Hi everyone! My name is Layla Ali. I am currently a college sophomore participating in my first year of the El Camino College Speech and Debate Team. I compete in Impromptu, Extemporaneous, Parli and IPDA. I judge based on whoever demonstrates the most sufficient understanding and argumentation of the topic at hand. I ask that all of the debaters/speakers remain respectful to their competitors, judges, and spectators if applicable. I welcome the use of “parli” words and necessary argument. However though I favor the combative approach, I do not tolerate any discriminatory treatment or derogatory language. Please remain respectful AND constructive at all times. I love strong voice projection and extensive use of vocabulary if properly articulated. If debating, please place a higher emphasis to discussing impacts, weighing mechanisms, and integrity in your contentions(quality over quantity). If participating in IEs, please place a higher emphasis on making movements for the speaker triangle, clear discussion over major points, and the importance of its impact. I always appreciate jokes when appropriate, a decent speaking pace, and respectful communication. Anyways, long story short: Be respectful and efficient, and apply your knowledge when best available. I am excited to be judging today and look forward to seeing a different perspective from my own experience.

I am a lay judge/parent.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.Tell me why you have the winning case

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

Hi everyone! Quick paradigm: I would consider myself to be a lay judge. This is my first year being a part of speech and debate, and I’ve only judged at one or two tournaments before this (and primarily not in debate). While I do understand the basic terminology (contentions, claims, warrants, impacts, etc) more advanced terms like “Ks” and “theory” are things I’m not super familiar with. On that note, please do not do anything too “techy” because I will not be able to follow it and, as a result, I will not be able to vote for you. As a general rule of note I would prefer simple, well-reasoned out arguments. To determine if you’re doing this type of argumentation ask yourself three things: 1. Is the organization of my speeches and the flow easy to follow? 2. Do I present arguments that rely on an effective combination of evidence and logic? And 3. Do I respond to my opponent’s arguments while also effectively defending and reinforcing my own? If you do these three things and all have clear comparisons between your side of the debate and your opponent’s, you should be good to go! Finally, I am working on developing stronger flow skills. That said, I should be able to follow what is said in the round effectively and then judge based on those notes, but, again, your level of organization and comparison will have a huge impact on how easily and effectively this is done.

I am a parent volunteer who feels very honored to be able to take part in judging these Speech and Debate tournaments. I’m proud of each and every one of you, almost as if you were my own children. Relax and enjoy. You are already a winner just being involved!

Hi there! Lay judge, never judged a tournament before but am a parent of an OO kid.

Speech events:

Platform/public address: Controlling my attention s good! Whether you are being funny or serious, engage me immediately. ORIGINALITY IS KEY -- as good as your speech may be, a generic speech on an overused/widely known topic won't do as well as one that teaches me something new. It's fine if you have a 'generic' topic as long as you introduce a new element or perspective in your speech.

Limited prep: Organization and clear diction are good signs. I will appreciate those who explain and substantiate their points clearly. With extemps, I'll do my best to follow, but you should plan to present any information about current political events that is necessary to properly appreciate your arguments. For impromptu, good connections are appreciated but don't stretch it too far.

Interp: I haven't seen many interp speeches, so a clear storyline/message is important!!

I’m a volunteer parent judge. I ask that you please keep your delivery slow and clear, in other words, no spreading. You will know that you are speaking too quickly if I put my pen down. I can’t take notes or judge what I don’t understand. I do not disclose.   My preferences: State your contentions clearly; Debaters keep their own time; I appreciate clear analysis; Quick off-time road maps are fine (emphasis on quick); A polite and respectful space is vital. 

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a debate parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (i.e., precursor to TED talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 3rd year judging and I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (no petty line-by-line here). My academic background is in rhetoric, so I like good evidence and precise word choice; it follows that I see overstatement as intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that primarily offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive.

Don'ts: I am totally unimpressed and dispirited by teams that share or use common cases. In my field we call it plagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view that folks who copy cases often cannot provide.)

Spreading: I am not (yet) convinced that spreading works. I see it as a flashy (and cheap) excuse for not doing the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate, at its best, demands. Please don't waste my time and yours by subscribing to this rhetorical game that undermines the essential and transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program.

Furthermore, I am offended by the practice of sending written cases since I believe it compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. Please don't ask me if I'd like to be sent your case--you will be revealing that you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but I believe that earnest feedback is a gift; I will do my best to be diligent and offer you what I can. I am grateful to learn something from you in nearly every round I have the pleasure of hearing (thank you!).

Most importantly, I celebrate you! I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

I am a lay judge/parent. Make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Please do not speak too quickly or I will have to disregard information that I missed. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly and simply. Contentions should be easy to follow. Definitions should be understandable and acronyms explained. Quality is worth more than quantity. Your arguments should help me understand how they address the resolution. Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments. I take notes, so make sure to emphasize what you really want me to hear. Above all, have fun!

Speech: I am a college professor have 3 year debate and speech judging experiences. All types of presentations are welcome. I make decision base on individual presentation confidence, stage body postures, eye contacts and logical thinking flows.

I will be judging the best performance through strong content, strong eye contact, and a powerful presence. I am always willing to learn new concepts, ideas, and really take into account how you portray your perspective. Making a decision on ranks takes several attributes of a speaker into account. Give your best performance and I will give you my best attentive skills.

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.

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

SPEECH: For limited prep events, or any other event featuring student writing, I judge mainly on content. Speaking style does come into play when breaking ties or in very tough rounds.

For more performative speech events, I lean a bit more toward performance/style, but I still consider the cutting of your piece to be an essential part of the competition. Pieces with cuts that are illogical or confusing often will be ranked lower for me. I also consider the narrative shape of a performance; I look for a traditional dramatic arc with a clear situation, an emotional climax, and falling action (if not clear resolution).

I am a second year parent judge. If judging Debate I will flow the rounds and would appreciate clear, concise speech that is at a reasonable pace. If you spread I will not be able to follow you. If I can’t follow you or understand what you are trying to say, I can’t vote for you. I also appreciate courtesy. I expect you to follow the rules, argue well and provide quality versus quantity. Please try to make eye contact with me and not speak directly into your paper.

If judging Speech please articulate and speak clearly. Have fun and engage your audience!

email chain: sgurrola1005@gmail.com

2ish years at LAMDL

Currently at CSULB Forensics '26

ppl i talk abt debate with: jean kim (pookie), aless escobar, gabby torres, erika linares, curtis ortega, diego flores, deven cooper, jaysyn green

stuff i want you to know

first of all, debate is fun and I want every speaker to continue debating so I try to make my RFD the most uplifting they can be because I believe every debater can be great. I use tech > truth unless im confused then it'll be truth or ROB/FW. you can speak fast butannunciate, if not i will say clear (this is not fun in novice or JV where an email chain is not created so not annunciating can lead to me missing the cards you read, so annunciate!!) tag teaming is fine. i will not keep track of prep i will only time speeches for the sake of speaker points (i.e. stopping your speech 1-2 minutes early will result in lost speakers)

debate preferences

idc what you run but here's some things i like to see with each argument

K:make the link clear, why is the alternative better and how does it access the solvency better. distinguish the perm from the alternative or PIK. or impact. turn the K. good debates will come down to perm vs. alt or an impact turn debate. be sure to take time explaining higher theory. i am open to epistemological shifts.

K Affs: why is your method why does it solve you know. how is XYZ bad for debate. and why does your method make for a better model of debate are things I am looking for. I am not against K Affs so feel free to pref me if you're scared of a judge who is very anti-K (booo!)

DA: make the links clear. i want to hear why the plan will make the status quo worse impacting things out / weighting things out make things sm easier to vote on so include an impact calculus in the rebuttals !! this can be really creative.

CP: no comment lol. i don't really like CPs but if you're running one then tell me how you have aff solvency without any impact turns or DAs that the plan may link to. I think running a CP with a DA goes well. also emphasize the distinctions between the CP and the plan. i will not make that connection for you and if those distinctions are not mentioned enough in blocks and rebuttals i will lean towards any perm the AFF offers.

T: the only time i ran T was in my very first debate round lol. if you use T a lot do not pref me for the sake of both our mental health. it's not something i know much about but make the violations and standards very clear and how it makes that debate bad for the neg. Idk. if the aff is good I usually would never vote on just T unless the aff drops it entirely and the neg carries this fact into rebuttals.

CASE: a friend Erika Linares told me that when you're aff, case is like your baby and you must swaddle it in every speech no excuses. Case is the ground you go off of to defend yourself from other offcases so make sure you care for your case (your baby) every speech idk i just like the way erika put it i thought i'd just put it in my paradigm. if you're not winning on case you are for sure not winning on any other off cases .

speaker points:good speech organization, line-by-line, answering things said in cross X will get you good speakers.

dislikes

running a critical argument that is from the perspective of an identity that you do not belong to.cross X where 2-3 people all speaking at the same time.no roadmap.i would never judge a team extra harshly for doing any of these things but it is but a tiny irk of mine. . .

likes

blue highlighter color! the yellow highlight color must die. Policy v. K/DA.K v. K

thx for reading

since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats i foster cats sometimes and own 3 + 1 stray.if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and appears on instagram quite often)email me your guess separate from the chain and i will reply if you got it right.

I am a parent judge who is passionate about speech & debate. I personally feel the ability to address an audience & eloquence is a great skillset for anyone to have in their professional life. So to me material, delivery and logic to support the facts are important. Maintain eye contact with audience, smile even if you disagree, be respectful, speak clearly and dont just state facts (use facts to convey your point). And most importantly - have fun.

The following aspects will be observed and evaluated:

-- Face/body expressions

-- Explicitness and clearness of point statements

-- Organization of your arguments (logic and logistics)

-- Contentions and supporting evidences (examples, data, citations, etc.)

-- Speech fluency and tone

-- Question asking and answering (relevance and significance to the topic)

-- (Politeness to opponent and judge)

Hello,

I am a parent judge and have judging experience. My preferences are as follows:

Debate:

Speaking:

Do: I am comfortable with slang terms. Speak clearly and comfortably. I generally don't care about speed as long as it's clear and understandable.

Don't: Speak extremely fast(spread).On the topic of speed, spreading is an easy way to lose me and also an easy way to lose the round and/or speaker points. In my experience, someone who spreads is trying to hide something in their case. A debate isn't a "who can speak faster" contest. I want to see who has the better arguments and understanding of the resolution. I understand that a debate can get heated(which I'm fine with), but don't get overly aggressive. There's a difference between taking a stance and attacking your opponent.

Content:

Do: Give me a clear outline of your points. Don't assume I know when you're moving on to a new point. Off-time roadmaps are fine and help me follow along, just don't make them super long, and don't bring up arguments in the roadmap. I weigh heavily on rebuttals and clashes, so make sure those are good. Cross-examination will most likely not be a big part of my decision, but it's a good area to earn extra speaker points(Ask good questions and have good responses).

Don't: Faking evidence is not acceptable. Don't go over the allotted prep time or the speech time+grace period. If someone asks for a piece of evidence I want to see you guys look at it during your prep time. I'm not a big fan of sharing a piece of evidence through email because there is a lot of room for problems and errors, but if that's what both sides are comfortable with then go for it. If you refuse to show a piece of evidence, I will take it as you have no evidence, and could lead to you losing the round. I am also heavily against using duplicate cases. I see duplicate cases as plagiarism. So, if I watch a round and a few rounds after someone has an identical case, it will be judged heavily against. I take duplicate cases as a sign that you didn't want to put in the effort to create a case with your own creativity. I also think it's unfair to have an entire debate team work on one case that they all use and then go against someone who actually put in the effort to create an original and unique case. A duplicate case won't result in an automatic loss, but you would really need to show me that you can put your own thoughts and interpretation into a duplicate case.

Speech:

Platform: In a platform speech you have the freedom to talk about basically anything. Thus, in the majority of platform speeches, I want to see some sort of advocacy. I also weigh heavily on humor, I think humor is a good way to lighten a heavy topic and can also help keep the audience engaged. Don't plagiarise and make sure to be creative.

Interp: I understand people can be limited on interps, but I still want to see some form of advocacy in your speech. However, an opt-out of advocacy could be a really funny interp. Typically the highest-ranking interps are the ones that have a good advocacy and have some light(or dark) humor.

Spontaneous: For impromptu, I like to see creative points. I see that the most successful impromptu speeches are the ones that just talk about what's on their mind(while still related to the topic). I'm not the biggest fan of making long stretches(ex. connecting football to US economic problems), but a good connection can lead to a higher ranking. Let loose on jokes. I think Impromptu is one of those events that really allows you to make the audience laugh. For extemp(both IX and NX) I enjoy a speech that has 3 really strong points that convince me to believe your answer/interpretation of the question. Jokes are also really useful in extemp.

I am a parent judge and will be judging individual events (speech). I look forward to your presentation. Good luck!

· Be creative and relevant

· Speak clearly with confidence

· Find the right tone and pace

· Connect with audience and pay attention to other performers when not speaking

· Be kind to others

This is my first year judging for high school. I have judged quite a few tournaments over this past year. Clear, not rushed speech is preferred. Please be civil to your opponents. I do not judge by my personal bias, points are given to team who can better persuade me with their arguments.

Email chain: joan.kim@alumni.harvard.edu

General:

• Speed: You do you but quality over quantity with clarity

• Voting issues are not necessary

• Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum

• I don’t count flashing as prep unless you are taking advantage

• You don’t have to constantly remind me that your opponent dropped such and such argument(s)--don’t rely on a win because they dropped x amount of arguments

Love:

• Framework

• Fantastic CX

• Clash

• Impact!!!

• Creativity

Yes:

• Evidence, analytical and empirical--state your source

• Logical Analysis

• Roadmaps and overviews

• Weigh your arguments

No:

• Card cutting- you will lose the round

• Rudeness

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

For debate:

please speak at a moderate pace and make your arguments understandable. Also weigh your arguments and tell me why you won.

For speech/interpretation:

Please introduce yourself, your code, and the title/topic of the speech before you start! Also let me know if you are double entered.

Speak clearly and passionately.

You will all do great!

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

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.

I am a parent at Helix High School and a fairly new judge.

I am looking for clear, well-reasoned, well-supported arguments, and a good connection with the audience. I value authenticity.

Good luck, and have fun!

I am a parent of a speech/debate student. I began judging in 2021, I have judged both debate and speech events. Be kind, considerate to all. Speak slowly enough so that I can understand and process what you have to say.

I am a parent volunteer who has judged several tournaments over the past 2 1/2 years. I am also a high school teacher who appreciates a respectful, courteous, and assertive (not aggressive) style of communication. I also prefer quality over quantity, so please don’t speak too quickly, and be sure to include strong evidence backed by credible sources. Thank you.

Hello, I'm a parent and lay judge. I have never debated, but am a fan of a good argument, as long as the both sides are debating the same terms. So for Parli debaters, please define your terms and if you disagree with your opponents' definition feel free to challenge them with the goal of agreeing at least on what you are debating.

• AFF, please write the resolution on a whiteboard.
• NEG, please read the resolution and confirm that you agree it is the correct resolution. If you say nothing, I'll assume that you agree that it is correct.
• AFF, Please sit on my left (your right). NEG, Please sit on my right (your left).
• If you feel your opponents have broken a rule or gone over time by more than 30 seconds, please speak up.
• Speaking quickly fine as long as you are clear, I'll let you know if I can't understand you.
• Please don't be rude or mean, and feel free to be yourself.

For Public Address Speech competitors I will score a speech using 5 criteria:

For Interp Speech competitors I will score a speech using 3 criteria:

I am a debate coach, so I have experience being around debaters, but I do not have a background in formal competitive debate. I generally do not understand debate jargon, hyper-specialized vocabulary, and acronyms that are often associated with circuit and higher-level debate. Please make sure you clarify terms and definitions early if you intend to use them.

I believe a judge has a duty to write down the most important points of your argument in order to assess its logic after the round. Because of this, I appreciate arguments that are clearly laid out and organized so I can flow them.

(IN PROGRESS)

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

Do not read fast from your cards (meaning spreading is discouraged and disfavored). If I can't follow your speed read, it does not help your side.

Be articulate.

Make arguments easy to follow.

Hi, I am a new judge. Please speak clearly so I can follow what you are saying.

I will lower your score if you are rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

I judge Extemp & WSD.

My competition past was primarily in Extemp, Impromptu, Oratory, and Congress.

My academic areas of research are narrative, ethnography, LGBTQ history, social justice, resilience, and theories of liberation.

I find strength in debate teams that clash well while maintaining composure, civility, and a sense of public presentation. I view debate as a whole as something produced for public, audience consumption and persuasion.

Structure, clarity, and thorough thinking may justify speaking for slightly less than the allotted maximum.

A cohesive framework makes individual points stronger and more persuasive.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

Overall, in all events, clarity is extremely important to me. This includes structure of presentation, voice and pace, arguments etc. Outlines help. Speed that is too quick does not help. Clear voice and enunciation are critical.

In speech, I appreciate those that honor the spirit of the event and bring out one's authenticity. Impromptu speeches should be impromptu and truly speak to the topic chosen - though canned speeches can sometimes work, it's often an obvious stretch. Humorous should be humorous. I appreciate dramatic presentations that demonstrate a range of emotions, not only sadness/anger. For OO, I love a presentation that shows me who you are, is clear and brings things full circle by the end.

For debate, I appreciate clear arguments and well-researched data/statistics as evidence. I do NOT appreciate dismissive/arrogant behavior - head-shaking, eye-rolling, huffing, commenting under one's breath, "OK, whatever" - all appear very disrespectful and do not work in proving one's point. It is important to learn how to powerfully argue one's point while also being gracious - especially in today's world!

I am easily distracted! Avoid hair-twirling, extra movements, looking around the room and the like because I may start to do the same. ;)

I am a parent judge that has only been working within Speech and Debate events for a little over a year. I do not have any special requests, only that you are clear, consise, and easy to understand, and that you are respectful of all viewpoints. Fast speaking and/or spreading is not what I like in a debate/speech round, so keep it similar to a regular conversation between two people, and try not to be too serious in your arguments. Good luck!

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

Hi, I go by the name Bhanu. I an excited to be a part of and support NSDA. I am an engineering graduate with post graduation degree in MBA Finance. At work I am an IT director managing business applications. Looking forward for an exciting season.

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!

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.

I judge based on the following criteria:

1) Enunciation

2) movements and facial expressions - how do they complement your speech

3) enthusiasm

4)is your topic/speech relatable? relevant?

I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.

Debaters:

I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.

If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.

I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.

Speechies:

Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.

Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.