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.

I do Public Forum and have lots of experience in spontaneous events. I've also done many originals, especially OA.

in prepared speech I look for:

• Strong eye contact and posture
• content!! memorization is key.
• Good etiquette and attitude!!!
• Signposting

in spon:

• Strong eye contact and posture
• content!!
• Good etiquette and attitude!!!
• Signposting
• connection to the topic and overall theme

in debate:

• LOGIC. evidence doesn’t mean anything if you can’t explain why those numbers matter!!!
• good etiquette and attitude!!! Be polite. esp during cross.
• debate is a discussion, not a battle. I value meaningful clash and discussion over yelling.
• don’t ask silly questions lol. “What do you look for in a Debate?” Read the paradigm.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (a talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 4th year judging (2nd kid on the team).

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (not line-by-line). I like good evidence and precise word choice; overstatement, for me, is intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive. FYI, I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

For congress, I rank your speech as well as your questions and interactions.

Don't use common cases. In my field we call itplagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view because folks who copy cases often cannot provide these.)

Spreading, for me, is a flashy (and cheap) excuse for the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate demands. Please don't undermine the transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program by spreading.

Please don't ask if I want your written case in advance; that follow-on to speading compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. If you ask, I'll know you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but earnest feedback is a gift, and I will do my best to offer you some thoughts. I learn something from you in nearly every round I hear (thank YOU!).

Most importantly, I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. I celebrate you! Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

Hello, my name is Whitney and I am a new judge. I don't know much about debate, but I am willing and interested to make progress as a judge. I prefer the debaters speak clearly and avoid talking too fast so that I am able to understand and comprehend what's being said. Also, if possible, try to run your case in a way that a newbie like me would understand. So, it would be best to avoid running things like critiques and other advanced arguments. Oh and also, I will not be judging the round solely based on cross-examination as I believe the speeches are more important. Wishing everyone the best of luck!

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain '19-Present

I competed in policy debate for four years at McQueen High School, where I qualified to the TOC, spent two years debating at CSU Long Beach, qualifying twice to the NDT, and was part of the Trojan Debate Squad at USC for two years.

Currently, I am a debate coach for ModernBrain which means that I might have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with. One personal preference: I’d appreciate it if teams could avoid excessive yelling while speaking. I understand the need to project and that some critical theory can involve raised volume, which is completely fine. I just have sensitive hearing, so I’d prefer if speakers kept that in mind.

--

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K Aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto-vote FW. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on FW. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some kritikal debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. For the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the Aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the Aff and Neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the Aff rather than a super generic one (unless the Aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything, or if it does do something, it doesn't have a net-benefit. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible: I won't automatically judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." (Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the Aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.)

K - I mainly went for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "K hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain K as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the Aff is something the Negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the Neg wants to engage with the Aff, but they are unable to. The Aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K Affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a K against K Affs. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go for T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of K Affs don't need to be untopical, so I feel that the Neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K Affs - I love a good K Aff that is engaging. The Aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy K Affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running K Affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic. Perms are allowed by default in a method v. method debate unless I am told that they shouldn't be evaluated. I personally don't find this argument convincing. Perhaps it would be more compelling if paired with some analysis from the Aff's theory of power explaining why perms shouldn’t be allowed—though I'm not sure.

Policy Affs - Not too much to say here. If the Aff is a good idea then the Aff wins.

Trix - I'm down to judge a trix debate, but I’d like to see it done well. A truth-testing framework with a solid reason why the resolution is false can make for some really fun rounds. The issue with trix is that a lot of arguments are overly pedantic and can be answered with simple warrants. I’ll vote on any trix argument presented, but some require more explanation than others. If a poorly warranted trix argument gets dropped, I’m comfortable cross-applying arguments from another flow to resolve it.

Phil - I studied political philosophy in college, so I’m open to debates on the ancient Greeks, social contract theories, or whatever. Just make sure it’s explained well. (In LD, phil debates make a lot of sense - I think the debate format is designed for it.)

--

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate - especially because we're really lucky as a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. For me, debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me a better advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC.I've completely changed my views on competition and it's for the best. Debate isa place where you can activate your agency and everyone is in debate for different reasons.

Let's work on making the community a better place than when we found it. Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

Name:Dr. Matthew R. Des Lauriers

About Me:I am Director of the Applied Archaeology M.A. program and Professor of Anthropology at California State University, San Bernardino.More specifically, I am an anthropological archaeologist by training and my research is in the peopling of the New World, Experimental Archaeology, and Maritime Hunter-Gatherers. I have also published extensively on the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Baja California. As a professor, I teach a major courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level and significant amounts of general education courses that are taken by non-majors. My father was a career Officer in the Marine Corps and I have lived in all regions of the United States and in several foreign countries during my childhood. My career as an archaeologist has meant that I have spent significant non-recreational time in a variety of countries around the world.

Experience Level:I am new to debate judging but have significant experience evaluating written and oral communication in my university courses from introductory to advanced levels. In my assessments, I take into account and evaluate many of the criteria used to assess the various events in debate competitions—content, style, delivery, effective communication, persuasion among other criteria.

NSDA Training Certificates:

• Level 1 (Completed)

-Intro to Judging Congress

- Intro to Judging Debate

- Intro to Judging Speech

- Intro to Multicultural Competence

• Level 2 (Pending but will complete by 2-7-25)

- Judging Big Questions Debate

- Judging Congressional Debate

- Judging Dramatic, Humorous, and Duo Interpretation

- Judging Extemporaneous Speaking

- Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate

- Judging Original Oratory and Informative Speaking

- Judging Policy Debate

- Judging Program Oral Interpretation

- Judging Public Forum Debate

- Judging World Schools Debate

Paradigm:Because of my Anthropological research, I appreciate a great diversity of topics, from a great many perspectives, and can evaluate both quantitative and qualitative data and arguments.I appreciate procedure to ensure fairness, creativity, strategy, strong research and citation. I center effective communication both verbal and non-verbal (body language and other performative actions) over jargon and technical language, however, I appreciate effective use of specific terminology where necessary to strengthen content. Clear definitions are appreciated as are alignment of arguments, methods, and evidence. In terms of style, I appreciate giving students space to develop their own voice acknowledging that there is a diversity of ways to communicate effectively. I appreciate spirited debate, but also good sportsmanship, respectful engagement, and mindfulness.

I have been judging debate for the past two years. I enjoy LD when the debate stays on topic. I expect students to be professional, assertive and confident in what they are saying. I do NOT like spreading and I will instantly tune out if you start to spread. When judging the argument, I look for who can persuade me and provide research based evidence to support in their argument. I am big on data and research that can be backed up by experts, not personal opinions. Please do not ask me who won at the end of the round! I do not make my final decision until I review my notes and you leave the room.

Name: Dr. Claudia García-Des Lauriers

About Me: I am the Director of the Kellogg Honors College and a Professor of Anthropology at Cal Poly Pomona. More specifically, I am an anthropological archaeologist and art historian by training and my research is on the ancient art, religion, and trade systems of the ancient cultures of Mexico and Central America. I also have training as a historian. As a professor, I teach major courses and significant amounts of general education courses that are taken by non-majors.

Experience Level: I am new to debate judging but have significant experience evaluating written and oral communication in my university courses from introductory to advanced levels. In my assessments, I take into account and evaluate many of the criteria used to assess the various events in debate competitions—content, style, delivery, effective communication, and persuasion among other criteria.

NSDA Training Certificates:

• Level 1

-Intro to Judging Congress

- Intro to Judging Debate

- Intro to Judging Speech

- Intro to Multicultural Competence

• Level 2

- Judging Big Questions Debate

- Judging Congressional Debate

- Judging Dramatic, Humorous, and Duo Interpretation

- Judging Extemporaneous Speaking

- Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate

- Judging Original Oratory and Informative Speaking

- Judging Policy Debate

- Judging Program Oral Interpretation

- Judging Public Forum Debate

- Judging World Schools Debate

Paradigm: Because of my interdisciplinary research, I appreciate a great diversity of topics, from a great many perspectives, and can evaluate both quantitative and qualitative data and arguments. I appreciate procedures to ensure fairness, creativity, strategy, strong research, and citation. I center effective communication both verbal and non-verbal (body language and other performative actions) over jargon and technical language, however, I appreciate the effective use of specific terminology where necessary to strengthen content. Clear definitions are appreciated as are the alignment of arguments, methods, and evidence. In terms of style, I appreciate giving students space to develop their own voices acknowledging that there is a diversity of ways to communicate effectively. I appreciate spirited debate, but also, good sportsmanship, respectful engagement, and mindfulness.

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!!!

I look for clarity above all else, so roadmap every speech clearly and walk me thoroughly through all link chains. Beyond that, just have fun!

Varsity debater 1N/2A Policy from Damien High School

Add me to the email chain: jjesson27@damien-hs.edu

Don't hesitate to ask any questions or clarification with anything, as I will answer to the best of my abilities.

I do not care what you refer to me as.

-----

General things:

Tech >>> truth

Spread clearly, because if you don't I'll clear you. If I have to more than once, speaks will be lowered.

Be clear, confident, respectful, and communicative during speeches and cross-examination.

My ideology is simple that debate is a game.

My scoring ranges from 26-30. <26 means you committed some sort of ethics violation.

Bellow 25 will most likely never happen, you would probably have to hit your opponent to get this.

My Usual starting point is 28.5.

Please use counting down prep and tag team cross is allowed.

-----

Policy:

DA's: DA debates are really straightforward. Impact calc, win risk, win links, answer UQ args, etc. so I have pretty normal expectations.

CP's: The Neg should be careful with how they use the CP, decide your off-case strat and stick with it, kick it properly and I will. Have judge instruction! Good solvency advocates for a CP are fairly interesting, but having at least a sub-par extension from the 1NC to the block (except if you kick) is the bare minimum for me to evaluate CP's for my RFD. Make perms, and when you do make perms, extend those perms throughout every speech that includes the CP. On condo, I believe it is the negs burden in order to prove there is abuse, otherwise I err aff.

K's: I have very little experience handling K's. In general, don't use too much jargon wording with the K, judge instruction is important. Don't say (insert discrimination) good, that would, at the very least, make me completely disregard the K. Weigh impacts, for the neg, EXTEND FRAMEWORK, for the aff, leveraging perms + alt in a strat is cool.

T: I'm ok with T debates, however, I will only consider fairness/education as an impact if you give reasoning for it and if you extend, not just saying it. I am persuaded by explanations by what ground exists in the topic and limits exploded by the aff. Extend all parts of T. If you make reasonability persuasive and not just a blanket extension/dropping it, I'll be moved to vote Neg.

-----

New to LD and PF, if you can't communicate arguments well, it can't be expected I would vote you up because I know nothing about the topics.

-----

If you make fun of Leah Ileto, Sean Mariano, or Ryan Matera, in your speech in an actual funny way, I'll give you +0.1 speaks. (Look at their paradigms, doesn't matter)

Harvard 2025 - I am sick so please take it easy on my lol. I'll try my best to keep up but am not at top shape. Also I won't be shaking anyones hands.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

Circuot wise, I'm generally a bit rusty; judged a bit last year and before that was actively involved in 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7/10).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists across Congress/Speech and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but personally believe the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes

Speed-Run Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school's teammail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) were shaped before today's Michigan-style meta.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship, so I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments. True analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me and easy to win. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic. I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not a problem, 2) I think there's plenty of neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. That game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of proposed hypothetical government action by the aff. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues, and I think that too few teams are brave enough to engage in that discussion vs. making the arguments as a time sink.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I will interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory and will not hold them against you. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument norms (how debaters should behave in round), and Iwill not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better is determined in round through debate, but is usually a question of debate that is more fair or more pedagogically valuable. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated these questions better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K's alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) start as non-factors until the aff contextualizes them as solvency mechanisms in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however once start reading the critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beats bad/under-highlighted cards.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive internal link debating. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the superior internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to the more important terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as a weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that topicality should be a viable generic negative strategy. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think that it is the proper/only mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually, or extra topical ground proves limits explosion). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is terminal defense on education; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or is a better type of education itself). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but explain why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, I am fine with clash as an internal link, but I am very receptive to just internal link turning the aff model and arguing that plan-based debate creates more positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why counterplans are competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew);

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition;

- Aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity;

- the neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies);

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding;

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity);

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors);

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth);

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg;

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round;

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric (you can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo);

- ASPEC is checked by cross (the neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC; if the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse including potential ground loss).

Kritiks

TL;DR: If you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance to the aff (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt).A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan. Generics start as very vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and have a much higher threshold on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

Neg ground should be a product of research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I amextremely unfriendly to process counterplans with internal net benefits that are entirely intrinsic to the process; I have a very low bar for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. A team that understands these differences and can impact them usually wins my ballot.At the same time, an intentionally vague plan text should not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). If the aff is vague, then the neg can and should define normal means then defend the competitiveness of the CP vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means (which is the case with most process CPs).

I do not judge kick by default absent instruction to do so. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I believe that a lot of issues with debate today is the quest to avoid the hard work of research with universally applicable generics (kritiks, K-affs, and process CPs with internal net benefits). The thing that all of these things share is a lack of uniqueness, therefore I am pre-disposed to value uniqueness whereas most teams undervalue it because uniqueness cannot be turned. This means I generally value defense more than most and I will assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. While I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, having a good counterplan is the way for the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in clash -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks. This is especially true if I am forced to vote on a neg position that I cannot understand when the only neg justification is that pure technical concession means it solves.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

This is my first time judging a debate event like this. Personally, I like to engage in debates and I enjoy listening into when opportunities arise like on TV/internet or in in-person events. Informed and honest arguments appeal to me while good delivery and strategy too is impressive to me. Theatrics and hyperbole when used appropriately is not wrong at all. Though I value intellectual honesty and mutual respect. Debates are great platforms for showcasing one's listening skills, creativity and quick wit. Irrespective of which side of argument one starts with, if all can end with mutually rewarding experience of intellectual exploration of the problem space, broadened perspectives and a bit of humor/entertainment, is surely time and energy well spent.

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

I used to do debate. Labor and Public Economics and Education are my specialties.

I am a former Parli debater.

If you can make it rhyme your score will be prime.

Don't knock on the desk after each speech. Each knock is minus 0.1 speaker points. It goes up to minus 1 each time if you ignore my sad face.

If you want feedback ask me after the round. I don't wanna be writing long RFD’s.

If both teams agree I will judge a round off of double loss theory and give very high speaker points.

Do NOT spread. I will stop listening and start playing Bloons Tower Defense 6 and instantly give you the loss. However, if you can spread without doing the breath/gasp thing then maybe I will close Bloons Tower Defense 6... maybe.

Parli: If you have a P.O.O. please say “Pause time Poop” That will be funny I think.

I don’t like Nuclear War or Extinction arguments unless that is literally the topic.

I will NOT EVER accept a Counter Plan in LD, a K, or any type of disrespectful behavior.

good luck.

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

I was previously a policy debater and have some experience judging Lincoln Douglas. I judge by the flow and appreciate good analysis and substance.

Overall, in all events, clarity is extremely important to me. This includes structure of presentation, voice and pace, arguments etc. Outlines help. Speed that is too quick does not help. Clear voice and enunciation are critical.

In speech, I appreciate those that honor the spirit of the event and bring out one's authenticity. Impromptu speeches should be impromptu and truly speak to the topic chosen - though canned speeches can sometimes work, it's often an obvious stretch. Humorous should be humorous. I appreciate dramatic presentations that demonstrate a range of emotions, not only sadness/anger. For OO, I love a presentation that shows me who you are, is clear and brings things full circle by the end.

For debate, I appreciate clear arguments and well-researched data/statistics as evidence. I do NOT appreciate dismissive/arrogant behavior - head-shaking, eye-rolling, huffing, commenting under one's breath, "OK, whatever" - all appear very disrespectful and do not work in proving one's point. It is important to learn how to powerfully argue one's point while also being gracious - especially in today's world!

I am easily distracted! Avoid hair-twirling, extra movements, looking around the room and the like because I may start to do the same. ;)

Hello,

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. Please speak slowly and coherently. Do not spread.

The short but sweet version

Former Socal parliamentary debater and two time TOC qualifier. Tabula rasa. Theory is fine as long as it's not frivolous, not a fan of Kritiks. I prefer emphasis on the links rather than the sources. I weigh probability heavily, if you have an extinction impact, you need to have clear evidence or reasoning for exactly why this extinction impact is more than 1% likely. Speed is fine until it turns to spreading. I will protect the flow, but I understand if you want to POO to make sure I see the violation. Otherwise, I'm just here to watch a good debate.

More Specific Stuff Theory

I view debate as a game with the overall goal of education. The only way that education can occur is if there exists a way to have a fair debate. I'm especially responsive to topicality arguments and ground skew. Speed theory is also fine. I'm less inclined to vote on prep skew, there needs to be a legitimate grievance that isn't just "my opponents' plan isn't just the default argument to make." I'm not a fan of truth-testing. I will not vote on any argument that requires the opponents to have or have a specific buzzword(ex, didn't say link as part of their argument). I view that knowledge as exclusionary and not relevant to the debate, if they provided a link without explicitly stating it's a link, it's still a link.

Kritiks

Do not, under any circumstances, ask me if I'm familiar with the Kritik before you run it. Firstly, I don't know the Kritik, secondly I view that as an inherent attempt to violate tabula rasa, which I'm a big fan of. You're also gonna need to talk relatively slowly and clearly, I am not super experienced with Kritiks and hate flowing them quickly. Honestly, you're probably better off not running the Kritik.

Speed

Just don't spread please.

Speaks

I am pretty generous with speaks, I start at 28 and go up or down half points for if anything egregious happens. I leave myself about .5 based on my personal opinion of you. Clear, confident, and not overly fast speaking will definitely get you higher speaks. If you spread, it's gonna be hard for me to give you much above a 29, but if you're super clear I'd be willing to do it. If you have anything which you think could negatively affect your speaks(e.g. a stutter) and am worried I won't pick up on the fact that you have that condition, just mention it to me and I'll accommodate you in whatever way is necessary.

Default weighing

I am heavily invested in probability. If I had to give it a mathematical formula, I would say it's weight = probability^2 * magnitude * impact * timeframe. You absolutely need to convince me that this could happen. I prefer if the team collapses to one argument in the end, it makes my direct comparison easier. If I feel you won the round on something else, I'll obviously apply that first. I consider extinction impacts to have infinite magnitude, but at a certain point I may consider their probability to be 0.

DO's and DONT's: Do

Use logic heavy arguments with clear connections between your evidence and impacts.

Clearly state your magnitude, impact, and time frame(you don't need to use those exact words though).

Ask frequent POI's if applicable.

Don't

Bully your opponents for not knowing a specific part of a debate framework.

Go for loosely linked extinction impacts.

Spread, run Kritk's, or use frivolous theory.

Picture of My Cat

Picture of my cat.

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.

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.