I am a freshman at Cal studying Political Science & History, and I competed in Parli, LD, Policy, Congress, and World Schools while in high school. So, I am familiar with various debate formats. Here are my preferences:

I love creative/unique arguments.

I am not familiar with spreading, but I can try to keep up.

Overall, I love reasoning and warrants, but evidence is still important. I weigh on impacts a lot. Be explicit with your impacts and reasoning. And signpost!

Please don't use "insufficient evidence" arguments without impacting out why that matters.

Ks: I don’t like hearing them, but I will consider them.

Theory: not very familiar with, but I will consider it.

I will stop flowing at the end of grace period if you keep talking over time.

No tag-teaming.

Do what you think is best in the round; be respectful of your other opponents.

Hello!

My name is Cassidy, my pronouns are she/they, I identify as a queer woman, I'm a senior and the captain of parli at Valencia High School. I've been debating at the varsity level for three years and attended the TOC a couple of years ago.

- I am open to entertaining all types of arguments as long as they are clear as day, you weigh your impacts and tell me why I should vote for you.

- I enjoy theory arguments as long as they are explained in a very organized fashion, at the end of the day substance matters most

- I will not make connections for you and will only vote based on what you and your partner actually say

- I am okay with fast speaking so long as you make it known that you will be speaking quickly and allow your opponents a mechanism to let you know that they can't understand you

- Keep in mind that debate is an academic exercise but the topics we are debating are real-world issues that affect real people, be respectful of those affected by each res. Please refrain from weaponizing suffering to win a ballot

- Please be kind! Respect pronouns! I love a clean friendly debate more than anything!

Finally, I will give you extra speaker points if you make me laugh, tell me a joke, or make a really good pun!

Good luck I can't wait to meet you:)

Raul Cepin (he/him/his)

Binghamton University '18

Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School ’13

Contact: cepin.jr@gmail.com

Debated for 4 years in high school, debated in college and qualified to the NDT every year I debated. Qualified teams to the TOC.

1. I think line by line as a guideline for the structure of flowing is effective

2. K, performance all okay - debated this kind of stuff. Be clear and make sure I get it.

3. T/FW - T is good and important, so is framework. You need to defend an interpretation.

4. Tricks are a no-go

I am a lay parent judge.

I evaluate arguments based on logic (tech > truth).

I prefer that participants speak at a conversational rate rather than spreading. It is important for me to understand the arguments and all the finer points should be highlighted so that my flow reflects that.

Lay judge, slow on speaking, discouraging tech debate. Be confident in your speaking and be nice to your opponents. Make sure to impact out your points and relate back to the standard of the debate.

I competed in college parliamentary debate, and have 5 years coaching public forum debate in Beijing, Taipei, and now back in the United States. Under my tenure in Beijing, we won the NSDA China National Championship two years in a row.

I am a flow judge. I expect debaters to provide evidence for their arguments and responses, but if they do not, it is the responsibility of their opponents to highlight a lack of warrants.

I do not flow crossfire, so any significant information gained in crossfire should be brought up in later speeches.

I am focused on content over style, but do believe there is a necessity to communicate major issues clearly and convincingly when the debate is coming to a close.

I am okay with spreading, as long as the debaters are speaking clearly.

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.

Hypothesis tester: In order for the affirmative to win, they convince the judge to support the resolution. Conversely, the negative must convince the judge to negate the resolution

Policymaker: At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each

Kritikal: the judge prefers kritik debates that look to who most effectively subverts patriarchy, racism, orientalism, ocularcentrism, or other perceived oppressive structures

I am a lay judge, so please try to do the following things!

- Make sure to speak slowly and explain terms as thoroughly as possible (please avoid debate or even topic-specific jargon unless very clearly defined in the 1st speech.) Remember, if I can't understand you, then that makes the debate harder to judge!

- Make speeches easy to follow: signposting, using road maps, clear speaking, and making flowing simpler are all advisable.

- Be objective with the information you provide, but there is room for creativity in how you present it.

- Be respectful and reasonable. Discrimination/unfairness in a round will not be tolerated. Debate is a safe space for discussion; it must be maintained.

- Avoid theory and K arguments. I have no experience with these kinds of debates, so it will be beneficial to stick to case level. However, if you can simply prove a reasonable abuse in a round, only then is theory acceptable.

- Have fun and learn! Debate is here to teach so many things, and enjoying the round brings you closer to winning it.

I have been in speech and debate for a while and do not have a specific paradigm for debate, other than speed. I understand the need to speak a little faster to get all the information in, but I really do not like spreading. If the goal of debate is education, I do not think spreading is an ethical practice, and to me, it deters the point of educational debate and wanting the audience to learn from it. If you really want to/feel the need to spread, by all means, go for it, but please be aware that this will more than likely affect speaks and my ability to extend arguments on the flow. Other than that, I don't have a specific paradigm, but here are some small reminders:

1. Please make the link between claims and impacts very clear! Please do not assume that I will just "know" how your claim causes the impact.

2. While I will do my best not to let my own thoughts interfere with the round itself, please also remember that I am an individual person with my own thoughts and that I will not buy everything you say unless you back it up.

3. I will extend the impacts of saving lives over economic impacts unless there is a significant reason why economic impacts should come before saving lives.

4. Do your best not to be rude to your opponents, as it takes a lot of energy and resources to attend tournaments, and the last thing we want is for someone to be rude to us at 6 in the morning when we are doing our best to compete. This isn't something I would necessarily give a loss to, but it will be something I look out for and may affect speaks.

Have fun debating! If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the start of the round.

I have been judging high school debate for several years, but I'm not super experienced in fancy debate terms so please articulate your arguments in a way I can understand.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

I'm a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly and explain very thoroughly. When asking "POIS" give a maximum of two per speaker.

I have never done debate competitively in High School but have extensive experience in collegiate debate. I have become more familiar with types of debate apparently exclusive to high school and am slowly learning, especially relearning decorum during quarantine.

I judge based on the strength of argumentation as it pertains to points that have the most impact on the root of the motion that is being debated. I will not award a debater for listing X more points than another senator if they cannot thoroughly explain the importance of these points. Put simply, Quality over quantity.

- placeholder

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.

I am a parent judge. Here are my preferences for the round.

-Avoid technical terms (like the TULI format). Instead, just guide me through your case and explain the points.

-Speak slowly. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow what you are saying and I will just end up ignoring what you said.

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms. Perms are 100% okay, but still explain without the technical terms.

-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments + warrants to back it up!

-Enjoy and Have Fun during the tournaments !

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and explain your arguments thoroughly.

Although I have never competed on a debate team, watching debates/debate tournaments has been a hobby of mine for some time now. I have judged approximately six tournaments over the course of one year. The debate formats I have experience in are Parliamentary, Public Forum, Congress, and World.

PREFERENCES

1) Clear Speech - This is the foremost important thing to me in a speech. I value articulation, enunciation, and a digestible speaking pace above all.

2) Spreading - While I am not a fan of spreading - in the least bit - I do recognize the strategic value of the technique and I've encountered debaters who have been able to effectively execute this skill because of their great use of my point number one (clear speech) and the point to follow.

3) Verbal/Non-Verbal Fillers - This is a grave pet peeve of mine. The excessive use of "uh's, uhm's," and "like..." will earn you a lower score with me. I find them distracting to the arguments and it makes for an extremely incoherent and unconfident sounding speech. If collecting your thoughts or gathering your words is necessary during a speech, then taking a brief moment of pause is preferable to uttering a ton of distracting fillers. Avoid them at all costs.

3) Passion/Conviction - A great sales person could sell milk to a cow". Keep in mind that you are salespersons. You are selling me on an idea that you feel strongly about or in opposition of. Therefore, you must convince me not only with facts but your presentation of those facts. I, greatly, value a passionate speech. If you are not able to sell me on the facts at least be able make me buy your argument. I've judged debates where the conviction of the speaker, alone, was almost sufficient enough for me to vote in their favor. Just don't try to sell me foolishness.

4) Facts - It goes without saying that facts should be supported.

5) Respect - I can appreciate whit, confidence, and a good amount of entertainment but please, be respectful.

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge to parliamentary debate. Please go slow and clearly. Thanks

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

Hi! My name is Tatiana and I'm a sophomore at Stanford. I am a lay judge (my debater friends are writing this for me). Please focus on creating a clear story, having goof warrants, and really crystallizing in the voters. Also I love humor. Write my ballot for me. Impacts impacts impacts. Don't stress! Be friendly! Have a good time!

I am parent judge with a little bit of judging experience. I decide the debate based on the following criteria: (1) the flow of argument logic and how convincing it is structured based on facts (truth), (2) if the debater is responding to opponent's argument and making a successful counter-argument or not, (3) overall speaking/debating skills.

I evaluate structure and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you build the context around. Speed is ok if you make clear and sound argument.