I will tell you my paradigm if you ask at the begining of the round.

My. Background:

 I am a corporate banker at a U.S. based international bank. I have been judging for approximately one year with most of my experience in the LD debate format but have also judged Public Forum and Parliamentary.    

 Approach to Judging/Preferences:

As a debater, assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain what's going on to me clearly and succinctly. I will do my best to stay open-minded and not to impose my personal beliefs, pre-conceptions or knowledge of the topic on the competitors. 

Things I look for include passion, articulate speaker, maintains good eye contact and confidence.

Please don’t spread.  I understand the strategy, but if I cannot keep up, what’s the purpose?

I do expect that participants at all times to act courteously towards their opponents. 

LD: Looking for best crystalization of the round in relation to the resolution.  Clarity of case, links, and impacts is key.  A value case has the same burden. Crystalization.

Policy: Clear speaking, respect for all participants, using words that reflect the real world and not the shorthand of debate, supporting your case and rebutting the opponent's case with evidence.  Linking evidence, to your position and having the strongest argument is how the debate will be judged.  I am fine with spreading.  I flow.  Slippery slope arguments do not tend to be persuasive to me.  Slamming fact after fact after fact without connecting the facts becomes noise instead of debate.  Good facts supporting the aff or neg and used in concert with the back and forth of the debate will carry a great deal of weight.  Building a case to solve is a process.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Bartels%2C+Bill

The round should be interesting. Run what you want but be confident and believe in your desired action. I could care less on K's, performance and even the dreaded straight affirmative. If you want some high speaks, I might be inclined to give some if you make me laugh.

1) Don't be an butthead, there's one thing to be competitive and the other is extremely aggressive.

2) Regardless of which side you are on be respectful.

3) Be organized, watch your flows and road map.

4) If you T it's all fine with me but be clear in your arguments don't just spew out a format and then drop it on later speeches. Don't be a time suck.

Remember the bird is the word.

Do people even read these?

Cheese sandwiches are great.

So you're still here huh..

Life is interesting.

Tacos are great.

Believe to succeed.

All the best,

Gabael Botello

*Update 2019

Cheese sandwiches are great but there are plenty of choices to choose from.

Be yourself and run with the arguments that really speak to you.

questions or concerns.

Gabael.b@gmail.com

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.

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

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

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.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

Last updated: 5/13/2016

Middle School TOC notes: I'm normally a policy judge, which means I'm not super familiar with LD norms. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to. Speed is fine, but be clear.

I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, TX. I currently coach Polytechnic in Pasadena, CA.

Summary

I am fine with just about anything as long as I can both understand the argument and its implications. I will attempt to assess the debate as objectively as possible based on the flow (though I certainly have some biases, which I've listed below). Speed is fine, but give me time to switch between flows and have clear transitions. To steal from Scott Harris, I will work "as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates."

General Stuff

-Flash time isn't prep unless it's excessive

-Open CX is fine

-Please don't get super rude in CX

-Include me in email chains (isaacqcui@gmail.com), but I will not read cards until after the debate. I will try to avoid reading cards unless the evidence is contested or I have no other way to evaluate the debate.

-I trust both teams to keep track of prep and speech times, but am willing to time stuff if I am asked to

-Mark your cards yourself. This is super important to me because I think the highlighting/warrants in evidence matter a lot if I need to turn to the evidence.

-Be clear--I want to be able to understand the warrants in cards as well as the taglines. I will usually look at you funny if I have difficulty flowing, so be aware of that.

-Don't steal prep

-Aff teams should disclose the 1AC plan text+advantages and the neg should disclose past 2NRs before the round. You should also keep an actively updated wiki

Topicality

I evaluate T debates much like I'd assess a CP+DA strategy; interps are competing options to solve for various DAs. This also means whoever can control the impact calculus--something often forgotten in T debates--will probably win my ballot. Case lists matter a lot to me, but I'm also persuaded that most case lists are too absurd (i.e., that functional limits check); rather than attempting to find the most absurd cases possible, I think it's more worth it to talk about what types of literature bases or types of affs that their interp allows/why that's bad.

I think "reasonability" is largely a buzzword that isn't explained enough. Is reasonability a question of the aff or their interp? Is it about how I evaluate offense? Depending on who you ask, they'll probably give you different answers. As a result, whatever preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations I have is largely meaningless.  

Framework (versus a K aff)

I debate framework on both sides often, so I'm fairly middle of the road when assessing these debates. T-versions of the aff are very useful, but I mostly think of them as reasons for why the negative's framework can access the literature or education that the 1AC provides. Theoretical framework arguments that solely rely on things like the limits DA and fairness impacts will probably lose to a good aff team. For the most part, I think framework is most strategic as a countermethodology which relies on things like dialogue, institutional engagement, etc., to address the impacts of the 1AC. Make sure framework interacts with the aff (and vice versa--aff teams should leverage case as a DA to framework whenever possible).

After judging a few of these debates, I've found that the internal link matters. Usually framework 2NCs/2NRs are too impact heavy but not enough on the internal link level; I've found myself voting aff against framework multiple times because I didn't think the 2NR explained enough why there was such a limits explosion that their impacts were true, even if I thought their impacts outweighed.

Framework (on the aff versus a K)

My default is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and for the neg to get an alt. I can be persuaded of an alternative framework that, for example, stresses representations over policies, but it will require a lot of time commitment on the neg. I don't see myself, however, voting on "neg doesn't get the K" because it's too unpredictable or whatever.

Nontraditional Affs

I will evaluate things largely as I do with traditional affs. That being said, having clear explanations as to the advocacy, the role of the judge, and the role of the ballot will go far. I am fine with just about whatever you wish to do as long as you can justify it, though I don't think I will give a double win/double loss.

K

I'm fine with most Ks but please don't presume I know what you're talking about. If your A-strat is to read some esoteric post-modern French philosophy, be ready to explain the K in everyday layperson's language rather than in terms of "lines of flight" or "arboreality" or whatever.

I think the way the K usually wins in front of me, against a traditional policy aff, is to use the links to implicate the aff's solvency or to turn the aff's advantages. Though this may sound obvious, specificity matters a lot.

I think spin is especially important in K vs policy debates--should I view the alt as hippie nonsense or as a necessary reconceptualization of politics? Is the aff a method for green capitalism to control the superstructure of education, or is it a method of taking responsibility for and confronting the worst excesses of capitalism? For me, whoever can best control the answer to these questions will be able to frame much of the rest of the debate, which is especially important if the 2AR hopes to go for a permutation. (If the aff strat is simply impact turning, this matters less.)

Against K affs, make the alt interact with the aff. I tend to be skeptical of most root cause claims--that's not to say you shouldn't make them, but that you need to have more game against the aff than simply root cause. The most convincing strategy, in my opinion, is to explain why the alt's method is better able to solve the aff's impacts than the aff's method. When tackling the perm against a K aff, I need more than simply "this is a method debate, they don't get a perm."

CP

They're great. Please stress or slow down on parts of the CP text that are important since I want to have an idea of what it is in the 1NC. CPs that can result in the entirety of the aff are probably illegit, both on a theory level and a competition level. I think positional competition (http://site.theforensicsfiles.com/NJSD.2-1.Final.pdf) makes a lot of sense. Agent CPs that utilize an alternative actor than the USFG are also questionably legitimate. Multiplank CPs can also become questionable if each plank is conditional. I have other theory preferences below.

I will not kick the CP for you unless the 2NR explicitly tells me to. 

DA

Also fine with them. Affs should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is vital. Turns case arguments are devastating, especially if you can make them earlier up the internal link chain.

Case

Please debate the case. The aff should constantly leverage it and the neg should hedge back against it. Even against nontraditional affs, weakening their solvency is super useful for the neg.

Theory

I will evaluate theory like any other argument--if you impact it out, I have no qualms about putting the ballot at stake on theory. I think multiple conditional worlds (especially 3 or more) probably aren't great for debate. I won't, however, vote on a one-liner in the middle of the 2NR saying that "severance perms are a voting issue"--I need clear warrants for rejecting the team. Please give pen time when reading theory and try to stray from simply reading blocks at each other. A good theory debate can be one of the most enjoyable debates to watch, and I will definitely reward you if you execute well.

Speaker Points

This is a rough scale of how I give speaks:

29.5 - deserve to be one of the top speakers, very few issues in speeches

29 - minor issues in speeches, probably is in the top 10-15 speakers

28.5 - should break, but some issues

28.3 - average, probably deserve to go 3-3

28 - some fairly sizeable issues

27.5 - dropped something really important

25 or lower - something problematic happened

Arguments I Don't Like

I will still try to evaluate these objectively, but I will probably drop your speaks for reading them:

-Obvious time skews--everything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR option (includes things like 1 card "gateway issue" Ks or silly T violations)

-Ashtar, TimeCube/etc.

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc. good

Random Notes

These are some self-observed trends from my judging that I thought could be useful -- after all, there's always a difference between how a judge considers their own judge philosophy and how they actually judge.

-After the 2AR, I start deciding by rereading both the 2NR and 2AR, then by either following the framing arguments that the debaters put forth, or -- in the absence of that kind of work -- I look for easy arguments to decide. Once I've decided a couple of arguments, I find ways to apply that to other aspects of the debate.

-This means that I often decide close debates on one small but key issue -- for example, in one round I judged, the negative goes for a CP and elections DA, spending maybe 30 seconds on solvency extending a single argument. The 2AR similarly blows off the solvency argument, claiming that 1AC evidence answered it. This was one of the first arguments that I assessed since it seemed fairly straight-forward to read the evidence as per both teams' direction. I ended up deciding the debate on, essentially, this one argument -- that the aff doesn't solve -- even though it was a small aspect of both of the final speeches because it was a simple argument to decide with widespread implications for the rest of the debate.

-I often feel qualms about voting on very techy arguments, but I usually end up deciding on the tech. An example: the 2NC and 2NR, going for T, make an argument that the aff doesn't meet their own interp based on a reading of the 2AC interp ev that isn't part of the aff's explanation of their interp; this is not directly answered in the 1AR or 2AR. The aff is ahead on every standard and they thoroughly explain their own interp and why they meet it. What they don't do, however, is push back on the neg's characterization of the 2AC interp ev. I end up voting neg because I don't think the aff meets their interp; even if they meet their own explanation of the interp, I felt that that explanation was less accurate to the ev, given the neg's analysis, and that the more "correct" explanation of what the 2AC ev described would exclude the 1AC.

-The closer the rounds are, the more I read cards. Ideally, I like to vote on the flow, because I feel like the more time I spend reading evidence or thinking about the decision, the more likely I am to intervene. But if I can’t determine a round purely on the tech, I’m more likely to try to find the “truth” of the debate by reading all of the evidence. If you’re a team that routinely gets by by out-teching people rather than reading good evidence, you should highlight concessions and tell me how to evaluate things to avoid having me investigate into evidence itself.

 -Extending every part of an argument matters. For example, even if the link to the politics DA is dropped in the 1AR, a 2NR that doesn't extend the link has not made a complete argument. That being said, I'd be sympathetic to the 2NR saying "don't make me reinvent the wheel, the 1AR has conceded the link, [insert 10 second explanation of the link]." But I do think it's important that you actually formally extend the argument in some capacity.

If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at isaacqcui@gmail.com

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

-------------------------

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

-------------------------

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

-------------------------

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

-------------------------

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

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.

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 

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

Just don't speak too fast.

If you're not in Policy, don't spread. Be clear in your arguments, and have fun!

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Hello everyone,
I have debated policy for two years with LACC and continue to be involved with the debate community for about three years (assisting teams and judging tournaments). This paradigm should be applied to any round I judge, whether it is LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy and anything else debate related. 

I am open to any type of debate as long as it make sense, so that means you as a debater should tell me how your aff response the resolution (or not). If you are the neg, tell me why the aff is wrong. simple, right?!

Speed: I can flow it, but I do not like when i cannot understand the words that are being uttered. So please ENUNCIATE! 

I am good with T's, K's, and theory, but be advise that I do not want to hear pre written blocks that have no clash. This makes the debate boring and less educational for everyone in the room. I would also like to say, if you are running a K that you are running in the aff and the neg, i expect you as a debater to make CLEAR connections. 

If you have a straight up debate, that will make my day because we will be doing what this activity is set out to do. haha

CX: I do pay attention, so I might flow it I might not. So I hope this sways you to use your CX usefully. Be polite, I do not enjoy yelling and I bet your opponent does not either. I will dock you speaker points if you are just  being rude (you might get the round, but not the speaker award). 


I expect from all debaters to paint me the BIG PICTURE!!!!!! By the time we get to the rebuttals, start collapsing to your strongest points to justify your position. Give me the impact calculus, turns, net benefit, and/or anything that makes your case.   
Please do not read evidence in the rebuttals or just sight your cards, but instead tell me how your evidence should give you the win.

dropped arguments I do weigh heavy in the round, if used correctly. Extend the dropped argument and tell me how that drop argument works in your benefit. This brings me to my last point, please do not use only debate jargon and expect me to do the work for you. I expect you to tell me how it works in your favor. 


I am also open for questions before round, so please ask for clarity if there is something you need answer. Let these long debates begin! 

Prefer for students to speak clearly and be articulate. I appreciate good eye contact and coutesy towards opponents. 

edited: no text

I am a parent Judge, however do not mistake that for being ignorant of the debate community. This is the second year judging debate and I graduated from CSU Long Beach with a degree in communications. 

Be respectful. If someone asks to see your evidence give it to them. 

Please be clear! Talk as fast as you want, but I need to be able to understand what you are saying. I won't flow what I don't understand.

Framework and impact calc are key! Give me a clear way to evaluate the round. Do not leave me without a mechanism to judge. 

Explain your warrants. Give me a play-by-play of the scenario and always state your reasons WHY. 

Kritiks are fine, run them all you want, but make sure you understand the material you're reading. Make sure they are warrented. This needs to be done well.  If a kritik is being run I expect you very knowledgeable about the topic. I need a clear idea of what I'm voting for. 

The 2013-14 season is my first season out, so my paradigm is still evolving. I competed for four years for CSU Fullerton, and was a CEDA double octa finalist and competed at the NDT.

Generally speaking, I enjoy watching all debate. I prefer a more critical oriented approach, but if you want to be straight up policy or the deepest left performance, I enjoy watching pretty much everything. As long as you can justify the argument you're making and explain its importance, I'll evaluate it in the round. And above all HAVE FUN! Run what you want to run, whatever that might be, and I'll do my best to evaluate it.

A nonspecific note, I LOVE explanation. I enjoy teams that make smart analyticals where appropriate, instead of spending their constructives saying 'more cards' and saying hardly anything else. This doesn't mean I won't vote for tons of cards, it's a style thing. You've got a great brain, let it shine!

If you're spreading, you should strive to be very clear. In particular, your tag, author, and card should be easily identifiable. Don't let them blur together, that just makes things harder on me, you, and your opponents.

K's: Love em. I primarily went for the K, and read transgender theory, cap, Baudrillard, Cuomo, Deleuze, Spanos and Nietzsche over the course of my career. I love hearing a good K debate, whether that's clash of civs or K on K violence. Make sure the 'story' and thesis of the K clear, and as long as I understand that story/thesis I'll be willing to vote on it. It will be easier to win the perm as the aff if you explain what the world of the permutation looks like. If you just say 'perm do both' and move on, I'm going to be heavily erring in the neg's favor.

CP/DA: Read whatever you want. I like a good CP/DA debate, especially with clever, creative, and competetive CP's, rather than generics.

Framework/Topicality: With regards to framework and T, while I will vote on it I generally lean more towards the K aff in this clash. If you do decide to read a straight up framework, you'll be in a much better position in front of me if you're applying your framework arguments to the aff and explaining what your framework means in relation to the affirmative, not just extending arguments. If the aff is 'debate about debate' this is doubly true. I will generally default to a competing interpretations view, unless y'all tell me to think differently in the round. Reasonability doesn't make sense to me unless you're giving me an explanation of what is/is not reasonable. Finally, in-round abuse is usually more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Performance: I did a lot of performance debate when I was competing, if you want to perform, go for it. Just make sure I understand why your performance is/was good.

Closing thoughts: Be creative, smart, and funny, and above all, do you.

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.

I graduated with a degree in Communications and Psychology. My areas of study include speech, logic, argumentation, persuasive speaking, non verbal communication, interpersonal communication, public relations, and strategic and consultative selling. Early in my career I worked in broadcast journalism then transitioned to public relations and business development.

I understand the rules and flow of debate. I remain completely unbiased and will never impose my beliefs, preconceptions or knowledge of the topic in my evaluation of a round. I am flexible on preferences. Road mapping is fine and actually stating clearly your contentions and subpoints is beneficial (i.e. "moving on to contention #2, subpoint a"). Spreading is okay as long as you are annunciating. If you spread too fast where it is impossible to even hear what you are saying then I will have difficulty judging your framework. I expect professionalism, decorum and good sportsmanship. Any verbal and/or non verbal signs of poor sportsmanship will lose you points.

Enjoy and good luck!

Brief Background

Debated two years in LAMDL.

Currently debating at Cal State Fullerton.

Cross ex

I allow tag team.

CP

They're fine. I will usually vote for them if 1.) Perm(s) are effectively answered, 2.)  CP is thoughtfully worded (no lazy CP's), 3.) Above all has a net benefit of some kind. Chances are I will not vote for a CP that states 'let other agent do it because they're better.'  Having a CP with a DA as net benefit is very convincing. Long story short CP without a net benefit will be brushed off by me by the end of the debate round.

DA

They are always compelling as long as the analysis for how the affirmative creates the problems is thoroughly communicated. I will vote solely for a DA if the negative team brings forth a thorough impact analysis as well as a coherent story for how voting for the aff gets us to said impacts. 

K

K debates are fun. If a neg chooses to run one it's important to find specific evidence for why an aff links to a K. i really appreciate neg teams that use cards in the 1AC as links. Essentially, if you provide one piece of evidence in their own 1AC that links to your K, you win the link debate. Generic links are also fine. Just make sure you explain how it plays out against the aff. However, the alt must also be thoroughly explained. If by the end of the debate round 1.) I don't hear a role of ballot, or 2.) don't understand why my ballot is going to improve our world I'm going to have a hard time voting for a K. 

T

Always extend interpretation, violation, standards, and all that jazz. If one gets lost as the debate progresses, I'm not voting for T. More importantly, the negative must talk about how the standards play in the debate round, and why the aff is bad for the debate community. Solely, saying 'judge they're cheating!' doesn't cut it. This isn't pre k and I don't like snitches. Essentially T must have impacts (standards). No impacts no win.

Theory

Essentially the same as T. They are fine as long as you impact your argument, and explain how the affirmative/negative's abuses are bad for the debate community.

Oncase

The negative win can win a debate round if they manage to provide enough offense on the aff. Solvency deficits are fine, but case turns will put the affirmative in a bad position, and incline me to vote for the neg. 

K Affs

These are pretty simple. If the affirmative chooses to run a K aff they must 1.) explain why their topic is important to discuss in the debate community and 2.) Explain why my ballot matters in improving the affirmative's impacts. In other words, if the aff discusses about racial oppression, they better not say my vote solves for all that, and makes the world all sunny sunshine. There must be a very detailed discussion as to why my vote matters to all the aff's impacts. If I don't find a reason for why my vote helps improve the problems the affirmative brings up, i will not vote for it.

Miscellaneous 

I don't mind spreading. However, emphasize on tags and authors. If you know you're reading a piece of evidence that's crucial for the debate round, emphasize on it. 

Be nice. Be respectful. Follow the golden rule and we'll all leave the debate round happy, holding hands, singing kumbaya.

For further questions feel free to contact me at 

andger15@Hotmail.com (yes I still use hotmail, because i'm hipster like that)

With that said good luck fellow youth of America!

LD: I judge the round based on the flow alone on the following paradigm

• Speed: I am fine with speed as long as you enunciate and sign post
• Value Debate: I weigh heavily on the Value Debate as it frames the round for me.  What gives your value more weight for me is if you justify it and link to your contentions.  It is not enough to simply state a value and value criterion, but you must weigh it against your oponent's to give it credence.
• Plans & Counter Plans: Do not run a CP if the aff has provided no specific policy proposal
• Validity of Evidence: I treat all statements from think tanks, universities, professors, and esperts as equal.  Meta Studies carry more weight than case studies unless you are able to prove or disprove statistical validity
• Round Ettiquite: If you are abusve, you will be voted against.
• Flex Prep: Is totally fine by me
• Weighing Arguments: I weigh contention level arguments based off the framework if possible.  If your contention makes an implicit argument, I don't weigh it unless it is explicitly addressed either in your case or rebuttal.  

Other than that, I pretty much go off of what I see on the ballot.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

What up ya'll-- I'm Joel. Born and raised in Southern California. As circumstances would have it I found myself still in the debate community since I started back as a Junior in HS in 2005. I started with good ole' policy in HS and quickly transitioned into loving critiques and eventually being labeled an "identity politics" debater.

I enjoy new ideas, concepts, and arguments. I am pretty open minded when it comes to what I think is "allowed" in a debate. That being said, judging is a tough job that I take seriously. To get my ballot just know these things about me.

If I had to pick, yes I prefer the K. I like high theory and I like quality over quantity. . Even though I am not well versed in many different lit bases I enjoy learning and making my decision based on your great explanations.

1. I enjoy the details as much as everyone else. Specificity wins debates. Avoid jargon heavy speeches; I don't think in jargon.

2. Some rounds I like technical debates, some rounds I enjoy embedded clash and a more abstract level of debating. Let's be real-- debate wants everyone to communicate in a low-context, low power distance approach-- that doesn't work for everyone. I've learned to navigate different cultural communicative approaches but sometimes this results in a different side of me coming out at the wrong time. I am not a machine or a robot... I feel things. I get persuaded. Sometimes I "read into" things because I grew up very high-context. Your ethos and control of the round/framing matters. I reward persuasion too, not just logic.

3. I think its your job to isolate game-winning or game-losing moments in your speeches and make those issues the paramount issues of the debate. In a world of paperless debate that means you should isolate warrants and sections of your evidence that demonstrate your truth and not make it my job to determine. Yes I will have the doc open but it doesn't mean you get credit for arguments without explaining them.

4. I enjoy theory but please signpost sections clearly; no one likes a messy theory debate and I certainly don't want to make sense of a splatter of answers against a splatter of answers. I like substantive reasons to vote on theory, proven abuse.

5. Judge Instruction in DA/CP Debates = Key. Tell me what you're winning and why. I like it when you do the thinking for me. What does winning the Uniqueness get you? How does that impact the debate? What is going on? Please do all the thinking for me.

I try not to be expressive in rounds however please know that I am very likely enjoying the debate.

email chain: joelsalcedo4@gmail.com

In the end: Its all in the framing.

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.

AFA NIET All American 2008.

8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.

Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.

1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.

3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)

2 year NFA qualifier.

Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.

Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.

Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.

*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.

I am a Public Forum coach. I like to see teams who are polite and respectful to their opponents, especially during crossfires. Definitely include weighing and impact calculus in your final focus, don’t leave it up to me.

zsandoval@loyolahs.edu

There are three major things to keep in mind for my paradigm

First, I'll keep track of what is and isn't extended, including any part of framework, so extend.

Second, You have to win on a clear value and value criterion, and if neither side is able to, I go neg on presumption.

Third, use impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) Magnitude being the most important as long as its probability is more likely than not. An argument needs to be well rooted for me to consider it, so I won't vote on a weak extinction argument.

Ask me anything else you'd like to know before the round starts!

I believe that debate is a game. Play to win. Run your theory shells, specs, whatever you need to. Be strategic. Literally everything is up for debate, including the in-round rules. Keep that in mind when you decide what your voters are.

Speed is fine to a point. If it becomes too much I will make it obvious.

If you're going to run any critical arguments, clarity becomes paramount, since I likely won't be as well read on the subject as you.

Write my ballot for me. Make my job easy.

Not a lay judge.

Interested in old fashioned LD style debate.

Please refer to my judge philosophy on wikispaces under my name. https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

Lay Judge