About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

I have judged for almost four years.

I don’t have any specific preferences for the students I judge other than the following:

• I like professionalism: act respectfully towards your opponent (don’t interrupt them, talk over them, personally attack them, etc.)

• Please have thoroughly developed evidence and impacts (if you don’t impact your arguments they lose a lot of weight in the round for me)

• Articulation is key when reading evidence/convincing me to believe your claims

• I like nice, well thought out presentations of the cases I hear.

• Don’t talk fast or try to spread

Thank you for keeping the aforementioned preferences in mind! I look forward to judging you.

I am a lay judge and a university history professor. I expect respectful behavior, logical arguments, and please no spreading.

I like a well organized speaker, those that come into the room late, change their shoes, fix their hair....not so much.  

I appreciate the speaker that makes unusual assessments or provides unique remedies. 

Respecting the opponent while arguing their contention is better than insulting their person. Debate doesn't mean personal attacks free-for-all.

The burden of proof is what is relevant, I evalute all the situations - if you noticed a missed arguement of your opponent don't assume I caught it, point it out.

Spreading? As long as you speak slowly, feel free...ha ha ha

For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com

1. I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
2. Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
3. Please be respectful and kind.
4. If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
5. If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
6. Have FUN!

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

I competed in LD debate for 4 years in high school before attending university as an engineering student.

I am not well-versed in progressive debate but will accept meta-debate arguments and rhetoric as long as their purpose is thoroughly explained within round. (Basically, explain why your T-shell or K should be a priority and spread at your own risk.)

If you run a plan or CP, I expect you to stick with your specific advocacy throughout the entire debate. It is not legitimate to abandon your plan halfway through the debate and defend the resolution in a more general sense.

As a judge, I prioritize fairness and clarity in our round. I appreciate a well-articulated philosophical framework, connecting values and criteria meaningfully. Logical, structured arguments, and effective clash are key components I look for. While evidence is important, quality and relevance take precedence over quantity.

I am interested in the educational aspect of debate, valuing rounds that contribute to your growth and understanding of the topic. I am happy to provide feedback or answer questions before/after the round (as long as time permits).

I look forward to a respectful, thoughtful debate. Best of luck to all!

Hi! I'm a parent judge and I take both quality of arguments and speaker clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can clearly articulate their arguments and at the same time create a logically cohesive argument.

Im not familiar with progressive arguments such as kritiks, theory and topicality. If you do plan to run them please be extremely clear with your explanations. 

Please don't spread as I don't have exprerience judging speed rounds.

I am considered a “sister judge,” since my brother has been involved in the speech and debate community for nearly four years. As such, I have observed/judged many IE and debate rounds. At the ARIZONA STATE HDSHC INVITATIONAL, I will be judging PUFO, and here are my preferences.

(1) In addition to common knowledge and logical reasoning, please be sure to provide evidence to back up your claims.

(2) During Crossfires, please let your opponent finish asking the question before you provide substantive answers. Etiquette matters, so please do not interrupt your opponents while they are speaking.

(3) Please do not spread! If I cannot understand you, you will not win the round.

(4) I don’t keep track of prep time, and prefer to keep that between the competitors.

(5) Quality > Quantity

(6) Truth > Tech

For other questions and concerns, please feel free to ask me before round begins. I love open discourse, and appreciate your perspectives. HAVE FUN! :)

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Things that I Look For As a Judge:

- Organization! Please make the debate easy to follow and keep your points organized. My preference for how to organize your contentions goes like this:

A. Evidence (with a citation)

B. Links to the Topic of the Round (and if possible, how this relates to the topic outside of the round in the real world).

C. Impacts (How if I go with your side the positive impacts on society, OR the negative impacts of siding with your opponent's case)

- Please be nice to each other.

- Please no spreading, I understand that you want to get in all the information relating to your case. However if that results in spreading, I will probably not be able to put that in the flow).

- Try to use a limited amount of words in order to explain a certain topic. To me that shows a greater understanding of the resolution, your an exceptional speaker, and it'll make the debate easier to follow. This is more of an added bonus, if you don't do this I'm not going to dock any points from you OR see your case as lesser.

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Background:

I have been competing in debate for six years. I competed in Policy Debate in highschool and then competed in Parli debate in college. I currently compete with Concordia University Irvine. I have been coaching policy, parli, and LD at the middle and highschool level for two years now.

Policy:

I am arguably most comfortable with a policy style of debate, since I’ve done so much of it in both policy and parli. That being said, if you’re not introducing a plan, doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the debate just as much. If you are introducing a plan, I really wanna make sure you have specific solvency for the plan; don’t just say you’re going to do x thing and then not tell me exactly what that thing does. If you’re passing a bill, give me a summary of what the bill does. As far as counterplans go, I'm fine with any of them. I like PICs. I think that the negative always has the right to introduce a counterplan, as long as it's competitive.

Values:

I really enjoy value debates. But if you’re going to defend a value, you better know REALLY well what that value means. I don’t want to hear you defend deontology and then not know how deontology functions through your contentions and what it means in the framing of the round.

Kritiks:

The tl;dr: I’m good with the K but give me a bit of background on the author you’re reading.

I don’t enjoy the kritik when I’m competing, but I enjoy judging them. I have a lot of experience in kiritical debate and I’ve read a lot of authors and seen a lot of Ks, so I’d like to think I’m pretty well versed. Authors I’ve read that I’d say I’m very comfortable with: Foucault, Baudrillard, hooks, Marx, and Tickner. I’ve read a lot of feminist lit so I’m pretty comfortable with any sort of fem K, and I’ve read a handful of other miscellaneous books as well. That being said, if you’re defending a certain author, be sure to know that author backwards and forwards and be able to explain it to me if I look confused. Approach me like a judge that is good on the K and I’ll keep up, but my non-verbals will tell you if I’m lost. If I’m shaking my head, my head is cocked to the side, or I look confused, please clarify what your thesis is – I haven’t read every book ever and for a lot of Ks I’ll need at least a bit of background. Also, please explain how the alt solves – I don’t care if your alt is political or not, just give me clear solvency for whatever it is.

Theory:

The tl;dr: I love theory and will vote on it if you give me a good reason to.

I was always a theory debater. I think it can be the fastest and best way to win the round for both sides. I will definitely take into consideration any theory coming out of any speech as long as there’s a substantiated reason for it. But if you’re going to run theory, make sure you have a clear interp and competitive standards. I’ve seen and run pretty much every type of theory imaginable so I understand when there’s a reason for it and will have a pretty low threshold if you defend it well – I’ve run theory in the last speech of the round based on what someone did in the speech before me, so I’m willing to vote on something like that – but if you’re gonna go for it, go for it. Collapse to theory or I won’t buy it. I have run RVIs before and I don’t see them as abusive as long as you give a good defense for why this is a situation when I should vote on an RVI. Don’t just tell me “they ran theory so they should lose,” explain how that situation specifically is an abusive use of theory and why that warrants me dropping them. I love condo debates but I don’t necessarily think that condo is good or bad; I vote for the team that makes the better argument on that. As far as speed procedurals go, run them if you think it’s warranted but if you’re gonna run a speed procedural, you better have called clear at least 3 times and the other team has not slowed down. Basically, as long as you give me substantiated abuse on theory I’ll vote on it but if you give me a reasonable explanation of why you’re not being abusive I’m just as likely to vote for you.

IF YOU RUN A K OR PROCEDURAL ABOUT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, ie TRIGGER WARNINGS BEING ABUSED, I WILL STOP THE ROUND TO MAKE SURE ALL THE DEBATERS FEEL SAFE AND ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE. I don’t want to make anyone feel like they are unsafe when they are debating, so PLEASE bring that to my attention and I will do what I can to make you feel safe.

Things I want to see:

The tl;dr: Clash, impacts, and good impact analysis.

If someone argues something and you drop it; it’s unrefuted offense for the other team and I will consider that in my decision. But I won’t always catch every dropped argument so if you see it, call it out. But make sure you’re directly clashing with your opponents’ points. I like seeing good clash in the round and I’d rather see ya’ll collapse to one argument that has good clash on both sides then to see you stick to your blocks and have the round be like two ships passing in the night.

I also realllllllly want to see good impacts. Explain to me why your arguments matter. If you don’t give me a way to evaluate your arguments against what the other team is saying then that leaves me with a ton of responsibility at the end of the round and I’ll pick the argument I like better. I don’t care how big or small your impact is, just tell me why it matters.

I also really want to see impact analysis at the end of the round. Weigh your impacts on probability, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. I need you to compare your impacts to the other side’s a tell me why I should vote for you (and I much prefer to see that then voting issues since the impacts are what matters).

Miscellaneous stuff:

Be nice. People call me a point fairy and I typically am but I have no problem dropping your speaks if you’re rude in round. I have no tolerance for abusive behavior in round and if you’re a total jerk I’ll drop you.

Speed is fine; I can keep up as long as the other team can, and if I can’t I’ll call clear. And if you're a debater and someone is going too fast for you, please call clear or slow - I won't evaluate an argument about speed unless you attempt to get the other team to slow down first.

If you’re reading an argument about sexual assault, violence, or anything similar, please give a content warning at the beginning of the round so everyone is prepared.

I think debate is a game and I vote for the team that does the best debating, so I try not to have hard and fast opinions on debate. The round is what you make it and I’ll adapt to that unless extenuating circumstances force me to otherwise. Good luck!

I’m a parent judge. I’m looking for mainly clarity and articulation throughout the debate, so please, no speed. I’m not experienced in theory so please keep it to substance. Don’t make crossfire a yelling match and have fun!

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

I prefer that you remain cordial and respectful to both your opponents and the judge. I am ok with most argument as long as it makes some sort of sense. Please no Ks- relatively new to debate. I am don't have a lot of experience with speed. Some things that I look for in a debate:

- pointing out logical fallacies are always good

- Make sure not to cut off the other speaker in a rude manner in CX

- I'm fine with evidence swap as long as it's done in a timely manner

- Be prepared to provide evidence after the round because I may call for some

- Hypotheticals with no inherency don't fly in this zone

Good luck in the round!!!! :)

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

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

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

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

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

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

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