically. Debate is about persuasion, convince me. I won’t flow past your time, but I won’t stop you. I do my best to protect the flow, but please call the POO.

Use clear and compelling arguments with links to important impacts.

Off Time Roadmap and introductions preferred.

Define relevant terms to frame the debate and enhance clash, you don’t need to tell me that bigger means larger.

Signpost.

Impact.

Weigh.

Email: kyalin@berkeley.edu

I'm a former LD debater and current parli debater for Berkeley (PDB). Important note - Even though I have my preferences, I am strongly against judge intervention and will limit it as best I can. I will vote for anything on the flow. Go crazy, have fun, but play nice. ദ്ദി（• ˕ •マ.ᐟ

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General

1. Speed is fine as long as you're clear (but please actually be clear)

2. Arguments need to be extended to be evaluated. Shadow extensions are new buuuut I'm not terribly strict... My threshold for extensions is pretty low, but it always helps to be specific. :)

3. Terminalize your impacts for me to vote on them (that means death, dehum, QoL, etc. and not GDP, democracy, corruption, etc.). I will always prefer a more terminalized impact to a nonterminalized one.

4. Not too big a fan of blippier arguments, but if they're sufficiently warranted and weighed I'll still vote on them.

5. Good clash pls x3. Also collapse pls x5. Also weigh pls x7.

6. I enjoy fun arguments if the context is appropriate! Dedev, impact turns, tricks are all cool as long as you explain them well in round. Note though that because I do not run these often and you’d really have to explain them legitimately well, it’s always safest to read case or Ks in front of me.

7. Overall preference: case>K>theory

8. I'll try to protect the flow but call the POO still

9. Idc about FW unless you properly utilize your FW and implicate it to impacts. I'm not going to do the extrapolation myself, so you need to show me why it matters please!!!!

10. Your best bet is to make this easy for me. Implicate your arguments clearly. Tell me which sheet to evaluate first. Friendly reminder from 3 points ago that collapsing and weighing is extremely important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifics

Case & Counterplans

Love this, totally chill. Any CP is fine until told otherwise by theory. Perms are tests of competition. Aff has the burden of proving that the plan is actually good and more preferable than the cp, and if they fail to meet that burden I presume neg. Fiat is durable.

--------

Kritiks

Yay I love Ks. Still, your best bet is to assume I know literally nothing about your K and explain it in a way that is comprehensible to the average person. Win your topic harms/links though.

---------

Theory

Can be fun and am down to vote on it, but not keen on abusive friv T. I’m also not a theory debater so just make sure you’re clear on why you’re winning. Theory can be fun except when used abusively against inexperienced teams, which I'm not a fan of. Please, do not make me vote on friv T unless it's an elim round or against a familiar team or something. Also if you run theory in front of clearly inexperienced debaters, even if you win, I will dock your speaks. I will also fill in the blanks for teams who respond to theory without clear structure. Probably best to steer away from this around me unless it's an interesting interp in which case I will be intrigued and that is probably a good sign lol.

---

Coooolllll gl hf

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.

Ten other things:

1. I did 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years NPTE/NPDA style parli in college. I was okay, but forgettable.

2. Speed is good but not everybody is fast. Don't exclude your opponent though because I WILL vote on a well-articulated speed position if there is genuine abuse.I am also pretty rusty. I haven't been in debate for a few years, so don't start full speed.

3. I ran the K half of the time in my own rounds but I preferred reading the K all of the time. I am down to clown.

4. If you read a K on the aff make sure you justify your framework, explain why there isn't a TVA, or read a criticism that is in the same direction of the resolution. I don't assume that policy making is the default framework for the debate. Everybody needs to be able to justify their frameworks, not just "critical" teams.

5. I love uniqueness debates. Your link is way less compelling if you don't have control of the direction of uniqueness.

6. Being overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise violent is a voting issue, not just a speaker point issue.

7. Read interps/counter-interps, plan texts, counterplan texts, AND/OR alternatives slowly and twice. Seriously, if you want to leverage the exact wording of your interp or text, you NEED to read it twice or provide me a copy or deal with the fact that I am writing it down as you are giving a speech.

8. I value creativity. If you have a strategy you have always wanted to try but never knew if the judge was down, I am down.

9. I have almost no hard opinions on what is legitimate in debate. That means that I am down to listen to most theory arguments. You do still need to actually win them though. I default to competing interps. I also take the wording of interpretations pretty seriously so make sure that the interp actually says what you want it to. This is also another reason to make sure I get your interp down as accurately as possible.

10. Terminal defense wins, but terminal solvency defense does not (often). A "we meet" makes theory go away, a no link makes a disad/K go away (assuming you win it); "The plan doesn't solve" needs to be coupled with some offense reason to reject the position.

Hello! My name is Eliza Noblejas. My pronouns are she/her. And I'm former competitor from the SDIVSL.

For Debate rounds I will judge based on:

(1) Speech delivery. Ultimately, speak at a rate that you are comfortable with. I will flow throughout the round, so hearing the arguments would be helpful. From this, I prefer if debaters do not spread. However if this is your delivery, please notify the judges and other team beforehand.

(2) Evidence. I believe that through Speech and Debate, it is an educational opportunity that allows for students to learn about topics they were not familiar beforehand. So providing relevant and accurate evidence is a necessary to make a good argument.

(3) Topicality. Make sure the debate is specific towards the resolution and isn't based on another topic that isn't related. The debate can get confusing very quickly for both judges and opponents, if a case is not related to the actual resolution.

(4) Clash. I prefer when debaters are able to clash each of their contentions with the other team's case. It allows us to see the difference and weigh each point, to see why one is more important than another.

(5) Voter Issues. When both teams are solid and have concrete and make clear arguments, voter issues are key to see which team outweighs and has more reasons to vote on. This doesn't mean making hundreds of reasons why judges should vote for your team, rather carry out the arguments that haven't been knocked down and sell it to the judges why it's important to vote for your team for this reason.

Last but not least, have fun during the round! While it's a competition, this is also a learning opportunity. Hold a positive attitude and remember Speech and Debate isn't just about rounds, but also meeting new people and making long-lasting memories!~

Hi debaters! I'm a parent to a parli medalist, but a completely new judge, so I look forward to hearing you all compete!

Remember that debate isn't only an argument, but a performance. Be engaging. Persuade me. Talk to me, not at me. Please refrain from talking at a speed that is too fast (spreading, etc).

I wish you all luck!

I will judge how clear and effective your argument is communicated and defended. Good luck!

Intro

Stockdale '22
SDSU '27

email:ruiz.tyler.sagadraca@gmail.com

pronouns - he/him/his

Notes

Debated 4 yours of policy debate in high school with a bit of experience in circuit. I'm not entirely familiar with procedures of LD or PF so reminders about who's speech it is and signposts are appreciated. As for the round itself I'm strict on prep time but if you need a few extra seconds sorting through papers before you start then I won't dock you any time. I won't discourage spreading, but please ensure that a) Everyone in the round has a copy of your cards, and/or b) you are clear and concise enough to follow along with little to no aid from the aforementioned cards.

More clash=Higher speaks Don't just talk about your cards, be as critical about your arguments as you are about their arguments and vice versa.

Keep me interested Be passionate and emphatic about your case. A well-crafted argument can be lost in a long monotone drone. Have fun with it, feel free to make jokes or references related to the speech. (bonus points if you can make a deep cut Star Wars reference)

Be respectful Should be obvious but unfortunately needs to be said. Everyone in the room deserves to be respected and deserves the respect of others. Your opponent and judge is also your peer

Hello, I'm Fang Sheng. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Please adjust your prep accordingly. I will focus on arguments that have clear logic and strong supporting evidence. I won’t evaluate anything I don’t understand, so please explain your arguments clearly. I value clarity over speed and respect over rudeness during the debate.

Hi Everyone -

Debate in a way that makes you feel comfortable and competitive, but don't be rude/don't bully; it's uncomfortable for everyone involved.

Experience: I participated in Public Forum in high school. In college, I participated in Parliamentary debate for Point Loma Nazarene University, and I competed at nationals every year. I was a coach and Assistant Director of Forensics for PLNU's debate team. Currently, I am a high school English teacher.

Read "important" arguments twice or give me a text - ROB, Alt, Plan text, Interps, especially. Call points of order. Rebuttals are extremely important: use those speeches to tell me how you won on the flow, and emphasize the significance of your arguments (don't make me do work pls).

Theory, Procedurals: Run them. Debate however you want. But if you want me to vote for theory or procedurals you have to make them significant to the round and still win on the flow.

Critical Debate: I like Kritiks, I'm not going to pretend I know everything though so it's always to your advantage to explain yourself, and again, win on the flow. Be clever, be creative, etc., but err on the side of caution and try to at least contextualize non-topical affirmatives; prove to me your solvency, etc.

Speed - Just be clear; I don't expect you to go slowly, but if you make the round unnecessarily fast just to exclude your opponents be ready for a speed procedural or make sure you aren't rude/a bully. I guess I'll call speed if I need to.

Contact: If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me at julshot3@gmail.com. Or just ask me questions before the round.

Have fun!

While I understand that you each have important things to say, the audience must be able to understand what you are saying. I definitely want to hear and understand what you’re saying. Spread as you like, but please remember that your objective is to communicate. Bottom line, I will only be able to flow what I can understand.

Please refrain from abusive debate. It is rude and will not serve you well.

Hello! I’m Sunila, an IT professional with extensive experience in Healthcare IT operations and database solution deployments.

As a debate judge, I value clear and structured speeches. Please start with an outline or breakdown before diving into your arguments.

Important notes for speakers:

• No spreading. Speak at a moderate pace, if possible give a offtime breakdown before your speech.
• I vote for the team that presents the most compelling case, supported by meaningful reasoning backed by strong evidence, examples, and statistics.
• I appreciate critical thinking, collaboration, and effective refutations grounded in relevant reasoning.

Delivery tips:

• Use an appropriate tone, volume, pace, and gestures to effectively convey your message.
• Minimize filler words, hesitations, and distractions.
• Add a touch of humor, show confidence, and bring charisma to your speech—leave a lasting impression!

Looking forward to hearing your arguments! Good Luck!

As a second-year forensics coach, I am still very much a lay judge. I have judged all forms of debate at the local level as well as Congress at Nationals.

I am looking for solid argumentation, clear impacts, and effective clash.

Please no theory or spreading.

I like slow to moderate pace speaking and well thought out arguments. Refute on a key point basis. I appreciate sign posting and off time roadmaps are highly encouraged.