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

Always open for paradigm questions before round (honestly recommend this because any judge's perception of good debate changes by topic) and RFD questions after or emailed tohacapone06@g.ucla.edu

Head-Royce '24

UCLA '28

For Peninsula '25:

• background: I did parli in high school and have some other experience running EBDL for middle schoolers and coaching that
• ill evaluate anything you say so long as it isn't violent/problematic
• my preference is case debate, this was a majority of what I did in hs, and honestly just think its cleaner given a 20 min prep limit
• ill weigh magnitude > prob > timeframe for the most part but this will also depend on the debate itself
• it is your job to make something stick basically it is your responsibility to make sure important evidence/arguments get on my flow because realistically I can't write everything down
• I'm still surprised by how much this happens but please don't debate the top of the case if you just agree with what they said, for example, if you're neg don't go up and read a definition that is literally the exact same but on that note debating the top of case is highly important if their toc does not also benefit your case
• weighing mechanisms debates are usually kinda silly and oftentimes involve two teams who are arguing with each other but in reality are saying the same thing and if you don't give me a good weighing mech and an equally good reason why it should exist instead of net benefits then its not as serious of a part of my decision as most people think
• always tech > truth aka if u say "pigs can fly" and back that up as long as it goes uncontested that is a truth within the round
• obviously read the k and theory/ other technical stuff but within parli my bar is way higher for these arguments just given the fact that these are prewritten
• technical debate should not be a way just to trip up opponents and if these arguments aren't explained in a way that is understandable for someone who isn't familiar with technical debate I'm way less likely to vote for it; same thing goes with speed, speed and tech shouldn't exist to exclude your opponents
• POI as u see fit and don't be afraid to call the POO but understand the rules behind both and don't be annoying and I'll drop points for abusive POIs and POOs
• people usually miss the significance of impact debate across the board, this is usually going to guide any judge how to vote especially in the last 2 speeches and weighing is huge across the entire debate
• be creative, have fun - being engaging is part of your ethos

I am familiar with all forms of debate and have a particular interest in LD, Public Forum, and Parli. I debated on the national circuit in college and have been coaching for about 17 years. I am fine with speed, as long as I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not a fan of extreme spreading and do not think it is a skill set that benefits competitive debate, nor is it a skill set that I believe will help students in their future lives. I am familiar with all forms of arguments, theory, etc. I am open to all of them as long as they are well articulated. To be honest I am not a fan of kritiks based on semantics.

I most greatly appreciate debate that uses logic and sound reasoning supported by relevant and credible sources. In LD make sure you are supporting your value and criterion with the rest of your case. I find it disappointing when a debater presents their value/criterion and then almost never references them again throughout the debate; novice mistake!

I believe I evaluate every round with fairness and expectations that deserve the division in which you are entered (novice/JV/open). Do not make up facts and/or evidence. If I feel like you present false evidence intentionally I will inform Tabroom and urge them to punish you accordingly. I definitely will increase speaker points for those who speak with respectful conviction and enthusiasm. If you sound bored, I will be twice as bored. I do not award wins to those who speak "pretty" just because they speak "pretty". I will increase your speaker points but I award wins based overwhelmingly on the logic and comparative analysis you offer.

Be clear, logical, and focus on tying your arguments back to the big picture. I can generally understand you if you speak faster, but you still should not be spreading. I did LD in high school, so if you’re going to get technical please define your stuff so I know what you are talking about. Be sure to attack the argument and not the person. Otherwise, make sure to have fun!

For Parli:

I’ve never judged Parli before. I’d say to be on the safe side, treat me like a lay judge who knows what debate is.

For PF:
I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college sophomore judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.

My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.

Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the respective speech for the sake of time.

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.

To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).

To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).

However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response/defense. That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.

To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:

Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)

No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?

Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.

HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.

If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.

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

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

Hello,

My name is Rich. I am a college freshman, fresh out of the high school circuit. I'm a former parliamentary debater, so I prefer convincing on case arguments, although, if you want to run a K I will flow it. Please try to avoid spreading (talking really fast) if not necessary. I'm excited to hear your arguments. Please remain respectful during the rounds, and have fun!

If you have any questions feel free to ask me at the beginning of each round.

This is my second 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.

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

Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.

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

Good luck!

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 and argumentation as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020, at CSULB since 2024, 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 as long as your opponents are okay with it.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a fun K in front of me at a high school parli 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.

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.

Debate judge. Have fun :)

Hello! My name is Miguel Oliveros, and I have competed on the El Camino Speech and Debate Team from 2022-2024 in NPDA, IPDA, LD, extemporaneous, and impromptu.

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

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

Good luck in your events!

Experience
I’ve competed in IPDA, NPDA, Extemp, and Impromptu. I value clear, strategic debates with strong clash.

Philosophy
Impact analysis and clash are key. I won’t vote solely on dropped arguments but will focus on what the debate collapses to and the a priori issues that emerge.

Topicality
I evaluate topicality seriously but need clear, convincing violations to vote on it.

Speaker Points
Clarity, strategy, and professionalism earn high points.

✏️
⋆.ೃ࿔*:･ ᴛʜᴀɴᴋ ʏᴏᴜ ғᴏʀ ʀᴇᴀᴅɪɴɢ! ʙʏᴇᴇ ୨୧
-ˋˏ✄——————————————————

∧,,,∧ ~ ┏━━━━━━━━┓
( ̳• · • ̳) ~ ♡ You’re purrfect ♡
/ づ ~ ┗━━━━━━━━┛

✏️

I am an undergraduate engineering student, and while I am comfortable with technical concepts, I am not an experienced debater. This means that while I may understand logical frameworks and argument structures, I prefer arguments that are clearly explained rather than relying heavily on debate jargon or technical shorthand.

I appreciate evidence-based arguments, but quality and relevance matter more than quantity. Don’t just read a card—explain why it supports your argument. Focus on clear, logical persuasion rather than rhetorical showmanship.

IMPORTANT:

I will judge the round using a point-based system. Each contention starts at 1 point, and it is the opposing team’s job to refute these contentions. Strong, well-supported contentions can earn incremental bonuses in +0.25 steps, capped at a maximum of 1.5 points. If a contention is left completely unrefuted, the originating team retains the full point (or the adjusted value if bonuses are awarded). If the contention is partially countered, its value will be reduced by 0.5 points. If fully refuted, the contention’s value will be reduced to 0 points, regardless of any bonuses it earned. Teams may bring as many contentions as they like, but only maximum of 5 points will be considered; any additional contentions may only serve as supporting logic or evidence for other arguments to avoid spamming contentions for free points.

I use a point-based system to stay objective and minimize bias from limited experience. Remember, any contention brought up starts at 1 point, with up to +0.25 for strong arguments, which helps resolve ties. I came up with this AP-style approach to hopefully highlight fairness and consistency.

MY BACKGROUND

competed in parli debate on the collegiate circuit - socal based
some experience in public forum and LD - ms + hs

WHAT I WANT TO SEE:

- extended impacts
- clear sign posting. please don't make me figure out where you are on the flow i'm begging
- weighing mechanisms. i would prefer if you didn't make the weighing mechanism debate last the whole round, but that's still better than no weighing mechanism brought up at all
- cordial debating. don't yell personal attacks at your opponent. i will drop you on account of courtesy if you do. cattiness is fine, just don't be a bad person
- CXbrought back into the debate where applicable (I don't flow CX)
- clash. please, please, please don't talk past each other

SPREADING (my takes):

I'm alright with fast paced debates and actually prefer them, but I was never fully introduced to the art of spreading. I agree that it can make debate a little less accessible to the general public, which is a shame (imagine if everyone knew how to spread lol). if you do decide to spread, I can get down probably about 70-80% of it. but I'd prefer not to struggle to get down your arguments.

TL;DR: fast talking, yes. spreading, no.

my definition of spreading is any pace that requires you to double clutch (the double breath, not the car thing) to keep it up. if you don't know what double clutching is, I will be able to understand you

I’m a parent judge, but competed in debate (years and years ago) in high school.

Please speak at a comprehensible pace, provide plain labels for your arguments, clash as much as possible with your opponent, behave civilly, and weigh the debate in later speeches. Use all your time, but don't repeat yourself. Avoid jargon that is unique to the debate world.

If you have questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Hello, considering this is parliamentary debate, I don’t care for spreading. I value quality over quantity in your arguments. I’d rather see two solid contentions, rather than six with a lack of evidence. If I need to draw lines to connect your arguments, then you aren’t debating clear enough. Impacts are important, but links to these impacts are a necessity. Don’t tell me that “in the neg’s world, human extinction is a byproduct of what would occur if I vote in favor of neg” (which would require a heavy link chain) unless you can build a strong, coherent explanation for it.

In short:

• Do not spread; I will lower speaks.

• Have a warrant for all your claims.

• Get to the point quickly, don’t waste time on a summary over 20 seconds. Use your time on your argument at hand

• Build strong, clear link chains to an impact.

• Use a confident tone of voice, be persuasive. Really explain why I as the judge should vote in favor of your side

• Weigh the debate in your last speech.

• Signpost your contentions, subpoints, CP, and the points you will address in the speech.

To reiterate, I want a strong argument for your side over anything else. Speaking is important but nothing is more relevant than your argumentation skills. That is almost solely what I am judging upon.

Goodluck everyone

2025 Update

Second Coaching Diamond Y'all!

The 2024 update was less than two months ago, but I'd like to add something here. Some of the varsity members out there reading my paradigm are thinking that this is way beneath what they are capable of doing. That's not true because if you're messing up getting your assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts in the debate, you need the reminder. Still looking for the basics, then beyond that show me what you can do in an intelligent fashion. But don't forget the basics. Remember your judges have not done the research that you have, and you should be stating the resolution, giving some definitions, and filling in all those blanks that I'm not allowed to bring with me. Good luck to everyone!

2024 Update

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" - Michael Corleone

I'm still here! Now I'm doing limited coaching, fewer tournaments, and less judging overall. That does not take away from Two Diamonds of NSDA experience.

I'm writing this for Public Forum Debate, but it would apply to all debates. The older things below are still applicable, but let me make it easy for you to figure out how to win my ballot.

1. Speak clearly and enunciate. You will probably talk fast and that's okay, ONLY if your words are all clear. If your words are garbled and slur together that does not make you easy to understand. Clarity is most important.
   
   

2. Use effective pacing. If you don't give a pause at the end of one idea or contention, it blurs together with the next one. If you want me to really get the point of what you're saying: pause, slow down, and say "judge that means blah blah blah". And then it clicks in your judge's brain that is the most important bit of information, the reason you have told us all the other things at whatever speed. This is important especially when you're giving impacts or refutations in your debate round.
   
   

3. SIGNPOST! Your road maps okay, but I'm not going to write it down fast enough and I'm not going to remember it. So signpost so we don't get lost. By using good sign posting skills you will be less likely to drop an argument, which could make or break your round. Many contentions sound kind of like the other ones. If you're not being clear where you're at, I don't know where to write what you're saying on my flow. Say things like "our first contention", "in our third contention", "in our opponent's second contention they said"... This makes it super easy to see that you have the winning points.
   
   

4. I ❤️ AREI! (Assertion Reasoning Evidence Impacts) I want a clear assertion for your contention, a handful of words to focus all you are saying in that contention. I want solid reasoning that tells me what you're going to prove with your evidence and how it all connects together. Remember that I am only allowed to use the information you give me, and a lot of times debaters expect judges to do the reasoning, to put the pieces together. I'm not supposed to, therefore will not. I'm supposed to use the words that come out of your mouth and your reasoning. You link it all together for your judges please. I want evidence that is precise to what you're trying to prove. I want clear numbers, and properly used evidence. If you use one sentence to prove your case, but the rest of the article disproves your case, your opponent will catch on, nullifying this piece of evidence. Recency is important, however there are some things that outweigh recency and that is the importance of who said it. I have used Aristotle as a piece of evidence in the past, because you can't beat Aristotle even though he's not recent. I want to know what the impacts are. How will voting on this topic change things from the status quo? Not everything goes to nuclear or biological warfare. Are we going to lose something? Are we going to gain something? Is it worth the gamble? I want to understand the cost benefit analysis (if applicable) of why I should vote for you.

5. Be clear with your acronyms and definitions! Even if I am coaching, my students are doing the research. I expect them to tell me about the topic. In this case because we're in a round, I expect you to tell me about it. I should not wonder what your acronym means. That should be made very clear in the beginning, probably in your definitions. In a debate round the students should be educating the teachers/judges. Be clear and include all of the information. Again I'm not supposed to bring any of the information I already have to the room and I can't look it up, so I need you to inform me.

6. I still love clash during any kind of cross-examination, but it must not be rude. The destruction of your opponent should not be a personal one, but should be due to you being able to find flaws in their cases, properly question them about it, and then refute that answer in your next speech. In the end, we should all still be friends as part of the relatively small speech and debate community.

7. I have done most, if not all, of the NSDA accreditations. It's just not updating for some reason.

Best of luck in your rounds!

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.