I was a successful high school and college debater, and I believe in clear, accessible, well-paced, and well-organized argumentation. I flow debates. I value debaters who listen carefully to the opposition’s arguments. I am not impressed by any kind of esoteric debate jargon. I hate spreading and other approaches to debate that deprioritize basic public speaking skills. I am a professor of political theory, so I get cranky when people misrepresent philosophers or cherry-pick quotations from them. I believe that humor, decency, vulnerability, and creativity—not just reason and evidence giving—make better debates and debaters.

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.

CHS '25/Speech & Debate Team Captain (May 2024-PRESENT)

First impression:

"Hot take”: long paradigms are pretentious, and weirdly narcissistic. This is your debate -- not mine -- I'll make this quick and concise with the insinuation that you're reading this as you're quickly running to find your room with five minutes to spare before round starts: if you have any other questions, ask me in round, but only if urgent. I hate wasting time, and want to run the round as efficiently as possible.

My experience:

5+ years of experience in the NSDA (competitor, captain, and mentor) -- I’ve been to both state and nats and compete regularly in both speech and debate. I primarily coach LD. I thoroughly enjoy judging a high quality LD round, but I'm also familiar with different styles of debate; don't worry about experience with me.

What you should know:

I judge every round fairly, and leave any biases at the door. You're high school kids, and I couldn't care enough to favor certain schools/students. If you win, it's because you debated better. If you lost, it's because you lost. Run any argument, and if you win on it, I'll vote on it. That's right --> any argument. Absolutely ZERO preferences regarding argumentation style. If you think you can win with it, go for it!

Persuasive cross examination cycles are great. I love a good questioner.

Speak clearly and signpost! I love debaters who make it clear as to why they won.

I do not want to be added to the speech doc. Oh yeah, I hate spreading. This is the one thing I refuse to compromise on.If you think that’s unfair, life’s tough…get a helmet.

Respect is great! But so is answering questions in the order they were made...

I despise judge interference in 99.9% of all cases (the .1% is for spreading). But besides that, I'm always for Tech > Truth.

I firmly believe you deserve my respect -- if I'm not looking at you, it's because I'm flowing. I do my best to leave quality and constructive feedback for every round I judge. My only ask is that you do the same; be respectful to me, and don't cross a line (especially when I disclose). If you cross that line, I reserve rights to report you to Tab and your coach.

Tone matters. A good delivery has an arc — passion, intensity, and even aggression (at times) is called for, but build towards those moments. Let them stand out when they’re called for, rather than going on auto pilot and yelling the whole time.

Takeaways:

Have fun! Remember why you're here. My motto: if you're not having fun, you're not doing it right. Take a second to settle. Take a breath. Look around you. This is your moment. You worked hard for this; don't doubt your capabilities, ever.

Good luck!May the best debater win.

Aye I’m a a highschool PARLI debater and have had a long career in debate last highschool no one likes a long paradigm so here

I lean more into traditional debate but am also in interaction with tech

I will only accept Ks as tech everything else just in the garbage can and I do advocate for negation to use Ks if the debate is already heavily skewed

All constructive arguments should be placed in my flow by first speeches

do not spread

if new arguments are brought up in neg block I’ll let Aff respond in their last speech

finally you need to weigh to win so use a mechanism which allows u to weigh the debate

impact debate or link debate to topic if you don’t u cannot win

Whichever side can present their claims, warrants, and impacts most successfully will cinch the win.

Middle School (MSPDP):
Things I look for:

Signposting: giving me clear contentions and headers to follow makes flowing arguments and impacts much easier. If I don’t catch your full argument, I won’t be able to weigh it properly.

POI: Using Poi’s makes the round far more interesting and makes both sides think on their feet. I will award better speaker points to those who are over all more active in their round.

Solid casework: having unique arguments make the debate far more interesting to watch. Think about it: if the topic has to do with climate change and I’ve heard about the environment 3 times, I’ll probably want to hear something different. Make sure the things you’re saying make sense.

Good Logic and Reasoning: Too often I’ve had to call contentions a wash because all the stuff I’ve heard about it is evidence. Using logic to win is absolutely necessary and far more impressive than talking about evidence.

Things I will mark you down for:

Spreading: Spreading is probably the worst thing high school debate has created, talking at 350 WPM will not get you a ballot. Keep in mind that talking fast and spreading are slightly different.

Extremely Unlikely Scenarios: Unless there is actual precedent to what you are saying, stringing together pieces of evidence that are completely unrelated to make an impact will not flow well on my ballot.

Heckles: These are dumb. Shouting “source” won’t help you in any way throughout the debate, ask a POI instead. If you use heckles I will mark you down.

Disrespectful behavior: We all come to tournaments to compete but that is no excuse to be overbearing or rude to your opponents. Attacking someone personally or their speaking style will get you marked down.

High School:

email: ScrewYourSpeechDoc@ gmail.com

I’m Lincoln! Been debating for about 4 years and am currently serving as spontaneous speech captain for my team. Most of the time I'll be disclosing unless I am required by tournament regulations not to, and all of my comments will be left in the RFD. I think that disclosure is important to the learning process, as a lot of the time people miss things they want to say in the RFD that are important. I also think that you should all be able to ask questions about the decision, as long as you don't try to argue :P. Then again, I will always ask competitors if they would prefer disclosure or no disclosure, both must be in agreement or I will not disclose.

DEBATE: I’ve competed in parli, LD, PuFo, and enjoy worlds.

For debate I’m more trad than circuit, but understand anything. MEANING that I like flowing stock cases usually but if you run off topic I’ll still flow it. One thing: I do not like politics arguments. The problem is that anything can be linked to the politics Ad/Disad and most of the time the argument is non unique, as on both sides of the argument political backlash is going to happen. Any way you spin it, I assume that fiat protects the aff or neg cp/ca from the politics arg.

Don't look to my body movements or facial expressions for what I'm thinking in round, most of the time they just mean I'm thinking. I'll be writing or flowing on my laptop, so if you're concerned if I'm paying attention, don't worry.

I’ll vote more for your ability to explain the arguments presented rather than saying “I show you good evidence in the 1AC”.

I’m ok with theory, k’s, but I might not be the best for trix. If you’re going to run K’s, you better understand the lit you’re reading, too many times have I seen somebody fail to fundamentally understand why the K should be weighed. If you run theory, I prefer if it pertains to content but will still consider out of round factors (I see you spreading T’s ;). Fairness is a voting issue.

YOUR WEIGHING MECHANISM MATTERS! If both sides are util then obviously it’s a wash but if there is a fundamental disagreement on which impacts to weigh, whoever I think wins the FW debate gets A LOT of their offense straight across the board so make sure you are making clear reasons which weighing mech is more important, FW collapses are ok as long as you explain the reason, if you don’t I’ll just assume you gave up on the FW debate.

Defense also matters, cover your own content to show that even if the rest of the debate is a wash I still have a preferable world if all offense is moot.

I will always keep my own opinions outside of the debate, but if you make a claim with evidence that is quite clearly false, I may not flow it. I think that tech over truth encourages a nihilistic perspective of debate and is probably morally questionable. Debate is about more than winning and losing; it's about learning. Encouraging things that destroy learning or encouraging false info is something I won't advocate for. The idea that debate is a "game" is super reductive and honestly removes the reason for people joining the activity in the first place. Don't lie, don't cheat, and come prepared with things you can use to win the debate honestly, not cheap tricks that you're using solely for the W on your ballot. The truth is Tabula Rasa isn’t possible… I feel like I’m just one of the people to actually acknowledge that.

DO NOT spread with me, I will roll my eyes and take a nap, and I won’t use a speech doc to follow your speech. It’ll also make me give you the lowest speaks possible, because you’ve sacrificed the rhetoric part of debate to use a lame strategy to try and win because you’re not good enough at reasoning to win on it. I start speaks at 27.5 and work my way up/down from there, if you’re in open usually you’ll get above 28 unless you’re discourteous to your opponents, in which I’ll mark you down appropriately.

SPEECH:

I usually do extemp nowadays, but have competed in almost every type of event, IE originals, interp, and spon. If you do these events regularly, you should know what should be expected, so I won’t go on too long (all feedback should be left in a lengthy rfd). For extemp though, make sure that you’re 1 providing background info (explaining why things are important to the question), and 2 providing analysis separate from your citations.

I am a high school debater with around 6 years of experience. I’m a captain of Parliamentary debate on our team.

The main aspects I look for in a debate are well-explained impacts in constructive speeches and good clash in the final weigh. Your arguments should be fleshed out and well explained. Evidence is an excellent tool to support your arguments in the real world, but sound logical reasoning and link chains are more critical. A big thing I want is POIs. The POI is really where clash comes from in Parli and that is what I want to see.

Your presentation should be polished but I am mainly looking for well-thought-out arguments. I will flow, so signpost to make my job easy. Spreading is ok but try to keep it interesting. If you are too monotone or too fast, you will lose me and I'll stop flowing. Also, keep the heckling to a minimum unless it actually adds to the debate.

Please get heated! Be passionate about supporting your arguments but keep it clean and respectful.

Hello speech and debaters! I'm so excited that you are doing this extracurricular. In a debate, I look for clear argumentation, good refutations, and great impacts. The most important part of the round is your weighing in your third speech, I want to see lots of voter issues and a final weigh using the weighing mechanism.

I prefer POIs over heckling. Please be respectful to each other and let's have a great debate!!!