I am a parent judge new to speech and debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please just assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.

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

Speech paradigm:

Sharvani Haran - Speech Judge Paradigm

Experience: I have been involved in speech and debate all my student life and have been judging for 5 years, for both speech and debate[LD, PF only] tournaments. I have judged at various levels of competition, including local tournaments, regional championships, and middle school national tournament.

As a judge, I prioritize several key elements in evaluating speeches:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value speeches that are well-structured and easy to follow. Clear organization helps to convey the speaker's message effectively.

2. Persuasiveness: On non- interpretation speeches I appreciate speeches that present strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and analysis.

3. Delivery: While substance is paramount, delivery also plays a crucial role. I admire speakers who demonstrate confidence, poise, and effective use of vocal variety and gestures.

4. Engagement: A compelling speech captures the audience's attention and maintains their interest throughout. I appreciate speakers who employ rhetorical techniques, storytelling, and humor to engage their audience.

5. Adaptability: I recognize that different events may prioritize certain skills over others. Whether I'm judging a Lincoln-Douglas debate, a public forum round, or an original oratory competition, I adjust my criteria accordingly while remaining consistent in my evaluation standards.

6. Feedback: I believe constructive feedback is essential for growth. I strive to provide detailed, specific feedback to help speakers understand their strengths and areas for improvement.

7. Fairness and Respect: I approach judging with impartiality and fairness, evaluating each speaker based on their performance in the round. I expect all participants to treat each other, the judges, and the event staff with respect and professionalism.

Above all, I am committed to fostering a positive and supportive environment for all participants. I aim to provide a fair and constructive evaluation of each speech, recognizing the hard work and dedication that goes into preparing for competitive speaking events.

I look forward to witnessing the talent and passion of the competitors.

LD is in my opinion the best, most academically challenging, and overall awesome form of debate. My evaluations of rounds are based on the following:

• spreading is NOT inherent to LD and if you would like to spread I suggest CX. I strongly detest spreading for a few reasons: spreading detracts from the academic conversation that is taking place, and at the most foundational level (in any debate) if your judge/audience cannot hear you then how would you ever expect to be judged adequately. Spreading greatly impacts your ability as a debater to present a clear, concise, and organized argument to your judge. Delivery is essential when effectively communicating with others and in my opinion spreading is the antithesis of that.

• FW is very important for me. The V and V/C are my guide as a judge on the lens in which I am evaluating the round and without those things it makes it harder for me to accurately judge the arguments that you present. Linking contentions back to your FW demonstrates to me that you’ve thought this through meticulously. I have no real preference for “ought’ implying a V of morality or “just” implying a V of justice. I am totally open to your interpretation of the V that you think best suits the debate it really just comes down to the presentation of the V and V/C and the “call back” to that into your contentions. I am down for a FW debate as long as it is relevant.

• Flow of case is important. You shouldn’t make arguments for arguments sake. By this I mean: did you use logic, supported by evidence with clear links and impacts to justify your contentions? Do you weigh impacts effectively and clearly? It is not enough to say “we outweigh on X impact” you need to tell me why your case outweighs.

Over all, I prefer:

1. Clear expression;
2. Well-organized content;
3. Good gesture and voice;
4. Humor;
5. Strong evidence about your topic.

Judge: Prince Jose
Background: Over 3 years of experience in speech and debate.
Philosophy: Prioritizes clear, structured arguments with effective communication.
Delivery: Emphasizes good eye contact and gestures.
Content: Values structured content with evidence and support. Memorable phrases, content recaps.
Persuasion: Engage the audience, include thrilling stories and surprises.
Dislikes: Disrespectful behavior and over-reliance on notes.
Advice: Advocate with conviction. Be daring in your presentation approach.
Feedback Promise: Committed to offering insights that foster growth and enhance speaking abilities.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

I am a parent judge

Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.

Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.

Athenian ’24, 2 bids, finaled a decent size tournament. I’m a Philosophy major if that matters for how you’re debating.

During Senior year, I was coached by Holden Bukowsky and I prepped with Ryan Noorizadeh.

everettyau36@gmail.com for email chain and questions.

In-Round.

1. No marked docs. Tell the other debater which words you cut cards. It’s faster and there’s less prep-stealing.
2. Clipping is an L25. You need a recording to stake the round.
3. No callouts or any arguments based on something out of round.
4. Run anything you want. My brightline for intervening in the round is slurs or anything worse.
5. I default to Truth Testing as a ROTB and I default to evaluating inserted rehighlights.
6. If your cards have your tag on it/I know that you cut them, you will get a speaker point boost.
7. I’m not going to flow from the doc, so be clear before being speedy.
8. Read evidence ethics like a theory shell.

General Debate Thoughts.

1. The value of tech is articulating truthful arguments accurately.
2. The value of strategy is in finding truthful arguments that are also technically viable.
3. I have a very high threshold for tricks and theory.
4. Every non-policy position’s purpose is to beat extinction outweighs. This is especially important for goofy philosophy arguments that confuse everyone but ultimately agree with extinction, but also keep it in mind for Ks.
5. DTA with Condo is coherent. Forcing them to not go for any conditional position is a sufficient punishment.
6. When attempting to determine a philosophy to run, keep in mind that the resolution is usually asking about what the government should do, meaning political philosophy is often more important than moral philosophy.
7. I pretty much only care about debate for its ability to be educational about philosophy.

Kritiks:

1. I love when debaters know their literature. I’ve spent a lot of my time in debate trying to make my arguments more genuine to the literature, and I think that this is one of the most valuable skills in K debate.
2. Links are usually where these debates are won or lost.
3. I’m most convinced by a middle ground framework interpretation.
4. Extinction o/w should beat every K that does not have a response to it other than “extinction reps bad.” This has never been convincing for me.
5. There’s no such thing as a K that doesn’t require you to win framework. This includes PIKs. However, if your opponent doesn’t point this out, it’s fair game.
6. Perms under a framework that includes the aff’s episteme are almost always severance.

Policy:

1. I’m good with any cheaty counterplans. I’ll vote against them if a theory argument is won, but I’ll still like the counterplan.
2. Zero risk exists. It’s pretty rare though.
3. Judge kick needs a warrant.

Framework:

1. I think fairness is an internal link and not an impact. You can probably convince me otherwise in round, though.
2. SSD and the TVA are very good. Affs that haven’t thought out how they beat SSD should almost always lose to it.
3. Impact turns as a reason to DTD needs to be impacted out in a speech, not just labeled that way in flex.
4. I meet strategies with stupid definitions are usually not convincing to me.

K Affs:

1. I hate IVI spam so much. Please don’t do this.
2. THINK THROUGH HOW TO BEAT FRAMEWORK. If you don’t know how you’ll beat every common argument, you will lose.
3. I love topical K affs. I’m pretty convinced that you should be able to weigh your episteme, but bonus points if the K impact is reverse causal.

T:

1. It’s probably strategic to have T specific paradigm issues.
2. Caselists are great.

Theory:

1. Most theory can be resolved by reasonability. It’s extra convincing when you contextualize reasonability to the specific shell.

Phil:

1. As you can probably tell, this is what I actually care about within debate. If you have a good philosophy debate, I’ll be super happy and probably give you better speaks. Prove to me you’ve read about the topic and know what you’re saying.
2. The way that philosophy should be run in debate is very similar to how Kritiks are already run. By that, I mean that you should be leveraging central syllogisms of your philosophy to answer objections. Please do not do the thing where you have 20 bullet points and then crossapply the one dropped one to answer objections in the most contrived way possible.
3. If you run Aquinas (and don’t bastardize it) I’ll give you a 30.
4. Kant outweighs extinction under epistemic modesty. Kant should beat consult and delay counterplans every time. Email me if you want an explanation.
5. Go for determinism!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging speech and debate for quite a while now. When it comes to debate, please read your case TO me not AT me. Don't bore me with random facts. During the debate, assume I know nothing about the topic. When it comes to framework, keep it simple and make sure your case follows your framework the entire time. Please always explain and weigh impacts and arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a few jokes and be humorous during debate speeches. As long as you are respectful and still on topic, go for it. I appreciate off time road maps to help me with flowing and ballots. Please speak clearly, don't spread and most importantly have fun!

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.

I am a parent judge, so please refrain from spreading too much. Thank you!