Tabroom.com

CSU Fullerton High School Invitational

2015 — CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ethan Adams Salem Hills High School 6 rounds

Mary Aimone Servite 2 rounds

Dakota Allen Polytechnic School 2 rounds

Glenn Ames Chaminade College Preparatory 5 rounds

Daniel Bae Ad Infinitum 4 rounds

Laurel Barham Spanish Fork High School 6 rounds

Bill Bartels La Reina High School 7 rounds

Joe Bisgaard St. Vincent De Paul High School

Last changed on Tue November 7, 2017 at 4:15 AM PDT

Updated 11/6/2017

St. Vincent de Paul HS '17

Santa Rosa Junior College

3 Years Policy debate experience in High School, First year debating Parli on the college level.

Preface

If you only take away one thing from my judging philosophy, it should be that I will attempt to be as Tabula Rosa as humanly possible. I will come into the round with the belief that any argument can be legitimate if it has warrants behind it, and equally that it is the burden of the other team to prove abuse in the round.

I will flow your round, and will vote on the flow in my RFD. I am also happy to give you my flows at the end of the round if you ask for them.

Jokes and sass, if done well, will earn you higher speaks.

How I Will Evaluate Your Round

*Modeled after Adam Martin's evaluation philosophy

I will try to stick to the most objective judging rubric I can, and this section should help to clear up any controversies or questions about my evaluations. I will admit that some of this is pretty obvious, but it's nice to have a rubric so we can all be on the same page.

1. I will evaluate framework at the top of the debate. If it's a policy vs policy round, I will skip this step. Otherwise, the winning framework of the debate will determine what types of advocacy I will evaluate. This could manifest as me determining if the aff gets to weigh the advantages of the K vs case or vice versa, but could also extend to questions like "Are floating PIKS legitimate?".

2. I then determine what voting aff/neg means in regards to that framework. In general, voting for a particular team is an endorsement of their advocacy - judged on policy, kritikal, and/or rhetorical impacts.

3. I will then compile a list of all the impacts in the round

4. I then will attempt to figure out what impacts each team solves - constituted through aff advantages, case turns, link and internal link turns, straight turns, etc.

5. This usually produces a winning team, but after I have a preliminary vote in mind, I will refer back to the flow to determine if the "losing team" had any arguments that complicate my original decision.

6. I then submit my ballot and give my RFD.

Misc Points About My Evaluation

I will flow your entire round, and if something is not on my flow, I wont feel comfortable voting on it.

Until an argument is made to the contrary, I will think of voting for an advocacy signifies that I believe that advocacy is a good thing, not necessarily that the advocacy actually happens post-RFD.

Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the MG says reasonability on one topicality violation and the neg goes for another one, the PMR can cross apply it legitimately. However, there should still be a warrant behind all of the claims you are trying to make.

Framework

I really like good framework debate, I think it should be an integral part in almost every round. Warrants, impacts, and clash are a must when there are competing interpretations of framework. I will not have an inherent bias towards either side of the framework debate, and would happily vote for both "K is a prior question to the aff" or just as easily for "all kritiks are cheating".

Fairness is not an inherent good, impact it out.

Topicality/Procedural

Generally speaking, I have the highest threshold for voting on topicality or other procedural arguments. If you want me to throw away the rest of my flows because topicality is an Apriori issue, you should be collapsing to your procedural and have clearly articulated to me the abuse in the round, coupled with the impact to that abuse and why it should be a Apriori. If this isn't clear to me, I will have trouble holding topicality as an inherently bigger impact than anything else.

If there is not clearly articulated abuse - I will probably err on the side of Reasonability

Kritiks

I personally have been reading kritiks on the both the aff and the neg for all 4 years of my debate career. This does not mean, however, that I will give any more legitimacy to a kritik than any other argument. If you are going to read a kritik with me in the back of the room, you should be well versed in the literature that youre reading and also should understand how to properly execute that kritik in the round. I am familiar with most of the kritik literature that's being read on the circuit right now, but you shouldn't assume that I will have heard your specific thesis or how you're choosing to interpret Foucault this round. For links, if you are going to go for "They used the state so they're capitalists", you should also have supplemental case-specific links. For both teams, don't forget the framework debate. Clash is super important. Don't forget to impact out the parts of framework you're winning. If you're neg, and the aff doesn't have strong reasons why fiat is good - you should tell me why they don't get to weigh their advantages. If you're aff, don't forget that you have an affirmative and think it's a good idea - kritik debates often try to shift away from the case entirely, and they often forget to answer the case sufficiently.

I'm cool with K affs just do it well.

Disads

I don't really have much to say here. Read them, win on them. I like case specific disads that turn the case on a deeper level.

Counterplans

I have no predispositions to any counterplans. I will vote on the shiftiest counterplan you can think of or a very legit advantage CP. Don't just perm the CP with "do both" unless there you have good warrants about why there's no mutual exclusivity, most often you should be explaining the net benefits to the perm with articulated warrants.

Case

Every good negative strategy spends a good amount of time engaging with the case. This is true no matter what style of round it is. I like seeing case-specific clash from both sides. For the negative, strong case turns and good solvency deficits or internal link takeouts will help earn you an easy ballot. For the affirmative, don't forget to extend your case and capitalize on everything you're winning.

Carol Blakistone San Dieguito Academy 2 rounds

Gabael Botello Hire

Randy Brown Claremont High School 6 rounds None

Soshi Buge Immaculate Heart High School 2 rounds

Robert Buscho Polytechnic School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 30, 2023 at 9:30 AM PDT

1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

Brian Cabrera Hire 2 rounds None

Mark Chagnon San Dieguito Academy None

Dave Chamberlain Claremont High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Winston Chang De Toledo High School 4 rounds None

Vikas Chauhan Granada Hills High 8 rounds

Dipti Chutke La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Samuel Leandre Cimeni Hire 6 rounds

Leah Clark-Villanueva Hire

Last changed on Fri October 8, 2021 at 1:08 PM PDT

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

How I Evaluate & Structure Arguments:

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

[Online Debates]

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

pre-pandemic paradigm particularities

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Lexi Conrad Immaculate Heart High School 4 rounds None

Matt Conrad Hire

James Coster Elite of Irvine 8 rounds

Cory Cunanan Granada Hills High 8 rounds None

Chris Daden Los Osos HS 6 rounds None

Delilah Dooley Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds None

Ramesh Doraiswamy Carlsbad High School 5 rounds None

Daniela Elizondo Immaculate Heart High School None

Nabeel Faisal Hire 6 rounds

Rosalyn Foster Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 6:39 AM PDT

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Karen Franke La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Jaimie Franklin Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2015 at 5:44 AM PDT

Hi debaters!

Some background on me: I was a policy debater at Pepperdine from 2006 to 2010 and was Pepperdine's debate graduate assistant through 2011. I did LD in high school. As a debater my arguments were primarily focused on feminist, critical, and cultural studies. I have been out of the debate game since I left school in 2011. I do not have any experience judging the current topic and am unfamiliar with the topic's core literature.

My Preferences

Aff
Traditional affs (defending the topic): I love to see cases with strong and specific internal links. I appreciate creative impacts that go beyond the traditional "extinction" scenarios.

Critical affs (not defending or kritiking the topic): I still like to see some specific link to the topic and why its bad. It's important to establish a framework for how I should evaluate the debate.

Neg
I prefer to see neg strategies that are cohesive rather than running arguments that conflict or even link to each other and then kicking them later. I like specific rather than generic links to the aff plan. I tend to think of Kritiks as DAs with a CP - so its important to have links, impacts, and a solid alternative. However, an alternative or CP is unneccessary for the neg to win the debate - I just need to see a net negative of the Aff plan. But on a personal level, I always prefer to vote for something (i.e. a CP or alternative) rather than no plan at all.

Framework
My default evaluation method in debates with no framework debate is impact analysis. I tend to value probability and specific link scenarios over scale of impacts. This means that I am more inclined to vote for a plan or counterplan that avoids human suffering happening in the near future, rather than an improbable extinction scenario that could happen many years in the future. So reading some evidence on the likelihood of your impact scenario will help you more than telling me how many billions of people could die.

If you would like me to evaluate the debate in a different way, you should establish a framework debate.

Theory
Not my favorite, primarily because in most cases debaters just read a block from their backfiles without any analysis. I prefer one or two strong, specific arguments to ten arguments made without any analysis. I've never voted on theory so if you plan to win on it, I may not be the best judge for you.

Speed
I havent seen a debate round since 2012, so keep that in mind. I personally believe that you shouldn't sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are able to speak clearly and quickly, full speed ahead.

Anthony Gomez Hire

Armando Gonzalez Hire

Salihah Gray Granada Hills High 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM EDT

Affiliations: Granada Hills Charter HS

I debated at Granada for 3 years. Granada is probably as traditional as it gets, however, I am one of the few that is not. With that being said, everything I learned is from sources outside of school so I might not be able to follow the most outlandish arguments (this has yet to happen, and it’s likely that I’ll pick up on the newest of trends if its explained in round and warranted)

I currently attend USC and am majoring in politics, philosophy & law (that’s all one). Don’t assume that you can run dense philosophical framework without explanation and I’ll pick up on it. Do assume that this means I like philosophy.

In General: I will vote on almost any argument that is warranted. Before I wrote a paradigm, I used to say, “Whoever has the most offense under the winning framework wins” but then I realized that has too many nuances and exceptions, so use your discretion and stay tuned for the rest of the paradigm. (I thought I could sum it up, but no)

Speed: I’m fine with speed. Slow down for tags/ authors. If you want higher speaks slow down for important analyses, impact weighing, and things you find important to the ballot. I like when debaters slow down for 30 seconds or so at the end of their last speech to crystallize, but that’s just a stylistic preference. I will say clear twice, if you ignore it then I’ll start docking speaks.

Thinks I like (subject to change all the time):

Evidence weighing is my jam, and I feel like it’s an underused strategy, so utilize it.

Impact weighing is also my jam and it’s a big mistake if you don’t do it.

I like those rare unique arguments that view the resolution from a different perspective, but I also like when debaters run stock arguments but put a lot of research into it and have a deep comprehension of it

Philosophy/ethics: IF you can understand it and put it into your own words, then explain it in round. (seriously, don’t run anything you can’t understand)

Args that are generally considered tricky: I probably won’t give weight to triggers/ a prioris, but I’m flexible. You’re taking a risk though.

I’m not too fond of skep and you probably shouldn’t run it in front of me, but I am flexible on this if it is necessary.

I will give weight to CERTAIN spikes/blippy arguments, but I will not vote on them unless there is literally no offense in the round (please don’t do this to me). The way I evaluate if a spike gets weight in the round is really arbitrary (I try my hardest not to be, but I’m just being honest) so again, it’s a risk.

Theory: Frivious theory is probably one of my biggest pet peeves (especially if multiple theory shells are used as a neg time advantage). HI don’t default on competing interps/ reasonability. I do default to drop the argument and theory is not an RVI. However, my defaults don’t matter if you’re making these args in round. (You don’t have to win competing interps if you win I meets.

Policy stuff: I’m cool with it. Nothing else to see here.

Kritiks: I like Ks even though I’m not familiar with too much K lit. Even though I’m not too familiar with K lit, my threshold for Ks is rapidly increasing because the abundance of crappy Ks are increasing.

Extensions: make full extensions, not blippy one-liners

Comparative worlds/ truth testing: I default to comparative worlds, but again, my default doesn’t, matter if you make this argument in round.

WARNINGS, things I dislike, things you will get dropped for: -I’ll probably be really sensitive to args based in race, racism, racial justice, or anything in that category (self-explanatory). I’m not saying don’t run it, because I like the arguments, I’m saying be mindful of how you’re refuting it, and don’t be insensitive/offensive.

-Don’t be the devil’s advocate and say things that we all know are morally reprehensible are good (that’s an automatic drop)

-Try not to say silence is consent. I know that’s not how you mean it, but the statement is inherently harmful.

-Don’t make a hostile environment (this is not in the sense of just being generally rude, and you will get dropped for it)

Speaks: I average around 27. The easier you make it for me to write the ballot, the more speaks you’ll get.

Things that will give you higher speaks:

Organization

Evidence weighing

GOOD impact weighing

GREAT crystallization (threshold getting higher)

Honestly, just make it easy for me

Things that will lower your speaks:

Being rude

Lying

Stealing prep

Disorganization (unintentional)

Intentional disorganization to confuse your opponent will get you even lower speaks

I will call for evidence if need be
Email me at salihahgray28@gmail.com if you have questions about anything

LaToya Green Hire 1 rounds

Ellie Gund Hire

Tony Hackett Hire

Last changed on Mon February 28, 2022 at 3:54 PM PDT

i use they/them pronouns!

Add me to the email chain! tonyhackett (at) alumni.stanford.edu

Chances are if you're reading this, you're up late deciding where you should pref me or you already have me in the back and you're frantically trying to prep and look and see if I'll be down for what you want to read. To save you the time -- I'm probably fine with it, and the tldr; of my philosophy is that you should feel comfortable doing whatever you're best at.

If you want to read the more long-winded version of my debate background / personal style / my methodology for adjudicating debate rounds, read below.

I debated for C. K. McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA, and Stanford University ('20). I did the whole TOC thing my senior year and qualified to the NDT my freshman year. I'm currently affiliated with C. K. McClatchy/Nevada Union and St. Francis High School (Mountain View, CA).

I'll try to keep this brief --

Ultimately, my goals are to try my hardest and vote for the team who won the debate, no matter who they are.

If i have the pleasure of sitting in the back of the room and watching you debate, here are some pieces of advice --

Do what you do best. I'd rather see a well-debated counterplan and disad debate (if that's what you want to do!) than a poorly executed attempt to appease me based on my argumentative preferences in high school. If you're asking yourself at this moment whether or not I'm fine with the arguments you're planning on reading, the answer is almost assuredly yes.

Critics that I most respect are: Sarah Lim, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Kevin Hirn, Jarod Atchison, John Spurlock, and Sam Haley-Hill, Taylor Brough, Brian Manuel, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Syndey Pasquinelli, and Brian McBride.

When I go about deciding debates, I try answer a series of questions. Primarily, if both teams win all of their arguments, who wins the debate? Is there a major execution error? Is there a team lacking offense on any given position? Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence? Is there significant argument interaction? Once I have found answers to these questions, I've likely decided who won the debate.

That being said, here are some specific thoughts.

K affs -- I think Kevin Hirn said it best when he said " Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm still sympathetic to the framework argument (especially in high school). I don't presumptively think that topicality arguments are violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. For what it's worth, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available, but I understand that often framework is the best option (especially in certain circumstances, like when the aff is new or you're from a school with a small research base).

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should brainstorm better responses to "other policy debates solve your offense" and "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability."

I'm interested (and invested) in both sides of the framework debate, and have about a 50/50 record voting both ways. Being inventive, smart, daring, and responsive will win you major points, as it seems like I judge mostly clash debates, and the prospect of listening to a decaf state good/reform bad debate seems unfair.

Disads/CP's -- I love nuanced counterplan/disad debates. Explain the mechanism for your counterplan and slow down on the text. I'm persuaded by presumption arguments insofaras you win a turns case argument or are winning some hard core terminal defense to the aff. I love intrinsic offense and well-prepared stategies over generics with poor evidence quality. Disads with plan specific links are for real.

Topicality -- I used to think that Topicality was incredibly trivial, but after having debated in college and seeing some of the downright wild things that policy aff's can try to get away with sometimes, I think it's an essential argument for the negative arsenal. You should explain your internal links in the context of the aff and have external impacts. Ask Jordan Foley.

I think evidence comparison is a job of the debaters, but I'll call for it if there is a technical question that comes down to how the ev reads or if there is a concern about the validity of args made in the evidence by the debaters where a large portion of the debate rests.

If you've made it this far and you're still not sure if you should strike me, maybe seeing what args I currently read in college can provide some insight:

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Aff

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Neg

Have fun!

Chase Hamilton Hire 6 rounds None

Michael Henderson Brentwood Middle School 8 rounds None

Andrew Hendrickson Immaculate Heart High School 2 rounds None

Jan Hunsaker Spanish Fork High School 6 rounds

Shania Hunt Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 6:45 AM PDT

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Martine Hussey San Dieguito Academy 2 rounds None

Mason Jones Hire 3 rounds

Hailey Ju Hire 6 rounds

Leslie Kalasky SMCHS 8 rounds None

Mathew Karnyski AofHL-Independent 8 rounds

Damon Karson La Costa Canyon HS 3 rounds None

Jodi Kruger Harvard-Westlake School 2 rounds None

Robert Lebeda Chaminade College Preparatory 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM PDT

Hello y'all!

It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.

Background:

My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.

I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.

Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:

I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"

Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.

Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.

Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.

And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.

There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.

I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.

I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.

LD:

Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.

Policy:

If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.

Parli:

I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.

I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.

Public Forum:

I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.

Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.

Jin Lee Elite of Irvine 6 rounds None

Juliah Lee Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM PDT

I know y'all are busy people, so I'll keep this short:

Background: LD and a bit of PF. Judged mostly everything, prefer to stay away from Policy.

Observations: Please don't make observations contentions. Observations are points of observation (not argumentation) on the resolution.

Framework: Show why I should prefer your framework.

Values: I'm fine with any value, as long as debaters can uphold their own throughout the entire debate. It's especially good if you emphasize the importance of the value in the round (which is a necessary component of [LD] debate but usually skimmed over). Show me that your value is upheld/better/encompasses your opponent's and you're good. Also, demonstrate clearly how your VC is a good measurement of how to achieve your V.

Impact analysis: Critical! Especially nearing the end of the round, show how the impacts (both yours and the opponent's) weigh in the round.

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but if your opponent can't understand you, you must slow down.

Kritiks: If you're running a k, please please please do not contradict yourself in the round. Too many good k's have been lost because of this. Although I personally can see why the k is relevant, assume that I don't see it as a judge. Explain why your opponent violates the mentality you present and why the mentality is important in the first place.

T: If you're running topicality, give an alt. def. If not, I'll still follow the original definition, even though you claim it's bad; it's the only definition provided in the round if you don't give an alt.

I don't have a high tolerance for rudeness. I don't mind/enjoy assertive debate, but there's a line between assertive and aggressive. I'm not saying you have to be smiling, or even friendly--simply asking for no eye rolls or "whatever's." If you show attitude to me or especially your opponent, you can be sure that your speaker points will take a fall.

Any further questions, you can ask before the round. Happy debating!

Juliah Lee Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM PDT

I know y'all are busy people, so I'll keep this short:

Background: LD and a bit of PF. Judged mostly everything, prefer to stay away from Policy.

Observations: Please don't make observations contentions. Observations are points of observation (not argumentation) on the resolution.

Framework: Show why I should prefer your framework.

Impact analysis: Critical! Especially nearing the end of the round, show how the impacts (both yours and the opponent's) weigh in the round.

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but if your opponent can't understand you, you must slow down.

Any further questions, you can ask before the round. Happy debating!

Mark Lee Beckman High School 4 rounds None

Edgar Ling La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Rick Magana Oxford Academy 8 rounds

Naemah Morris Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Suzanne Mosko La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Aaron Nichols Hire 6 rounds None

Abigail Norton Hire

Araceli Nuener Bonita Vista High School 8 rounds

Therese Nugent Carlsbad High School 5 rounds

Jenny Nunnelley Mountain Brook High School 4 rounds None

Audrey Nyarko Hire 6 rounds None

Alex Ortega Honor Academy 8 rounds None

Michael Overing Loyola High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM PDT

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Alexander Pada Hire 6 rounds

Robert Pesta La Costa Canyon HS 3 rounds None

Erik Pielstick Los Osos HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:57 AM PDT

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

Jerome Robinson Granada Hills High 8 rounds

Jeremy Rosen Harvard-Westlake School 2 rounds None

Brian Saipramouk Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 21, 2022 at 12:49 AM PDT

Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)

High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)

Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)

High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)

Email chain: 1680super@gmail.com

Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.

Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Some fine details;

(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.

(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.

(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash makes it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.

(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):

Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?

Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?

Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?

Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debater then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.

Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?

Answer: I did the math, I have voted for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.

glhf

Bear Saulet Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 12, 2015 at 12:16 PM EDT

Bear Saulet – LD Paradigm

Background: Competed in college NPDA Parli 4 years. Since then, I have multiple years experience coaching Parli, PF, and LD at the High School level. I currently coach NPDA Parli at Cal State University Long Beach before previously coaching at NPDA Parli at Concordia Irvine.

Framework: One of the biggest criticisms of LD is that its just one giant framework debate. Please attempt to not make this type of a debate happen in front of me. Explain how your framework/criterion/lens ACTUALLY differs from your opponents in some meaningful way. Also, it’s probably wise to cover your bases and be able to flow through your opponent’s framework/criterion/lens. Impact out why your framework is preferable.

Rebuttals: Please do impact calculus and comparison. What impact are you going for? What impact are they going for? How do you win on timeframe/probability/magnitude/etc? These are the questions which spin through my head before signing the ballot. You should be doing comparative work that assumes that you do not win every argument.

Speaker Points: I generally hover around 27 for an average speech. Good use of global and regional overviews, smart strategic laterals, and poignant use of star wars jokes will do wonders towards boosting your speaks in front of me.

Implementation vs. Values: I really think that time is a flat circle and that LD debate is starting to attempt to mirror policy in some interesting ways. That said, if you claim benefits off of a hypothetical policy action being implemented, you need specifics. I really would prefer to not judge a debate where one side goes “Living wages are good for these reasons” and the other side goes “well, what’s your specific vision for what a living wage might look like?” to which they receive the response “ we don’t have to a show a specific policy of implementation, just that it would be good in the abstract”. Yeah, please none of that nonsense. If you’re gonna be policy, be policy. If you choose to not establish a policy/implementation framework, I am fine with evaluating things based on ethics and values but you must tell me how your affirmation of the topic relates to those ethical considerations.

Speed: Not generally an issue for me. Clarity generally is however. Be clear, give pen time. Don’t be afraid to slow down and explain important arguments such as how your case outweighs and/or turns your opponent’s case. Sometimes less is more.

Kritiks: Love em! As long as they link and are rooted in some semblance of topic literature, I’m good to go. If you cannot explain your kritik (and how they link) in less than 2 sentences, you should reconsider reading this particular criticism in front of me. This is not to say I am not versed in critical literature, but rather that if you cannot boil down your argument to a few sentences, the chances are you will not be able to intelligibly debate it throughout the round and should likely go with another more conventional strategy in front of me.

Good luck!

Azariah Shephard Lionel Wilson

Ruiwen Shi Beckman High School 6 rounds

Gurbir Singh Granada Hills High 8 rounds None

Justin Sly Salem Hills High School 6 rounds

Xiomara Solis Spanish Fork High School 3 rounds None

michael Speier Immaculate Heart High School

Bhaskar Suri Chaminade College Preparatory

Last changed on Tue January 24, 2017 at 2:42 AM PDT

Chaminade CP, Class of 2016

USC, Class of 2020

I did LD and policy for 4 years in high school, and I’m a first year out. I’m generally more comfortable with the progressive LD style (policy style) to the more traditional LD style, so if you’re one of those debaters who really likes analytic philosophy, you should probably strike me.

LD:

Plans\DAs:

They’re good. You really can’t go wrong here.

CPs

The CP has to be mutually exclusive with the Aff in order for the Neg to get fiat. In other words, no fiat for advantage counterplans.

Theory:

I default to reasonability with no RVIs, but you can convince me otherwise. If you win competing interps, I’ll automatically allow RVIs.

Kritiks:

I ran a lot of Ks in high school, so I’m pretty comfortable with them. However, don’t use this as an excuse to avoid analysis of the literature. If you just read a block of cards without analysis, I’ll likely drop you and it won’t reflect well on your speaks. ROB on a Kritik will almost always come before theory and pretty much any other argument in the debate. The K needs to explain how the epistemology of the aff is destructive, and the alternative needs to clearly solve for that. If the solvency of the alt is not clearly articulated in round, I won’t vote on the K. Because I hold Ks to a higher standard, I also have higher expectations for them, so if you’re one of those people who’s new to K debate is running a K for the first time, I’m probably not the judge for you.

Framework:

Like I mentioned above, I’m not super into analytic philosophy, but if you want to run it, I’ll do my best to evaluate it. When I debated, a lot of people in LD would run ROB arguments for cases that clearly weren’t Ks or K affs. A ROB means that as the judge, I have an obligation to vote for your argument because it challenges a destructive epistemic or discursive norm being produced in debate. Having an impact that is in some way social justice related does not merit a ROB. You can certainly make arguments as to why your impact would come first, but that would be evaluated the same as any other framework. In other words, you need to explain how there is some sort of negative or oppressive education being produced in debate right now, and that me voting for your case is necessary to solve it. For example:

If you propose a plan that encourages reparations and argue for a ROB to combat racism, that is an incorrect use of the ROB because you haven’t explained how debate is racist or how the me signing the ballot for you will help reduce racism.

If you run a K in which you say the aff’s mindset is racist and destructive because their policy assumes certain things about x racial group, and argue for a ROB to combat racism, that is a correct use.

If you use a ROB for a framework where it doesn’t belong, I will likely disregard your framework--and don’t expect higher than a 25 as far as speaks are concerned.

A good rule of thumb, if your case is advocating for some sort of policy, a ROB likely does not apply.

If you have any questions about this, I’ll be happy to answer it before the round.

Identity politics\non-topical affs

Go for it.

Tricks, triggers etc. are all fine.

Speaks:

I’ll average around a 28.5. Clearly reading your tags will help your speaks.

CX:

You can use it for flex prep if you want. CX is binding.

Policy:

Pretty much all the same stuff applies except you get fiat for any CP you want. Also I will always go for reasonability on T.

Melissa Svoboda La Reina High School 7 rounds

Barrett Tate CL Education 8 rounds

Afton Taylor Salem Hills High School 6 rounds None

Jessica Tero Hire 2 rounds

Rhonda Thomson Citrus Valley High School 8 rounds None

Rachel Wear Claremont High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

Doug Welton Salem Hills High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 6:47 AM MDT

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

George Willett La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Khaled Yamout La Costa Canyon HS 8 rounds None

Ying Zhao Beckman High School 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

CSU Fullerton High School Invitational

2015 — CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges