I have taught Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congressional debate since 2011. I am open to theory arguments and am a flow-based judge. I can handle 'moderate' speed, but not full out spreading especially if I haven't heard the argument before. I have a relatively high requirement for terminal impact arguments, but will certainly consider them.

Congress: Congress is a hybrid speech and debate activity. Debaters should use both evidence and rhetoric to defend their stance on a bill. Congress requires both sides of a bill to be debated, I will be more lenient if debaters choose the weaker side of a skewed bill so the chamber can continue to function! I believe in polite and firm cross-examination, please observe decorum in the chamber.

Sub 2 FLOOOCHY on YouTube

I am currently competing in Parli and Ipda I’d like to see arguments that make sense and have evidence relating to the topic. I’m not biased towards anything as long as it’s genuine and presented for what it is. With that being said I can’t refute points that are not genuine and have evidence you have to say something yourself.

Refute anything your opponent is saying about your arguments don’t let anything that hurts your case get turned into a fact in the round without trying to fight it while making sense.

Evidence is much better when it is recent and relative to the topic, so please say when whatever research or event happened, and if your opponent did not say call them out on it and make it invalid.

link what you're talking about to the topic and the values. Make sure I know how you are portraying your arguments and your opponents. Go over why you won and why the opponent failed in detail.

I am a member of the Lordsburg Speech and Debate Union at the University of La Verne in La Verne, CA. I have been a member for 2 years now. For my flow, I write down the main clashes, and key points in the round, and use that to rank and judge. I value a conversational tone when judging, meaning I prefer the debater to speak slowly so the information is more digestible. It is harder for me to understand an argument if it is presented in a speedy manner. For dense debates such as Public Forum, defining terms and situations in detail will give me the best opportunity to judge your work. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your unique voice.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

As a first-time judge, I am excited to be here and look forward to hearing everyone’s arguments. I value clear communication, confidence, and a sophisticated, original analysis of the proposed bill. Professionalism and respect for all participants are essential and will play a role in my scoring. I encourage you to present your arguments thoughtfully and compellingly, showing not only a strong understanding of the topic but also your ability to engage with the opposing side—best of luck!

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.

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
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have reputable research
- Do not ask questions to the same side during CX because it does not contribute or advance the debate and wastes a questioning block
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list my argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments. Example: If Neg runs a conditional CP, and Aff says condo bad, I’m probably erring Neg if Neg just makes the standard responses to that shell. If they fumble it, I’m fine voting Aff.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.). Another important thing to note: if you’re Neg, and Aff doesn’t run a plan, you’re probably not going to win if you run a counterplan. Just read specification theory instead.

Style: Keep roadmaps short. Speed is fine as long as you send everyone your doc and you enunciate. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on it. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Don’t assume that I’m familiar with your literature base, because I’m probably not. I understand how Ks function, and I hit them a few times in high school, but don’t read a thousand layers of dense philosophy and assume I’ll get it.

It’s hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework, but it can be done. I don’t vote for most kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.