No spreading. No sexism, ableism, racism, homophobia, etc.

I don't have any prior experience with competitive debate, but am familiar with current events. If your argument is more technical/theory-based, take extra time to explain to me why each component of your argument matters in the context of the round.

Hello, I am a parent judge that occasionally judges at tournaments. As such, I am still unfamiliar with almost all debate terms. That being said, try to focus on delivering your arguments and if the debate steers towards technicalities regarding for example, whether or not a policy fulfills the resolution, please explain your points thoroughly. Regarding how fast you should talk in rounds, please avoid talking too fast, I will not give any cues to whether I can understand your talking pace or not. Please act professionally to myself and your opponents, good luck!

The Basics: Hi! I’m Alex, I use they/he pronouns, and I compete for El Camino College in both IEs and debate. I have experience in parli, POI, impromptu, IPDA, LD, and extemp with judging experience in public forum.

The Real Stuff:My decisions usually come down to who has the most realisticimpacts with strong links and clear inherency. Not a huge fan of nuke war/any global extinction impacts unless you’re giving me a fantastic link story. You can run theory (agood, well-structured, purposeful K is one of my great debate loves) but make sure it has a purpose in the round that isn’t just to give your opponent more stuff to cover and, again, is well-structured.

Also- be creative!! Forensics is a performing art as much as it is an academic event so don’t hesitate to get silly!

Be respectful, be organized, have fun ☆

Updated for NSDA WSDC 2024:

I adhere to the rules of WSDC, which means 40% content (what you say), 40% style (how you say it), and 20% strategy (why you say it). My evaluation of content includes good analysis (logical, relevant, important, tracking evolution), quality of examples, and thorough rebuttal. Debate in good faith, without straw-manning the other team's arguments. Style includes appropriate word choice, eye contact, body movement/hand gestures, voice projection and control, speed/variation of delivery. Strategy would be the choices made in motion interpretation, time allocation, prioritization, speech structuring, correct identification of issues in the debate, taking adequate POIs, weighing and use of comparisons, and relevance of material to the debate.

Proposition has the burden of proof and has to define the motion, being clear and fair to both sides. They should describe their characterization of the status quo and present substantive arguments in favor of their case, and where appropriate, present a solution to the identified problem. The opposition should oppose the prop's motion and probably have their own substantives. No new constructive material or POIs in the reply.

There are only 3 people on the bench for each side. Non-speaking team members and other spectators must not make signs or signals to debaters on the bench and must maintain room decorum. I keep track of time, and at the 1-minute mark and 7-minute mark, I will knock on the table, opening the speech for POI's (which should be brief and no more than 15 seconds), for the first 6 speeches.

Older paradigm below:

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

I am a parent judge and I've only briefly heard about debate from overhearing my son's practices.

Please don't spread.

I believe that debate is about being able to paint a strong picture of your argument, and this picture must effectively convince me why your argument holds more weight. However, this doesn't mean I don't value the aspects of logic. Your logic and argument should be sound and thorough. When making a claim it should require a warrant, whether it be some sort of empirical or historical evidence paired up with a clear reasoning. When it comes to making my final decision I also value when you demonstrate confidence and can communicate your points effectively.

I am affiliated with Francis Parker School. I would prefer debaters not to “spread” and I ask that they use a normal cadence of speech. I won’t be giving any cues if the debaters are speaking too fast, however. I often prefer argument over style and believe that the contents of what you are saying are as or more important than how you are saying it. Most importantly please enjoy yourselves!

I am a logical person. I prefer that arguments proceed from evidence and reasoning to conclusions. I understand the role of emotions in persuading. I prefer arguments based on principles and evidence.

I’m more impressed by succinct presentations than by rambling ones.
No spreading or very rapid speech, please.

This is my first year judging. I have been an attorney for about 25 years. I’m very familiar with evaluating competing arguments.

I will do my best to be as fair as possible. My personal beliefs will not play a role in my judging.

Hi Team,

Congratulations for being part of the Speech & Debate Club. Your enthusiasm is truly impressive.

I am a new judge for this event. I appreciate clearly articulated sentences and confident tone. Also I favor logic and reasoning over style, but this doesn’t mean style is less important.

If the opposing side doesn't refute or touch on one of your important points, please state it during your next speaking time.

One last note. Please no spreading, no K's, No T-Shells and No Topicallity.

Best wishes!

Hi

About me: I'm Rachel Huang, I was a high school speech competitor, and now a college student. I am not very familiar with the format of Debate. I will accept all sides of the topic, and try my best to be fair and objective. I will prevent my background knowledge from influencing my vote. I am not religious. Current events are not my strong suit.

Style: Being clear about your topic and argument is very important. The way you are presenting your argument may affect my judgment. It is important to let me understand what you are talking about, pace yourself accordingly. Please use presentable language, and BE RESPECTFUL to your opponent.

Rate: I focus more on the way you are presenting your side and the evidence you use to make your side stronger. I would like to see your passion for your topic. The quality of your argument is more important than the quantity.

Note-taking: If I look down or loos distracted, then I'm taking notes on your performance to help with my judgment.

It's okay to be nervous and you got this:) Have fun!

I have no personal experience with debate other than learning as I go judging these debates as a parent volunteer. I do my best to be objective to the arguments regardless of my own beliefs.

I like clear arguments on the topic that is assigned. I realize nerves can cause people to speak too fast. If I can't understand you or your argument I will disregard what I don't understand. I am not a fan of the same points being repeated numerous times to fill the allotted speaking time.

I am a judge/parent.

Good luck students! In your debates please make your points clear and articulate. I will appreciate how the speaker walks through the points/arguments and ties it up all in the end.

Please be respectful and courteous of your fellow opponents and the judges time. Clarity in the speech, a pace which everyone can comprehend is greatly appreciated.

Do your best! stay positive and have fun! Best wishes.

Hello Speakers,

I look for the following in speech events in general...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of speech, clear conclusion, your interpretations of quotes or statistics, and clarity of thought process. Based on the specific event I usually look for additional elements in your speech.

I am looking for the following in debate events...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of your speech, clearly support your arguments, clarity of rebuttals, and strong conclusion.

Your video/audio quality, speaking style, spreading/speaking fast does not affect my judging. But, speaking at regular pace and clearly will help me in understanding your arguments better.

Good luck!!!

In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. More contentions does not mean better contentions, make me understand your definitions, weighing mechanism and why your speeches show you win the debate. It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.

Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.

Please do not speak too quickly or I will have to disregard information that I missed. I take notes, so make sure to emphasize what you really want me to hear.

Good luck!

I have judged a few speech and debate rounds and am a very experienced mock trial coach, judge and former competitor. I prefer students to slow down when speaking so that they can make eye contact and connect their arguments with their words, gestures and facial expressions. I find fast speeches harder to understand and less persuasive.

I am a parent judge and 2024 will be my first assignment. I was not involved with debate in my school days but have been following them for the last few months. Organization, clarity, execution and teamwork are the things I will be looking for along with the tournament rules to cast my vote. Looking forward to hearing great arguments from everyone. Good Luck.

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

I am a layperson/judge. I participated in debate during HS (policy) in the late 1980s, with success at several national tournaments. I have been judging various speech events over the past two years. I value clarity and logic, and look forward to judging more events. If I appear confused, consider readdressing the point.

TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.

I am a graduate student studying Communication Studies at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020 and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI & POI, and IPDA.

Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll flow whatever is said but don't egregiously speak while it's your partner's turn.

Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate.

Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it. I might clear you if you're unclear.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a K in front of me at a high school tournament. It happened once and it was so fun. Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating and I love a fun cap K. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand framework and theory.

Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.

RVIS: RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.

Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency"

Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

About Me:

• I am a first year at San Diego State University and intend to major in General Business. I have judged a debate once before but I am excited to learn and grow from this opportunity again. While I know the basics of debate, I might not be familiar with specific terms or phrases that are commonly used.
• I believe as a judge it is only fair to make decisions based on the facts and strength of an argument, rather than my own personal opinions. I will judge as unbiased as possible and look for a team with the best ability to prove their point.
• I prefer teams with good organization and that show evident preparation for the debate.
• Can't wait to judge this weekend!

Please make your arguments clear and speak fairly slow. Make sure to define the weighing mechanism and also explain the resolution clearly. The decision will be made based off of which side emphasizes IMPACTS. Do not spread. Good Luck !

If topicality / a permutation is run, please be clear about it. If you are not, then I won't be able to buy it. Don't be technical (running K's, etc. ) and be clear.

CLARITY is very important to me.

Please make a conscious effort to not speak too quickly, slow speaking is preferred. Please signpost during your speeches and avoid using jargon without explaining.

I am currently a 2nd Year member of the El Camino Speech and Debate Team and I compete in Parli, IPDA, LD, Impromtu, and Extemp.

All Debate Events

Long story short, give me voters. I lean more on flow over anything else when judging parli. A team that can tell me which aspect of the round holds priority and why their side wins that argument is in better light than one that cannot.

Communication -I am ok with brief interactions between partners during speech time, but it cannot be constant. IE let your partner speak for themselves.

Speed -Talk at a pace where everyone in the round can understand you. I will allow spread, but if anyone calls pace, please respect that and adjust accordingly.

Topicality - I fully encourage topicality arguments as long as they are structured properly. Include the full T shell.

Ks - Go on Ahead

Signposting -I welcome signposting and parli talk with open arms. Give me signposting with as much of the case as possible. It helps me organize the arguments and shows how structured a team is.

Timing - I would like for all sides to keep a timer. If you run out of time on a speech, I will let you finish your sentence.

Overall, we are all here to have fun and to further educate ourselves. ANYTHING that deters us from that, such as abusive language and arguments, will lose you the ballot. Be courteous and respectful to all parties involved.

My judging paradigm starts with slow and effective communication. I have heard people present what would probably have been strong arguments but since they used pressured speech to deliver it, it got missed. It would be more important for me to hear the precision of a strong argument than filling up time speeding through a list of weaker points. I prefer topic based arguments over procedural arguments. Breathe. You've got this!

Respect is mandatory while opposing arguments are being made. That means exhibiting self control no matter what your opponents say or do.

Hello! My name is Miguel Oliveros, and I am currently on the El Camino Forensics Team competing in NPDA, IPDA, LD, extemporaneous, and impromptu. This is currently my second year participating in speech and debate as a whole.

For debate, I judge the rounds based on organization and presentation. The top of case should be well-defined with proper context and agents. It's imperative that both teams give me clear signposting so that I can understand the flow of the arguments more clearly. The harms, links, impacts, and solvency must be explained thoroughly to give significance to your case. Otherwise, I go with which had better reasoning. I don't mind topicality but be aware of proper structure. As for presentation, I don't like spreading. If you do speak fast, please make sure it's accessible for everyone with clear pronunciations. Do not attack your opponents in any way possible and make sure you're respectful to everyone regardless of whatever happens. Be confident, bold, and take calculated risks! It's okay to mess up but get up ASAP.

As for individual events, I judge mostly on presentation. If you can communicate effectively your points, I'll be swayed. It's as if I'm watching a movie or a series. Persuade me! Act to me! Tell me a good story! And I promise you'll do great. That doesn't mean to use poor information though. Have enough substantial material to sell off your performance.

Good luck in your events! Carpe diem

I have experience in collegiate level speech & debate. I debate in Parli, IPDA, & LD. I compete in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. Here is my judging paradigm:

Keep things professional and respectful. Impact out your arguments, I weigh the issues that've been clearly presented to me. Highlight timeframe, magnitude, severity, probability, reversibility. Respect your competitors' requests for slow/clear and do not interrupt your competitors by speaking with your partner outside of flex. No flow is taken outside of when the timer is running. Most importantly, we are here to learn and have fun.

Lay Judge; Talk no faster than conversational and explain your points to me. I will vote for the team that I think has the strongest argument at the end of the round.

Hello!

I regrettably did not participate in Speech & Debate in school and have only volunteered to judge one tournament before, so inundating me with technical terms a lay judge wouldn't understand will only hamper your efforts.

Have fun and happy debating!

Have fun! I like solid evidence and opponents poking holes in cases. Pls dont get personal.

I weigh both style and argument equally. I like to see teams that have a good rebuttal/crossfire because it shows me that they were prepared for the other teams arguments. I weigh evidence over analytics.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

I look for well-reasoned arguments that are elucidated clearly. The arguments matter, but so does the presentation. What you say and how you say it both play an important role in judging.

As a judge with over a year of experience in various debate styles, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation and evidence-based reasoning. While I'm open to all styles, clarity in speech and structure is crucial for me to effectively evaluate the debate. I appreciate debaters who engage directly with their opponents' arguments and demonstrate adaptability throughout the round. Tricks or overly strategic plays that detract from substantive discussion are less likely to earn my vote. My goal is to ensure a fair and educational debate experience for all participants.

l am a first year at San Diego State University and I am majoring in Television, Film, and New Studies with an emphasis in production. I have never judged debate before but I am excited to try and learn from this experience. While I know the basics of debate, I might not be familiar with specific terms or phrases that are not commonly used. I believe as a judge that whatever my opinions may be on topics, I will only judge based on argument quality. I believe the best teams will be able to eloquently and effectively present their arguments. I prefer a clear and confident speaking style with a well structured argument. I am so excited to judge this weekend!

Email Address: madeleinetseng21@gmail.com

Currently pursuing an M.S. in Global Supply Chain Management at the University of Southern California. B.S. in Business Administration, Data Analytics emphasis. I have past national circuit experience in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Parliamentary, but it's been quite a few years since I've been in the debate world. I'm more Policy/CX oriented when it comes to my debate style, and in my high school career I ran both policy and kritikal policy positions.

I find that I favor arguments with a well-fleshed-out link/impact relationship, but generally, I just condense my paradigm to tech > truth. I don't extend arguments with just the tagline, I also need the warrant and reasoning behind it. If I think your claim is categorically false, but your opponent does not challenge it at all, I will "flow it through" and simply make a note in your speaker feedback to double-check your argument.

Spread at your own risk, I can handle it; however, I have a high threshold for clarity and articulation. I will call clear two times, and the third time you are unclear I will stop flowing. If the tournament/event allows, I would love to have an email chain with everyone who wants to be included.

In regards to speaker points, I start everyone off with a base level of 27 points and then add or decrease accordingly. I find that I favor people who know their evidence and not those who read off the taglines of their A-team case files.

Accessibility is important to me. For the sake of everyone in the room, provide trigger warnings for exploration of topics such as Sexual Assault, Suicide, etc. If a trigger warning is not provided and the topic is explored in depth, I reserve the right to deduct a significant amount of speaker points.

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

Hi, my name is London Waller and I am currently enrolled at El Camino College about to begin my second semester there. I am working towards majoring in fire science there and moving up to become a firefighter. I am studying music at the moment as well. I have judged speech tournament in the past and had a blast doing so. However, this will be my first time judging debates. I am very excited to be a part of this competition and will be judging each and every competitor equally throughout the course of each day. I enjoy a strong confident presence in a speaker and good smooth spoken evidence. Good luck to everyone this weekend and can't wait to see you there!