my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

I am the head coach of Speech and Debate (primarily focus on Lincoln-Douglas) at Middle College High School in California, 2023-2024

As a judge I will be focusing on the arguments presented in the debate, meaning: the contents of what is said, and not just how it is stated, will make all the difference. Striking the balance between speaking persuasively, but also having sound logic behind your claims will set you apart from your opponent. I will take a step back and evaluate as a third party: the quality of the argumentation in the debate. The archetypal argument must consist of a claim (what you are trying to advance) and a warrant for that claim (why is it true). I don't need your case. Avoid including me in the chain. Strong evidence should be clearly stated, and not outdated.

Avoid spreading. If I can’t understand you, and you fail to articulate yourself clearly, I can’t judge in favor of your case. Speak clearly and signpost.

I will look to the structure of your cases and be on the lookout for framework (essential in LD). Topicality Frame for 1AC and 1NC: Define any key terms in the resolution that may come up later in the debate or will be crucial to your contentions. Give your Value and its definition. Give your Value Criterion and its definition. Address Significance and Inherency, harms and impacts along with solvency (aff)/clash(neg). Neg: Without clash, there isn’t any debate. Debaters must clash directly and specifically to their opponents’ arguments. CLASH is a central, deciding factor of a debate. If a debater fails to clash with major points, you will lose the debate.

1 AR- I will be looking that you provided answers to the Neg Clash. Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions. 1NR- Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions and NO COUNTER-PLANS. I will not consider new evidence presented in 2NR so please do not give new cards or provide new evidence

Avoid:

• Getting confrontational. It’s a debate–it should not get personal. Face the judge, not your opponent.

• Getting too loud. Louder does not mean you are more convincing or does not signal you are right.

Speaker points: out of 30 (however the scale starts at 26, unless the student was intentionally rude, made offensive or hateful comments-this will result in a 25). I may assign the winning debater the highest number of speaker points (granted there weren’t major issues and they weren't subpar), unless I believe it is a low-point win.

Results will be on Tabroom. Thank you.

Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

Currently debating for the CSULB policy team

Graduated in 2023 & was an active varsity lamdl debater for 2 years.

Preferences-

I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)

I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, abelism, or any offensive arguements so don’t try it or I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.

Onto specific arguments

T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah ect I love when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.

Kritiks- I love kritiks especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ give me an acual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same ith kritiks on the negative but just ive me clear links and reasons I should prefer.

Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer krtiks.

DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.

CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outwieghts. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.

More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to empahsize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absoluley love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).

The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.

That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!

P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker (ur welcome)

.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

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.

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

hai

do not spread pls if u are not good at it

im truth over tech, have a lot of pathos to convince me, be dramatic af- I need to feel and believe it to be fully convinced.

Hello,

I am a parent judge with little experience. However, I have sat in multiple Congress sessions so I'm familiar with the flow of the round.

Judging criteria:
- Be professional, NO profanity or racial slurs
- Be respectful, don't interrupt or be rude
- Speak clearly and loudly, and deliver well
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have relevant, reputable research
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments
- Use CX time wisely and effectively

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

Elizabeth Pak is has been a licensed attorney in California since 1994.

She has judged speech and debate tournaments.

My debate background is in Parli but I am familiar with all formats of debate. I am okay with all forms of arguments you want to run (T's/K's/whatever) as long as it serves a purpose in the round I dislike when debaters run a shell just for the sake of running an argument. I am okay with speed in round spreading is also fine (as long as your opponents are okay with it too) however I may not get everything you say on my flow and if I don't hear it I won't evaluate the debate with it so if something is important make sure to slow down. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.