STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 06/04/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

TL;DR VERSION

I don't want to read your cards or be on your email evidence chain. I hate homework/spam.

I don't buy crazy low probability impacts like global warming and nuclear war unless you work hard for them: multiple warrants, proper link chains, and a demonstration that you've read more academic literature than I have is typically required. If you say "The impact is nuclear war: 100 million die" followed by author name and without any further warranting, you will likely lose.

Spread over 250 wpm: YOU DIE.

Read only author last names and year for super important/critical cards: YA DIE.

Last speech of any debate: focus on voting issues. If you continue/only debate the flow: YOU DIE DIE DIE.

Run BS Theory & Play Stupid Games: You win stupid prizes. And... YOU DIE.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's. I signed up to judge a debate not do extra reading homework.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence when it comes to your most key/consequential cards. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case.If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence. (Author last name + year is fine for small stuff)

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- Global Warming / Nuclear War / Extinction Impacts: Good luck with those. I rarely if ever buy any of those exaggerated / overblown / 1% probability impacts unless you explain thoroughly and in great detail how 10+ million plus people are going to die. You can't just say "China will get mad and nuke Taiwan and then we all die." I have a Chinese Tiger Mom. I've personally seen Chinese aggression up close: thrown slippers and passive-aggression hurt. They don't hurt that bad.

- Capitalism Ks: LOL!You're gonna read me something off of a Macbook Pro that you were given by your hired debate coach while competing for a private school that charges Stanford tuition prices. Didn't your parents drop you off at the tournament in a Tesla Model S? That nice suit you're wearing better not be Armani.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle. (I now donate in cash... don't make the same mistake I made kids!)

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

i am the beach

Hi! My name's Alex (she/her) :)

Email chain: alexandrardischler@gmail.com

General info:

I competed for Teurlings Catholic (Louisiana) in PF, Congress, and occasionally LD. I now compete in APDA at American University (majoring in IR and Phil)

TLDR:

-Please send speech docs (preferably pdf/not copy pasted into the body of the email) before the speech for accessibility purposes, I'll be an objectively better judge if so

-I'm apparently bad at controlling my facial expressions so you'll probably be able to tell how I feel about your argument based on that

-You don't have to call me judge, Alex is fine

-I don't care if you sit/stand and you don't have to ask me if it's okay

-I won't eval identity args if ur not a part of that identity (aka if you're not black don't run afropess)

-I probably don't know the topic (ie keep topic specific jargon minimal)

-I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

-Tech>truth (except for morally bad stuff)

-Clear weighing/voters = my heart

-I <3 excessive signposting

-Use ff/last rebuttal to write the ballot

-Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

***be as accessible as possible!! Always ask pronouns or default to they/them - if anything happens that makes you feel unsafe please let me know. Please use trigger warnings!! If you aren't respectful (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will def drop you/tell tab

Prefs:

1- trad, policy, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, other Ks,

3- tricks (I'm generally unfamiliar with tricks beyond spikes/hijacks - if you're running them and they're in a paragraph please send me a separate doc w them numbered<3)

Actual Paradigm Stuff:

Framework:

Big fan of framework (esp in PF - so underutilized). Please extend it tho!! Most of my framework tended to be util but I'll really vote for whatever. With that being said, not a huge fan of framework debates but I won't be devastated if it happens either. I <3 deontology u will get a speaks boost (or if you just generally mix it up from mitigating SV/util)

Cases:

General: Run whatever as long as you understand it. If you run phil heavy stuff (k or not) I would prefer if you explain the arg more than you usually would!! I love ks but not super familiar with performance cases but run whatever you think is fun!!

Favs: Derrida, Foucault, Puar, dedev/anything cap bad, and wipeout

Biggest opps: Academy (please just don't. I simply do not understand no matter how much I read - just go for charity cannibalism or something)

Impacts:

Meta weighing = speaks boost!! Live, laugh, love, terminal impacts

CX:

I don't flow cross, flex prep is fine. If they say something weird/contradictory in cross extend it or I'm not voting on it

Evidence:

Don't clip. Compare evidence yourself, I'll read cards if you want but it will be begrudgingly.I don't like paraphrasing. Evidence ethics in PF went to hell and I'm not voting for you if you can't produce a source or author when asked/on the speech doc. Bare minimum is tag, author's last name, and date. Will vote on paraphrasing theory

Signposting:

Signposting is important for me. I try my best to keep an organized flow, and if you signpost well I'll probably give you a speaks boost. I love a good "we have 3 responses, to their contention 1 link evidence - first." Always always always elaborate. Don't say cross apply this or extend that and not tell me why. If you line by line I <3 u

Speed:

Send docs either way!!I value clarity over speed and will say "clear" twice and then stop flowing. Slow down more than you think you should on tags and authors.

PF: Not a fan of policy spreading in PF. Just keep in mind that your opponents may not be comfy with it

LD/POL: Do what you want if everyone is chill w it

Theory Shells:

I used to say this isn't my favorite style of debate but (sadly) it's become one of my favs. However, this is really only regarding equity theory/in-round callouts/that type of stuff. If you wanna run friv, go for it, but I probably won't vote on it alone, add some actual case/other shell/whatever debate too. Disclosure good but 50/50 shot I'll vote on it (depends on the round and if it's some absurd interp). I'll happily vote for theory regarding in-round abuse. If someone says something offensive/harmful I'll vote on it even if it isn't a flushed-out shell (ie they said it late in the round) so feel free to make it a voter. I'll sometimes vote on RVIs, but it depends on the round, and 9 times out of 10 I'll be sad about it. All of this being said, please don't run stuff just to kick it/as a time suck cause that's boring and a waste of paper

Speaks:

I'm pretty generous with speaks. I don't think they really mean anything/determine anything about you as a debater but I usually give somewhere in the 28-30 range. I'll disclose them if asked!!

Equity:

I more than likely won't vote on respectability, especially if it's in the morning (everyone is cranky be fr). That being said, I will vote on misgendering/any other sj theory without batting an eye. If your response to misgendering theory is something like "I forgot" or "I didn't know" you should've either checked the wiki or asked them. I think any type of equity theory is a priori and won't be persuaded by arguments telling me otherwise. If they do it late in round/it's too late to run a shell just make it a voter and I'll vote on that!!

Other:

Basically just whatever you want as long as you're organized.

If u run Marx/Derrida in front of me you will LOVE your speaks<3 big specters fan

If I missed anything there's a good chance I agree w Lenox Leverett/Gio Piedimonte/Elizabeth Elliott so do with that what you will

If you have something silly/different/unique you wanna run and haven't had the yet chance, go for it!! I'm happy to judge whatever and it makes rounds more fun

**if I didn't cover something feel free to email/just ask me in person!! :)

Brief Intro about myself:

I am Programmer/Tech Enthusiast. I love learning about new technology coming every day. I have been judging for more than one year. In last one year i have all the forms of debate format.

Debaters i will prefer that participants don't do spreading. Its very important that i am able to understand what you want to present. There is no point of you providing information that i am not able to get to it. I understand you have lot to say but you need to make sure the judge is also following along. I am big believer of "Keep it Short and Simple"

As a judge, i will try to keep myself open-minded and not to impose any personal opinion what so ever.

Most important, please be respectful to your opponents and team mates. At end of day this is all going to be an constructive effort.

Good Luck!!!

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

I honor true debate and good communication. Speak clearly as you bring forth your carefully crafted arguments. Respect all of those involved in the debate process, especially your competition. When the competition is stiff, please remember that "iron sharpens iron" and you will improve your skills as a direct result. Your thoughts, words, and debates will have an impact on the thoughts, words, and actions of others. Please know that you have great power in the words you choose and the arguments you craft. What an awesome responsibility and privilege to have the opportunity and qualifications to enter into the world of debate!!! I look forward to hearing you!

Nicole He (she/her)

Debated for Seven Lakes High School for four years on nats circuit

Email: nicolexinyao1@gmail.com, add me to the chain if there is one

General tldr:

I’m tabula rasa in that my brain is empty and I don't know anything about the topic please explain everything. Also try to preflow and start an email chain before round to speed things up, tech>truth, speed is fine just send docs. As long as arguments are explained well and weighed well, I will vote for it.

Preferences:

Trigger warnings are needed for graphic arguments, but only if they're genuinely triggering. I think it's kind of silly to need trigger warnings just because people say the word "sexual assault" or if there are "mentions of gendered violence" because that just silences debaters who are trying to debate about important issues that they care about. If you do want to read tw theory for nongraphic readings of violence though, I will still evaluate it. But again, this doesn't mean trigger warnings aren't important and if something graphic and triggering is read it has to come with an opt-out form. Any violation of this that causes distress in round will most likely not lead to a good ballot for you.

Defense is not sticky. If it matters, you need to extend and implicate it in summary and final. Frontline in second rebuttal, dropped arguments in rebuttal are considered conceded.

If you want the easy win and want to make my life easier please do comparison in every speech you can. Comparative weighing, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing all decrease the chance that I intervene and generally make the round less messy. I usually think that in terms of metaweighing, probability and the whole policy paralysis warrant is weak and confusing, but if it's the only meta-weighing done I will vote on it.

Any bigotry means you're auto-dropped with the lowest speaks possible.

Evidence:

If para or direct quote, have cut evidence ready to send if its called for

Don't lie.

Speaks:

Just be chill, funny, and strategic, and speaks shouldnt be bad for you

Progressive Args:

I've read Ks, SV framework, and theory in high school and they still confuse me so I would much rather just hear a regular debate and probably be a better judge for one too.

If you decide to not listen to me and run these arguments, make sure you have an impact (especially Ks, please don't read one that does not solve anything), and don't just throw jargon at me. Again, if you just explain things well and do the comparison, I'll vote on it.

Please don't read tricks. I won't know what to do with it.

Hi I’m Phoebe I go by she/her pronouns.

I’ve debated in PF for three years. Don’t be disrespectful, please do good extensions and weigh.

Hey everyone!

He/his pronouns

TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.

More Specific

I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.

I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.

More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.

Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.

I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.

The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.

Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.

If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate

a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.

b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.

c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.

d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

I competed in both speech & debate on CHSSA (CA) and NSDA circuit for 4 years with a focus in platform events, but am familiar with all IEs.

I also competed in PF and Parliamentary but consider me a lay judge as I do not particularly like spreading. I will flow, however. As someone heavily trained in performance and delivery, I will take yours into account.

We may be virtual, but continue to behave appropriately and professionally.

I privately coach elementary, middle & high school speech and debate, as well as teach private speech writing and speech delivery classes. Contact me at jamiejjma@gmail.com for any comments, questions or concerns.

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.***NO VERBAL PROMPTING**

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two seven year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy ***NO VERBAL PROMPTING**I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

(He/Him)

School Affiliation: Speech and Debate India

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 3

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4 (Competing in Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, and Georgetown University tournaments)

Current Occupation: Student

Speech documents would be appreciated, not mandated. Please send them to prahladmadhu2@gmail.com.

BREATHE. Debate can get really intimidating, competitive, etc. SO BREATHE. Before the round, during the round, and after the round (I know that's really hard). Most importantly, have fun. The best rounds come about when everyone is enjoying themselves.

I am Prahlad (pronounced "pruh·laad"), from India. I have been doing debate for over a year, so I am well-versed in most things debate-related. I listen, take notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other. Also, you can address me by name and not "judge," since I'm only in high school.

Please read below (yes, it's pretty lengthy) to understand the way I think and what I will and will not vote for in the round.

Please focus on these areas if you want to win a round:

Substantiate your contention with impact and remember to extend:impact calculus and weighing are by far the most important things in debate. All impacts should be extended in each speech, and you should emphasize the impacts you want me to vote on in the final focus. You are at liberty to set the criteria by which you will be judged. Please do so and then explain why and how you think you won according to these criteria, why your opponent lost, and why their criteria did not produce a winning outcome for them.

During cross-fire and rebuttals, challenge and effectively defend—Iam not going to be flowing cross-ex but will be paying attention. Do not ask for a source during cross-ex. If opponents have conceded something in cross-example, extend it in the next speech. Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer.

I flow everything in the round, so make sure to clearly address all arguments in the round. If it is not in my flow, I consider it a dropped argument. I will not make connections for you, so if there's anything important and the opposition is dropped, EXTEND IT. Don't give me "Extend the Henry card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that. If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention, then make clear what that contention is. Try your hardest not to get bogged down in smaller issues and tangents; stick to the main clashes and make it clear that you win them in your summary and final focus.

Evidence: I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find, and then use your prep time for the remainder of the time it takes you to send the card. I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather you read cut cards. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's. If you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Weighting: Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why one argument matters more than another. This makes the round wholistic. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote. I don’t evaluate new weighing in the second final focus or new points post-summary speeches. If no team weighs, I will probably just vote for the FF.

SPEED: Everyone doing debate wants to go as quick as a racecar, and I would be lying if I said I haven't spread in PF. I am a flow judge, but since I have done debate before, I am okay with whatever speed you want to go at, as long as the opponents and I are able to comprehend whatever you are saying. Signposting is critical, but in the rare case I have trouble, I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Post Debate:

1. It is perfectly fine if you disagree with my decision (again, I'd be lying if I said I haven't disagreed with judges). I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward.

2. I will tend to vote with my gut unless the round is incredibly close. It shouldn't take me longer than 5 minutes to decide a debate. If it does, the debate was probably super close; you guys were gods!

3. I talk a lot in RFDs.

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

• Flay/treat me more lay
• Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

Hey, I am Samarth Modi. I am a Freshman at UCLA, and I have done Parliamentary and Oxford-style debates for ~6 years. I also have experience volunteering as an oratory, critical thinking, and debate coach for ~4 years. However, I have not debated in the United States' circuits. I have done a decent number of policy debates, however, I am not in a position to coach or judge those formats. From what I know about debate events in the US, I'd probably be most qualified to judge PF and LD.

Since I'm new to debate in the States, I may not be familiar with the following: spreading/speed, event-specific jargon, or topic lit. I'm aware of event rules and speech times.

As a debater, judge, or even a coach my focus remains on persuasiveness over technical truth. That's not to say that I disregard facts in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is a persuasive public speaking event. Therefore, I think definitions, persuasive argumentation, coherence/consistency, and teamwork are the most valuable skills in debate.

My view of debate is more focused on long-term portable skills and less on technical proficiency.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round or contact me at modisamarth@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

General

• Technicality over Truth.
• Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
• I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
• Give trigger warnings.
• Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is, otherwise, I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• Case offense/ turns should be extended by author name.
• Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont - "extend our link"
• For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

- I'm okay with a fast pace as long as you're clear and articulate. No spreading though.

- I'm usually more realistic when weighing impacts - that is, unless you have compelling evidence to prove the probability of a seemingly unlikely event.

- I won't flow the cross fires so make sure you bring up important arguments from CF in your next speeches.

- Weighing is important in the final focus.

- Go over the flow and mention dropped arguments in your final focus.

- Do not bring up new arguments in your final focus.

- Academic integrity is essential. Paraphrasing is completely fine but do not misconstrue evidence.

- Be courteous to the opposition and in no circumstances should you be using offensive language. Be assertive, not aggressive.

- I don't mind providing individual feedback so feel free to ask :)

I'm a senior in high school, and I've been debating since 8th grade, so I'm experienced with PF and have done both PF and Worlds on a national level. During a round, make sure you extend any arguments you make. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before or after a round.

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

Ishan Tandon (He/Him/His)

Kent Denver 2022

USC 2026

Include me on all email chains: itandon22@kentdenver.org. Title the chain [Tournament and Round] -- [AFF team] vs [NEG team]

1. Background

I debated policy for 4 years at Kent Denver and had success on both the local and national circuits. I was a 1N/2A for most of my time, so take that as you will. People that have influenced my ideologies in debate are Mike Bausch, Nate Graziano, and Robel Worku, so what I think about debate ties in with their philosophies as well. That being said, I will leave my predispositions at the door and come in to judge the arguments that are presented. Below are my thoughts on certain arguments, but good debating can always change the original ideas I have. Have fun; debate is supposed to be a place where people can come and talk about arguments they enjoy.

2. Judge Instruction

This is probably one of the most important parts of the debate that I personally didn't understand until my senior year. Being able to clearly articulate what and why you want the judge to vote on certain arguments is super important. "Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot." - Nate Graziano

How I evaluate

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I vote lay

Prog is aight but I won't vote on anything I don't understand so explain well

Also I'm tired asf rn try your best not to spread

+0.1 speaks if you reference esteemed TOC winner Ananth Menon or famed Hamilton debater Kellen Jiang in a speech

+0.005 speaks if you give me a $100 amazon gift card

PF: I vote mainly on the voters you give me, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters). Go down the flow it makes it much easier for me to flow all of your agruments in the right spot. Don't spread if I dont know exactly what you said I wont write it down.

LD: Make your Framework very clear so I understand exactly what it is but dont make it a framework debate. Dont spread if I dont know what you said I wont write it down. I vote mainly on voters, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters).

Congress: I've done alot of PF so I like reliable sources. Be ready to speak on either side of the bill. Try and fill all of your time in your speach but if you have nothing new to add then just leave it at what you have and ask questions. questions are important to me it shows you are still engaged in the round and will give you extra points.

IPDA: jsut try to fill all your time have a good ofense and defense, and be sure to speak well. good luck