Clear logical arguments based on evidence.

As a second-year judge, I want to understand your logic and evidence. If I can't understand what you say, I can't award you points. Though I understand speaking fast (spreading) is sometimes necessary, by the end of the debate I will judge based on what I understood. If I don't follow you, you may lose. Overstating your case also loses points with me (in other words, "x is unlikely and so many people will suffer" convinces me a lot more than "x will never happen and so the entire world will suffer and die").

I don't appreciate frivolous theory or too much theory. If you can show me why your opponent is being unfair in debating, that helps me judge. Otherwise running theory will probably lose you the debate.

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.

Be courteous. Modulate your volume.

I'm a parent judge and so I have very basic but specific guidelines:

1. Share an outline or roadmap at the beginning that is not only clear but that you follow in your presentation (If it does not flow, I cannot follow).

2. Speak at a moderate pace so that it is easy to follow and understand.

3. Following speaker etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points.

4. Strongly prefer traditional debates so please do not use progressive tactics (e.g., no spreading, no kritiks).

5. During cross fires, please do not ask questions for questions sake... recommend that you take advantage of the opportunity to ask probing questions to either clarify a point or expose a flaw in your opponents statements.

6. (For LD) Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

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.

Flowy debate judge. Values concise and orderly substantive clash (on warrants, links, and impacts), good time management, consistent strategy, effective use of cross ex, and signposting. Mostly tabula rasa but dings for gross fantasy and adds points for good argumentative use of accurate knowledge of real world. No speaks given for extensive use of debate jargon. Spreading fine as long as the diction is crystalline.

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

I am a professional philosopher. I like the pace to be slow enough to actually hear the arguments. I like to see coherent value and value criterion choices that really support the arguments about the topic at hand, and debate back and forth about this.

I am a lay judge. I judged both speech and debate for a couple of years. Make sure to present your cases clearly and at a normal speaking rate. If I don’t understand your logic and evidence links then I can’t vote for you. Have a great debate.

I'm an experienced parent judge with three years of experience judging Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parli. I will be flowing your round.

When it comes to speed, I want a debater to be clear, concise, articulate, and speaking at a reasonable, understandable pace. I despise, with a passion, spreading and the arguments that often accompany that "rhetorical" style.

Arguments: Please be rational. Links to extinction devalue reasonable debate, if you use them, you lose. This same rule accompanies K-debates, theory debates, irrelevant phil debates, and most things "circuit debate."

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you might as well not come to round.

All of this is to tell you what not to do because the pendulum of debate seems to be swinging towards this and away from critical thinking, rational thought, and deep and poignant philosophy. This next bit is what I actually enjoy to see in a debate.

Framework: I weigh philosophy heavily, especially if it's creative, relevant, and understandable.

Arguments: Not card heavy, statistics can be overbearing (use them sparingly but effectively) Logic sprinkled with facts to back it up.

CX: Be polite and effective.

Rebuttals: Act as though you are a surgeon, systematically explain and refute your opponent's thought process one clear step at a time. Be organized.

Have Fun!

I have a son that is in LD, so I know the basics of the LD structure. I know some common arguments but make sure to explain as much as you can.

General:

1. Medium pace talking, if you end up speaking too fast for me, I will say clear. After 3 clears, I will stop flowing.

2. Send over speech docs to: iagam@hotmail.com

3. Run what you want, ill try my best to understand it.

4. No trigger warnings and respect the competitor.

5. Any blatant racist, sexist, homophobic behavior is an automatic drop.

CA LD:

1. As said before run what you want. Make sure that I can understand it, and I will flow it. All the squirely arguments, dont run them, I wont flow.

2. Most comfortable with;

- Larp

- Theory (Ill try my best to understand, but explain everything)

- Kritiks/Phil ( I have no understanding of these, and I won't be able to understand)

3. Be aggressive in cross x.

4. Follow CHSSA rules, so no CPs or P

NLD

1. Be clear, make sure I understand the logical flow of your arguments

2. Ill judge off the flow.

Warrants should be clearly tied to your contentions and weighing outcomes. My final decisions are often made based on whether I buy your links connection to your weighing outcomes. I don't weigh theory arguments very heavily. I believe you should be debating, not attempting to undermine someone's arguments through technical or formatting issues in his or her case. However, I do want you to adhere to rules, specifically no new evidence introduced in second rebuttal. .

Stylistically, I don't like spreading. You can speak quickly, but if I miss something, I'm not going to try and find it later. Be polite during cross. Especially, online; if you talk at the same time, I can't hear either of you.

I always provide feedback, so don't hesitate to ask.

Overall, I want you all to have a good time and learn through the process. Therefore, insulting the other team (ad hominem arguments) are a particular turn-off for me. So if you use one, it will be at your own peril. Keep it clean and friendly and have a good time!!