TLDR:

ex-LD debater. I really care about signposting and impacts. If you flow a card across, tell me why it matters!

--------

I love cross examination and tend to give high speaker points when someone does great in them. I will keep track of what is said in CX, but bring it up in your speeches to drive home the impact of a line of questioning.

I see a clear distinction between LD and policy debate, and in an LD round, I want to see an LD debate. I judge things through the value and v/c, and expect to see them engaged with substantially.

PLEASE SIGNPOST! I consider myself a flow judge and if you don't signpost, I won't know where you are on the flow. Dropped arguments matter -- if you don't extend an argument through a speech, I can't vote on it at the end.

Impacts for your arguments are critical, as is weighing arguments. I'd love to not just vote based on the number of dropped arguments, or the number of warrants one debater wins versus the other. If you're fighting for an argument, tell me why that argument is important and how it impacts the dialogue of the round.

You'll make my life easier (and reduce the chance of unexpected ballot results) if you give clear voting issues in your last speech. Talk me through the flow and lay out why you're the winner.

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

Last edited 3/8/21

Debated for CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016.

There are a few different paradigms I have floating throughout the internet and I don't really want to track them all down and edit them all. The important thing to note is the last updated date; I dunno I feel like my opinions of debate radically change every tournament so it might be useless to say very much at all.

That being said I think a few select lines have stayed constant through my like 5+ years judging parli.

- I think an argument consists of a claim, data, and warrant. If an argument doesn't have data (an example or evidence from the real world) and a warrant (an explanation of how the data satisfies the claim) then it's not really an argument but an assertion. For parli, I generally have a high threshold for what constitutes a sufficient argument in the 1AC and 1NC as opposed to any other speech.

- You should slow down on theory analytics or for more esoteric criticisms. Theory tends to be too blippy for me to write down and often just sounds like a long chain of claims. For most critical literature, I'm a slow reader, it takes a fairly long time for me to process stuff. It takes an even long time if I have a piecemeal flow of the argument. The point is, for criticisms, you should explain your argument and contextualize it to our interpretations of the world with data and warrants.

Things you should not do in front of me:

Besides the aforementioned consistently true things mentioned above, here are some additional things that you shouldn't do.

There limits to what I'll vote for seems to be put to the test every year... I've decided that I refuse to vote for a theory argument which states that any text must be passed before flex time. I think that passing text should be expected before the next speech and any arguments about competitive equity or accessibility should be contextualized in a form of offense that is not the above interpretation. Additionally, if there is an issue of competitive equity and accessibility (for whatever reason), please make it clear before the round.

You should not assume I am familiar with whatever the hot new theory arguments are. I wouldn't say that I have any particular pre-disposition to any of these arguments, but you really want to explain these to me like I'm five years old. This doesn't only apply to interpretations.

I have a much higher threshold for voting on 2AC theory, even if these are introduced in the pmc. I also don't think the 1NC should read multiple theory positions. I guess my point is that I think theory proliferation is bad.

Things you should do in front of me:

Obligatory, do a lot of weighing in the back half of the debate, read a lot of warrants, be nice to each other.

I really don't know what types of arguments I prefer, but for reference I read fairly diverse arguments while I competed. I enjoyed reading topical affirmatives with specific advantages and also almost exclusively rejected the topic my last year competing. The only substantive arguments I don't really feel qualified to evaluate would probably be politics.

I really don't go to many national circuit tournaments, most of my time is sticking to southern california community college debates. Slowing down and explaining more is probably a good idea since I think my brain has atrophied from all the ipda.

Even though I'd prefer more technical rounds, it'd be lying to say that persuasion doesn't undergird my decision-making. This can manifest in a few ways. Just cause it was a golden turn in the pmr doesn't mean it's true. If I don't understand the argument I probably won't vote for it, I may feel guilty that I don't, but I won't feel like I should be so guilty I should vote for it.

Things for online debate:

I really need everyone to slow down.

If words from your speech cut out or I can't understand you I'll first type it in the chat. I'll keep note of what the last argument I heard was.

Typically, I don't read the interps or plans or whatever is passed through the chat. I just have whatever is written down. If y'all wanna spread through your interp once and move on that's cool, I'll evaluate it based on my flow.

I competed in policy debate and parliamentary debate (NPDA and APDA) in college. I currently teach and used to coach debate to middle school students at Brentwood school. While I can flow if you spread, for parliamentary debate I prefer a round that is clear and the analysis of arguments is stressed over just trying to go fast.
I am going to borrow from my old debate coach:
Ken Sherwood: “I am an argument critic. Do not expect me to vote for any claim that is not developed into an argument. You must develop a complete argument including warrants, not just assertions.”
If you choose to run theory, please make sure you clearly explain how your argument functions in the round. I prefer rounds that combine the technical aspects of the flow with a clear presentation, and I will always look to the flow first when determining speaker points.

Competed for several years on the college level in both Parli debate and NFA LD. Flow oriented judge. Any argument is fine, so long as you explain why that argument is relevant, and why it should be weighted more heavily then other arguments. Speed is fine, so long as the other team can keep up. I try to be as blank of a slate as possible, so be sure to explain how you would you prefer me to judge the round (role of the ballot, criteria, weighing mechanism, etc)

What you need to know:

1.) I'm Kelly.  College debater, late to the debate game.  Parli sucks; I do it anyway.  

2.) If you're funny and/or irreverent, I want to vote for you.  I won't without good reason to.  

3.) Tech>Truth

4.) Process Counterplans are gross. I'll hear you out but ew.

5.) Theory=debating about debate.  Give me something more substantive than education/fairness please. Impact debate is best debate.

6.) Ignore me though; I'll listen to anything, and I'd rather you tell me both how to vote and what to vote on.  

7.) Slow your theory down. Way down. 

8.) Don't be a jerk. 

9.) Flex prep is obviously fine.  Keep each other honest by timing opponents' prep.  

10.) I am pretty easy with speaker points.  I don't really give out 30's (means there's no room to improve, and there always is).  If you're a jerk, I'll drop your speaks a lot.  If you jump around the flow and are messy, don't explain things, make my job annoying, I'll drop your speaks a little.  But I'm generally pretty generous.

Plan text debate?  Yeah.  Of course.  The more specific, the better though. And yes, all planks are up for debate.

Krit Affs? Yes. Love.  You will have a legit hard time convincing me they have no place in debate. Familiar with most of the lit.  Go nuts.

Disads?  Yeah, of course. Linear, nonlinear, politics, yep. 

Counterplans? Covered.  Yes, (though conditionality is a thing I like to see, please have this debate if Neg has at least one conditional world) PICs are fine.  

P.S. Cross applying your overview to the line-by-line in rebuttal speeches is annoying.  And I hate underviews, I don't know why people do this; don't be this person; save a tree.

A word on LD and PoFo though (I get stuck judging these a lot)

DON'T BE A JERK.  

FOR LD: Capitalizing on the time differential on the neg by running excessive theory is gross.  I won't drop you for running theory mainly.  But I kind of wish you wouldn't, and my sympathy will go Aff because I think it's really unfair to capitlize on something your opponent literally can't do anything about.

RVI's aren't a thing. Spreading is not inherently abusive.  

FOR PoFo: PoFo=net benefits debate.  I honestly don't think there's enough time for a real framework debate in this format, and it's kind of a waste of time.  

I'll happily listen to anything you have to say.

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.

Brandon Fletcher

Hired Judge, Spring 2019

Summary:

I want to watch a competitive debate where both teams are arguing the issues they’re best at, and I would prefer that the debaters spend more time thinking how to be strategic and have fun, than thinking about what particular style of debate or strategy that I want to see.

In terms of my competitive background, I was a competitor at Palomar and CSULB from 2010 to 2015, and was a coach at CSU Long Beach from 2015 to 2017. I was primarily involved in the NPDA/NPTE national circuit during that time, so that's what most of my experience is with.

Requirements:

That said, there are a few non-negotiable things you need to consider when having me in the back of the room:

· Use They/Them pronouns when not referring to me by name

· I will take a long time evaluating highly competitive rounds. As a byproduct of a learning disability, I continually reread and think through my flow before rendering a decision. If this is a problem, then you should strike me.

· Do not read pathos driven arguments related to suicide. Statistics are abstracted enough for me to be distanced from it emotionally, but thorough suicide narratives are not something I want to watch. If this is a core part of your tournament strategy, again, you should strike me.

· I reserve the right to ask for a copy of the plans, interpretations, and alternative texts.

Default Judging Assumptions

· Until told otherwise, I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or a proposed competitive policy or alternative option. Explicitly tell me how else to evaluate a debate if your strategy fits outside of this paradigm.

· I only evaluate arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in rebuttals.

· Will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but am not hostile to points of order if the argument will decide the outcome of a debate round.

· Each argument needs to hit a minimum threshold of explanation and coherence. I will disregard undeveloped and/or consequence free arguments when compared to arguments that are fully developed and impacted. Example,

· I am not an expressive judge. Do mistake my lack of expression for boredom or apathy; it’s just my default facial expression.

· Go as fast as you want - I will explicitly state if rate of delivery becomes an issue.

Negotiable preferences

This is what I like to see in debate rounds, but deviating from these preferences will not lose you the debate. The list below is just meant to provide context on my preferences for those that want it.

· Please do impact calculus and have warrants.

· I have a low threshold to vote on topicality or framework arguments for non-topical affs. What that means is obviously up for debate, but I don’t think you deserve to win if you cannot read or defend a competitive counter-interpretation of what the debate should be.

· Case debate is the best. No matter what strategy was deployed in the debate, I will never be upset at a thorough, well-warranted, and impacted case debate.

· Conditionality is good, but highly dependent on the context of the round and how theory debates play out in round.

· Theory debates are also the best, and I find them fun to evaluate at high levels of competition.

· Totally fine with generic strategies that are deployed and argued well.

· I don’t like ethically compromised impact turns. There are circumstances where I will evaluate the full weight of those arguments, but if you’re arguing that genocide or racism are good, I will likely eviscerate your speaker points.

· Most familiar with the following subjects in critical studies: Disability studies, queer theory, and anything by Foucault or Nietzsche.

*NOTE: Although this has my full judging history to date, I have another profile that I am currently using from here on out. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on that judges page. I apologize for the inconvinience*

General Information About Me

My Experience in Debate: 

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments. 

My Educational Experience: 

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will loose the round. 

My Debate Motto: 

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below. 

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD: 

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as oppose to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

Therefore, specificity is key. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on: 

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am find with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying. 

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round. 

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure: 

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence: 

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. 

Diplomacy: 

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations (say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves. 

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.* 

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

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary: 

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claims with evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves. 

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences: 

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

Just don't speak too fast.

I've competed in high school parliamentary debate for 3 years, high school policy debate for 3 years, and NPDA in college for UCLA for 3 years. I'm relatively okay with spreading, but I will yell "clear" or "slower" if I need to… mostly because I want to hear your arguments! I have a relatively low threshold on theory, but you need to prove to me that there is in-round abuse. Also, if you're going to go for this in the rebuttal speeches, I need you to give me more than just a restatement of voters that you gave in your constructive speeches. Tell me why it matters! Kritiks are fine as long as you really understand them yourself to run them, and I prefer specific links to link of omissions and generic links. Lastly, impact framing is very important to me in the last two rebuttal speeches. Be comparative with both of the teams' impact scenarios. For example, if you're going to go for an extinction impact tell me why magnitude outweighs others and if you're going to go for a systemic impact tell me why timeframe + probability outweighs magnitude. If it's an extinction v. extinction scenario, don't talk about the magnitude and move on to tell me why your scenario has higher probability/faster timeframe. 

University High School 2011-2015

University of Texas at Austin 2015-Present

Some people that have influenced me in debate: Lee Thach, Rashad Evans. Look in their philosophies for things I’d probably agree with. I read an Asian identity aff for my last 2 years of high school, and went for anti blackness arguments in ~80% of neg rounds. That said, I’ll vote for most things if you’re winning the reason why I should vote for it. 

T

I evaluate it almost like a disad so you should be creating impact scenarios beyond words like “fairness” or “education.” 

Theory

If you’re going for theory, it should probably be the only argument in your last speech. Explain in depth what each of your impacts mean, and what actually voting for that argument means. I also think the reject the arg, not the team argument is very persuasive, so if you’re trying to win theory, explain why rejecting the team is necessary

DA/CP 

Not much to say here, disad debates are usually pretty straight forward. Well impacted disads as net benefits to counterplans are good. Impact framing is also good. I like PICs, but be careful with theory debates if you’re reading more than one. 

Kritiks:

A large part of my debate experience has involved critical arguments, but I won’t say I’m well versed philosophy or critical theory. I know some things about identity arguments but not very much about Heidegger, so it’s best to take the time and explain what you’re trying to say. 

K Affs

I think as far as I’m concerned, there’s no resolution until the 1NC reads T. Make sure you have justifications for what you are doing, and focus on the meta level framing, impact calculations, and what your aff actually does. 

FW vs K affs:

I don’t really like FW args that demand an “instrumental implementation of a policy action” by the aff, but I like nuanced framework arguments or disads that discusses how critical arguments function within a debate sphere 

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

Extensive background in debate as competitor, coach, judge and now the parent of a debater.

CEDA National Champion
17 Tournament victories
22 "Top Ten" speaker awards

Judging Paradigm

I have judged over 1000 rounds of high school and collegiate debate.

I believe that debate is an academic game so I look for good arguments and good strategy. Although when judging I am willing to go where the competitors take me.

Please give me clash.

I am a strict flow judge so you better give me clear direction on where you are going. If I stop flowing that means you lost me so tell me where you are

I like good substructure in all debate,

In regards to speed: I can't flow what I can't understand I need to be able to hear your arguments and evidence. Be clear

In rebuttals give me reasons to vote for you. Don't just tell me the other team dropped an argument. Tell me why it's a voting issue. If you tell me that the other team dropped an argument and their response is on my flow, I won't be happy.

I never make my decision before the last speech. I have seen too many rounds won or lost in the last two speeches

I will occasionally ask to see evidence after the round.

Extra points if you make me laugh


Topicality
Very liberal topic interpretation, however I constantly vote on strategic topicality arguments

Arguments
I will listen to anything you want to put out there, but support it.

Sportsmanship
Do not ridicule or abuse the other team, don't argue. Remember we were all novices at one time. Please do not answer for your partner in c/x

Most importantly: HAVE FUN!!!

Experienced debate judge...I did debate in high school a few times.  I'm an experienced lay judge.  Questions, just ask.

Lindsey Mahomes

Greenhill School '14

Pomona College '18

I debated in high school (policy); I do not debate in college. I am not familiar with the current high school topic, so keep this in mind if you're into using a lot of obscure acronyms or other specific language.

TL;DR: A straight up aff and CPs/DAs are probably your safest bet, but other stuff is okay, too. Clarity is the key to good speaks. Ask me if you have specific questions. 

Long Version: 

CPs - Good stuff. I think creative (and sometimes slightly cheating) CPs are fun, especially when they're specific to an aff mechanism or advantage. However, this doesn't mean I won't vote aff on theory or an equally creative permutation.

DAs - Good stuff. Borrowed (with permission) from Jules (Julia Goldman): "Aff-specific links and external impacts are key here. Impact framing is key and I think a strong DA paired with an advantage CP and some case defense is a great strategy."

Topicality - I tend to be pretty persuaded by reasonability arguments (given my background in debate, this should kinda make sense). I also tend to believe topicality is a check on the topic, to get rid of completely unrelated affs, rather than a strategy in and of itself (e.g. I feel an aff should lose if there are legitimate reasons they're untopical, not just because the neg found some obscure definition or loophole). If you decide to make it your 2NR, a good abuse story will go a long way, as will a clear explanation of what your vision of the topic looks like.

K's - I did not/do not read critical literature, but am fine to listen to these arguments (although I'm clearly not the ideal judge for these). I'd prefer a CP/DA debate, especially if your strategy is to read a really generic K and pretend it's relevant to the aff; the opposite is mostly true (specific K > random consult Texas CP with sketchy/nonexistent net benefit about secession or something). I've always felt like kritik solvency is at best questionable, so you'll need to explain to me why I should vote for you in the face of the aff impacts (explain why you outweigh, turn, or can account for their impacts). Avoid grouping arguments at random (you do this more often than you think) when answering and try to be as specific as possible (e.g. take the time to answer the perms individually; this will make me less sympathetic to 1ARs who try to wiggle their way out of your offense). Note that I will be flowing on paper for the foreseeable future; it will only benefit you if my flow is as organized as possible.

K Aff's - willing to listen to these and find them interesting, but generally very persuaded by arguments about why defending hypothetical plan implementation is good/necessary. (Again, consider my debate background).

Theory - No super strong/ingrained views here, but unless you've got reasons for why they're doing something especially unreasonable, I'm unlikely to pull the trigger on, say, one conditional counterplan. Otherwise, convince me that what you did was legitimate (or that what the other team was illegitimate). Try to mold your arguments to the context of the debate (e.g. even if international fiat is generally bad, explain why your specific CP makes sense or is predictable).

Speaking - speed is fine, just be clear. If I need to say "slower" or "clearer," I will. Don't be rude, racist, sexist, etc. Ways to get good speaks: clarity (primarily in speech, but also in argumentation), humor, making smart and/or nuanced arguments, not being useless in the debate, etc.

Random things:

Whatever you decide to argue, be persuasive about it.

Specificity is always good, but use what you've got. If your evidence is generic, smart (analytical) arguments about why it could/does apply to your opponent's arguments are valid and can/will beat better evidence.

I'd like to not read evidence after a debate, if at all possible.

I generally think SPEC arguments and other arguments of that variety are silly and a waste of your time and mine.

I tend to be more reactionary than not. If I think an argument is silly or doesn't make sense, I'll probably give you a weird look to let you know I'm not with you. Having said that, it's also possible you just reminded me of something funny.

Bonus: As a reward for reading all the way through this mediocre/silly philosophy (or wisely skipping to the bottom), I offer you the following: mention a (good/clever/creative) pun somewhere in the debate (during speech or CX time) for an extra .1 speaks.

It's inevitable I left something you think is important out of this philosophy, but, hey, I tried my best; ask me if you have questions/additional concerns. 

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

Debates:Convince me with facts - back it up with cards from well-respected sources. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.  I am a flow judge. I prefer a debate on the topic not a 

Do not spread! I will judge on clarity of communication which is diminished by spreading. Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me and the competition with information it will most likely work against you.  

There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value agility and responsiveness to the opponents case. I also prioritize preparation, specific vocabulary and decorum. Show polish, professionalism and respect.

I will reward eloquent/articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins. Focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  Remain professional and level-headed.  I have been known to penalize a team if I feel they were excessively rude, interrupted unnecessarilyy and/or are condescending.   

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.

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

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

I did one year of policy and three years of LD in high school.  The policy was on a local circuit; the LD was both local and national circuits.

General preferences:

I can handle some speed, but it's been a couple years, so full force spreading is problematic for me. If it's necessary, I may ask to see written pieces of evidence or written arguments at the end of the round.  If you make non-written arguments very quickly and I'm not writing them down, I won't be able to take them into account.

Please be nice to your opponents. Being condescending or dismissive during CX or crossfire annoys me and makes it very likely I will detract from your speaker points.  If you're really right, it'll come across in solid, politely and clearly conveyed logic.

LD Preferences:

I default to evaluating the round through the value/ value criterion framework, unless it is persuasively argued otherwise that I should use a different framework.  I am open to alternative frameworks. In LD, I use the value criterion as an absolute filter; if the clearly winning value criterion for the round is maximizing protection of life, for example, I will evaluate arguments that have an impact of war before I evaluate arguments with an impact of securitization (unless the securitization argument is linked to some impact regarding a death toll).  If the winning criterion for the round is maximizing individual liberties, I will evaluate arguments arguments impacting to individual liberties before I evaluate arguments impacting to death tolls.  I recommend paying strong attention to the V/VC debate and making your links back to the V/VC very clear.  I also recommend linking to *both* (or all) criteria when possible.

I will not vote on one-line "a priori" arguments.  

I will not vote on one-line theory spikes.  

I will vote for well-made theory arguments, but if they are clearly used as something to detract from substantive, topical discussion, I may reduce your speaker points.

In the absence of any offense on either side, I default to the negative unless it is argued persuasively otherwise.

PF Preferences:

As mentioned, my background is in LD, so I base my preferences in PF very heavily on directions I receive in a given tournament packet.  In PF, I'm looking for logical, realistic arguments that indicate strong knowledge of the subject matter being discussed.

Please don't shout during cross-fire.

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Debate is a two-way street: prove why you're right and your opponent is wrong. Less rhetoric, more substance.

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.