Lay judge. HS teacher with degrees in History and Special Education

LD:

I do not like spread. I take copious notes and need to follow what you say.

Speak clearly and evidence is good.

Ctrl/Cmd + F to find your event (once it's finished :0] )

Debate

Add me to the email chain :) victorest.24@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

The form of debate I have the most experience with, I consider myself a tech judge, meaning that if you can beat your opponent by tackling the most points then tada you win! Though your arguments must be understandable (believable is just a cherry on top), as a freshman college student, if not then I will not believe your points are valid.

Framework

Speech

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

Truth > tech.

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

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

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

I am a parent judge and may not flow. I enjoy all logical and creative arguments. I am claiming no expertise in debates or speech; however, as long as you have solid explanations of your arguments, I should be able to follow them.

You are here to convince me with your excellent research and debate skills! I am more impressed with debaters who apply certain public speaking skills and who can express their arguments with logic, confidence, and clarity. If you follow all debate rules and technicalities, you are in good shape; I'll certainly let you know if you cross the lines.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts, but here are my answers to some issues you may have.

· Speed___I'd prefer moderate speaking speed and slow-down for facts, authors, and taglines. I'll try to follow, but I do not guarantee that I will catch everything being said. Make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

· Arguments___I'm all ears for any types of arguments -- traditional, progressive, or anything in between -- as long as they are not morally offensive. Just make sure you articulate your arguments with logic, evidence, claims, and impacts.

· Speaker Points___I adjudicate speaks based on your delivery and in round behavior.

· Others___I'm big on organization throughout the speech, including roadmaps and signposts. If I don't know where to put your arguments, I'm probably not going to flow it.

·Cards and evidence___If I am not sure or confused about certain pieces of evidence or facts, I will call to see the cards at the end of the round. If you bring up information that is false without evidence to back it up, even if the opposing team does not call you out, I will hold that against you.

· Calling Cards___Don't take too long when asked to bring up cards. I will hold that against you and it will impact your speaker scores.

· Advice?

1. Remember that this is an educational and friendly competition.

2. Debate in the style you feel most comfortable. Don't be bogged down by debate jargon or styles that your opponents use.

3. Tell me at the end why I should vote for you. Especially in Final Focus. Don't make me weigh the impacts and do the work, make sure you are weighing and being explicit.

4. Although using logic to support is great, try your best to have quantifiable impacts.

Hello. I am a parent judge with little experience. Please speak clearly and slowly.

Thank you and good luck!

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

No spreading please.

LD is a value debate so I will be looking for the debater who best connects their contentions to the value and value criterion in their case.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

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

She has judged speech and debate tournaments.

My main concern while judging is that the argument presented is well-formed and well-prosecuted. A well-formed argument should have premises that are true, and follow from one another. I teach logic and thus tend to notice when people use logical fallacies, but unless it is particularly problematic I won't count it against that team too much unless the other team notices the mistake and actually points it out. Part of arguing for your own position means noticing that kind of error on your opponent's part and making the audience aware of it. Your job is to teach me why your position is true, and thus even if I recognize a mistake in reasoning committed by your opponent, I won't give you the advantage unless you show me how that problem is an issue.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college debate - v traditional policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I've been coaching PF for 6+ years, mostly MS/some HS.

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

To be clear: fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

It shouldn't take you long to send cards if you were literally just reading them. Make it quick or it starts coming out of prep.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

TW/Para theory/K's - judged a couple times, but by no means an expert. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but you're better off going slower than usual and making your judge instructions very, very clear.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello. I am a parent judge, specifically a flay judge. I have judged tournaments in the past for PF, LD, and Parliamentary, and I have knowledge about basic technicalities. Please make sure to be aware of your timing as I would like the round to adhere to the official timings. I may signal a debater that their time is up if a speech runs too long.

I will be flowing throughout the round, so make sure to utilize your time effectively when defending your case and attacking your opponent’s case. As long as you have solid evidence and logical reasoning, you should be able to succeed. Remember, debating is not about aggression; it is about assertion. Please make to remain respectful to your opponents as I will mark down speaker scores if anyone speaks disrespectfully to others. Do not interrupt the opponent’s statements.

As for speed, I would prefer no spreading because if I can’t properly flow and understand your contentions, it will be hard for me to understand important points in the debate.

As for speaker points, I will adjust speaker scores based on delivery and in round behavior throughout the round; again, please remain respectful and courteous during the debate.

I am a judge with over 5 years of Speech and Debate experience.

I have a preference towards traditional rounds, but I am willing to engage with progressive rounds. You will, however, be doing this at your own risk.

1. Maintain a reasonable speaking pace that develops your arguments well as opposed to spreading as a main tactic. I heavily value the strength of an individual argument you've won over how many you win on through sheer number. The quantity of arguments certainly has a place, but this is secondary to them being well developed. As such, I do value the actual presentation of the argument a little more highly, but this still remains secondary to the arguments' quality.

2. Limit use of jargon and focus more on the matter at hand. Jargon is fun, but please do remain focused.

3. Maintain a level of respect for your opponent and judge throughout. I am not necessarily going to evaluate exclusively on how nice you are, nor will one momentary point of rudeness lose you the round, but excessive rudeness will be reflected on your ballot.

Overall, focus on creating a strong argument first and foremost and make sure I can actually understand it. So long as you adhere to that, you should find success.

I will decide the winner after some thought and reflection at the end of the round, so I may not have a decision to disclose immediately.

Hi everyone!

I'm a parent judge who judged for the first time at OCSL Fall. Make sure to be organized, speak clearly, and please time yourselves. I do take notes during the debate but will likely not be familiar with any topic specific jargon you are using.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

I am a current coach and former competitor with a deep love for classical LD, though I occasionally judge in other categories.

I understand and can follow technical arguments and strategies, but I prefer classic framework clash with applications. In my view LD is all about thinking deeply about principles and their connection to the real world. That said, I will respect a more technical approach if you do it well.

Don't spread. Speed is fine if you enunciate well and the speech is well-written, but I do care about quality of arguments more than quantity.

All document sharing should be doneduring prep time.Factor in time for mild technical difficulties. If you aren't speaking, I'm running the prep clock.

You're probably annoyed by the above comments. I'm not as old as the above makes me sound. I promise I'm a decent guy and will give good feedback, and I'm more than capable of following speed and tech if you think you can do it well and impress me. Good luck!