Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

General Debate Info: Students may speak as fast or slow as they would like, as long as the event's time limits are followed.

Debate is challenging, so I applaud all students who participate! Debaters must be respectful to their peers at all times, personal insults and discriminatory remarks of any kind are NOT to be tolerated; you are here to criticize their evidence and arguments, not the debaters themselves. Debaters must use a mature, eloquent, and patient tone of voice; yelling and shouting do not make you the better debater. There is a difference between arguing and debating, please perform the latter.

I hold clash and rebuttal at very high importance; debaters can be prepared with all the evidence they'd like, but they will never really know what questions/holes their competitors will bring up, and the way they respond to that truly displays the skill of a debater.

Finally, tech over truth.

Congressional (House/Senate) Info: As an event with shorter speeches compared to the others, clash holds a large part in the ranking decision. Solid evidence, quick thinking, and passion for the Aff/Neg are also big factors in the rankings. Also, I realize and sympathize with how challenging and important PO'ing can be, so I have no issue ranking the PO 1st for that round if they deserve it! Congress is about memorability, so the competitors that I remember for their skill, even after they've left the room, will be highly ranked.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Delivery: smooth, confident, limit your stumbles.

Citations/Evidence: these are very important to me.

Dramatic delivery: a plus.

Logical flow to your speech or your argument: from beginning to end, did you sell me on your points, did you sell me on your solutions.

In debate: be civil, make your point, let them make theirs. This is speech and debate, not speech and bullying.
Talking faster does not gain you points with me - be clear, be concise…be persuasive!

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge.

In debate, my main focus is on how well you present your argument and defend them. I prefer you do not spread. My basic philosophy is that if I can not understand what you are saying , I do not understand your argument and therefore your score will reflect that . Please remember be respectful and do not cut your opponent off during crosses.

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging Paradigm of Janice Rath:

I have judged and observed 2 tournamements and am  new at judging LD.

I would be looking for a communication style, that is clear, concise and precise.  I enjoy listening to a debater that can relate their arguement to someone like me (the average citizen). 

I would enjoy hearing you state your points, restate the points and summarize the points in the debate so that I may easily follow them.

I like to hear participants that can predict counter arguements and approach them with dignity, and understanding.  We live in a world now where we don't spend enough time understanding and appreciating different points of view.  Be respectful with your opponent.  I want to hear why your view is the right view, not why someone else's view is wrong.

I also am always interested in a person that can not only understand the intricacies of their view, but can additionally illustrate the ripple effect of their viewpoint.  For example if you believe in the ethical standards of attracting a diverse workforce what are the long term affects of having this?  How would it affect a minority population and how would it benefit or affect people who are not considered minority and could it benefit them?

Finally, have fun with your topic.  The fact that you are engaging in debate is a most wonderful accomplishment.  

I look forward to working with you.

I am a United States history teacher and Speech & Debate teacher. I have judged at NIETOC, TOC, and NSDA Nationals.

LD: I believe all debaters should discuss and argue the chosen resolution. I will listen to Ks but will not give them much regard. As a judge my role is to establish how well competitors can effectively argue an unbiased resolution that was selected by vote. I feel K's are written for and by debaters who choose to ignore the rules of debate. I can accommodate spreading. I rarely request evidence and consider myself truth over technique.

PF: Debaters should have a good balance and knowledge of their research. I expect debaters to argue either in favor of the change suggested by the resolution or defense of the status quo. I typically ignore policy suggestions made in public forum as I feel public forum is not a debate meant to argue for the development of a policy. I will support arguments for solvency as long as those arguments establish a clear likelihood. I can accommodate spreading. I value evidence in PF rounds.

Public Profile: https://linktr.ee/adamrose_xr_t

Educational Affiliations: Clark HS, IE University, National Academy Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United Nations Academic Impact, United Nations Millennium Fellowship, United Nations System Staff College

Oratory Group Affiliations: IE University Debate Club; IEUMUN (Madrid, Spain), GIMUN (Geneva, Switzerland), HNMUN (Boston, USA), PragueMUN (Prague, Czech Republic), SPLIMUN (Lille, France), and WorldMUN (International).

Oratory Experiences: former President of IE Debate Club; Co-founder of IEUMUN; 5+ years of College-Level MUN as well as additional speaking events and competitions (Spanish Royal Artillery Debate, IEUSG Elections Debate, etc.)

Student General Guidelines:

Cues/Feedback: when judging competitively, I generally do not give cues or feedback regarding speed, pronunciation, or gesturing during speeches. Only at the conclusion will I give feedback. If a speech has time constraints, I may tap twice at 10 seconds left and tap repeatedly if going over time - these timed warnings may change given overall speech length. Students will be given notice prior to beginning their speech if such warnings will take place and at what intervals.
Style/Substance Preferences: I generally give more weight to substance over style when evaluating a speech, but I look for well-rounded performances. A monotone analysis without emotion will score equally poorly to that of a passionate act devoid of content. Aim to craft intelligent speeches with compelling messages that impart an impactful experience.
Objectives: when judging competitively, I encourage all students to aim to win. However, do not let competitiveness overshadow the event and what experiences you may take away from it. From honing your existing skills, to collaborating with new individuals, to learning a new ability, seek to gain something from having participated. Opportunities often arise from the places we least expect them.

Parent/Coach at Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas with 7 mos. of tournament history.

Please go slower and impact your arguments that an average person will understand .

My note-taking focuses on key points in the arguments.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

Hi all!! My name is Sydney and I am currently a law student at Boyd! I did speech and debate all throughout high school and did almost every event! That being said, my paradigm is usually very straightforward.

Speech- presence, voice, and the speech organization (i.e based on the topic, it made sense).

Debate- decorum, flowed through arguments, and impacts (values for LD, etc).

You are all amazing and just competing is an accomplishment in and of itself!

I am a high school history teacher and. While I have never competed in Speech and Debate myself, I have judged in several tournaments now and while I am still learning about how arguments are structured, I've gotten a feel for what is expected and what I like to see. Above all I expect to see politeness and professionalism from debaters. Having a poor attitude towards your opponent undermines the hard work you put into your argument, and will majorly impact how I score you.

Similarly, I expect clarity. Intentionally speaking as fast as you can to fit in as many arguments as you can in your time will make me stop following your argument and stop my notes, which will then negatively impact how I score you. Please let your hard work show through with good pacing clarity.

PF and LD

I'm a parent judge and have been judging since 2021.

I need to be able to understand you. I will judge your speaking abilities, logic throughout the case, and how much you know your topic. Don't just read off your computer screen. Understand your argument, listen to your opponent, and adapt your case.

I understand that sometimes the aff/neg may have a harder case to make and will not let that or my personal opinions sway who wins.

Be respectful of your opponent(s). While they are speaking you should be listening, taking notes, and/or preparing your arguments. 

I expect you to know the rules for your events. You can time yourself. I will time you, but will not stop you. If you go over by a few seconds that is fine, but more than that may cause you to lose points.