I currently teach Theater Arts, African American / Latinx American Literature, and English I at Pinole Valley High School. I am looking into teaching Speech and Debate and appreciate the invaluable experience I gain when judging competitions. I tend to defer to the competitors in regard to the pace of the debate and I do not appreciate coaches coaching during the actual debate. Other than that, I think that I am an unbiased, open-minded judge that allows for students to shine by demonstrating their knowledge on the topics being debated.

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I am a parent judge from northern California I've been involved in debate since the year 2018. I judge mostly on the local and state qualifying events. Feel free to ask questions before the round.

Debate:

Make your arguments concisely. Speak slowly. I like quality than quantity. If you make your argument with right evidence and arguments that will help. Be clear. Back your arguments with data and impact.

Be respectful about the other debater.

Don't use the data that is out of scope for the given case. I will also look at the delivery of your argument.

I will like if you go slow . Rest I am fine with anything else.

Hi, this is Ayesha Iqbal. I'm a parent judge and am excited and looking forward to being a judge. I have a little experience in judging, as I have been at multiple different tournaments over the past few years. I will be looking for kids who are persuasive with their content and delivery. And not rushing or speaking too fast, as it will help me to understand and judge better.

I usually take notes during the round and I use it at the end of the round to make my decision.

The key things I look for are as follows:

Fluency

Relevancy

Eye Contact during the presentation

Clarity while making the argument and logical flow

Extent of research and facts

Impact analysis

Effectiveness during cross examination

I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!

I am a parent judge. Please explain all arguments clearly and do not spread. I will be taking notes throughout the round. Good luck!

I am very new to the circuit and as such will not be as progressive as some other judges. I will only vote off of what I flow and can not understand spreading well, so keep that in mind when debating in front of me. I have judged JV LD many times and am relatively traditional. Make your arguments clear and fleshed out and be polite in round. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. I most likely will not understand complex Ks or other progressive arguments and as a result will not vote on them. If you do read anything not traditional make sure it is well explained and said slowly so I can flow and evaluate it. I will give my decision only if explicitly asked and will not disclose speaker points. 

History/Background: Current competitor for Diablo Valley College, with tournament experience. I primarily do parli, so that's what this paradigm is focused on. If I'm judging you in a different event, please don't hesitate to ask for my opinions on anything in regards to how you debate.

Paradigm Proper: Anybody who says that they're tabula rasa in their paradigm is lying, but I will try to remain as close to a blank slate as possible while watching you debate. I'm adaptable to most any type of argument, so don't hold back. Below is some preferences through which I generally evaluate debate, but if you make arguments in the round that are sufficiently convincing, I am more than happy to listen and change my stance. Any other questions can and should be directed to me at the start of the round.

Speed: I can keep up, but if you want hyper-specific arguments flowed exactly, I'd recommend slowing down a bit. Also, don't be a jerk, if your opponents call slow, slow down. Debate isn't fun if someone can't engage because you spread them out.

Partner Communication: Communicate as much as you want/need to. Don't be overly loud during your opponent's speeches and I'll only flow the designated speaker's args. I might lower speaker points if one partner is completely parroting the other, but I have a pretty high threshold for that.

(I think the idea that a TEAM BASED ACTIVITY should limit partner communication is absurd but far too prevalent on the pre-Colleigate level and I will happily debate anyone on this topic.)

Good luck and have fun!