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.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11jZDk15UIPhhyBojzFnXayCETBt36yUnRHWGgTizBEI/edit?usp=sharing

Hi I'm Scott

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style when in the role of the judge. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible. I am a very flexible critic and coach.

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. :')

30 speaks for puns im bored

Judging preferences - Summary

UPDATE: please ask me how many rounds I've judged...If it's more than 5 back-to-back rounds, please ignore the rest of this document and just treat me like a lay judge... (If I ever judge 15 back-to-back double-flighted debate rounds again I may lose it.) Also if i look angry im just locked in im so sorry lol

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost clearly. Always. Literally I can’t judge you properly if you’re not signposting.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD bc of status quo and whatnot. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

Congress Preferences:

Be memorable and have good arguments. I used to serve CA-07 in the US House of Representatives. My best friend still works in CA-51. I like it when Congress speeches reflect an understanding of how the federal government works.

Big LD prefs:

I want a value and a value criterion please. Idc if there’s policies in the case itself, but I typically weigh the debate on the values provided bc LD is a values debate, after all. I like theory in LD more than in PF or parli, and will entertain the idea more. I'm more truth over theory unless the theory is rlly good. please don't waste my time and your opponent's time with time suck args.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. Furthermore, if you do spread - there better be signposting and pauses/changes in speed to emphasize that you are changing gears/moving onto what part of the road map you’re on. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread to spread, become a policy debater.

Flow Style is typically on paper bc I’m old school like that, so if you're speaking so fast/spreading without pauses in a way that I can't shorthand write it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Plans are fun! I love a good plan! Call me Senator Elizabeth Warren the way I love a good plan. (Emphasis on a good plan.) Just remember that plans aren’t legal in all debate events.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. It’s just not that serious. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, and they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much. They just bore me.

Email for chains: Leamulanc@gmail.com

About me:

Assistant Coach at Los Osos High School
Former Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
Donuts D. Roberts Coach
CHSSA Board Member
CBSR VP of Speech
Informative kid yrs ago and other stuff
Frequently hungry and/or sleepy in round

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

My paradigm is as follows:

1. I vote based off of what happens in the round, or more accurately, what happens according to my flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to make it to my flow, and for an argument to do so, stay organized, sign post, and tag. It’s your job to be clear on what your specific response is, not my job to decipher what your tag line is or what you’re responding to.

2. While I am an alumni debater with a Policy, LD, and Parli background, I am very much AGAINST speed talking. You don’t need speed to spread, you just need to be an efficient and effective communicator.

POI: if I put my pen down during your speech, it’s an indication that your either are not communicating effectively (ie. not clear, organized, signposting, or tagging) or you are over time.

3. I suspend my own personal beliefs and simply follow the arguments for the duration of a round. You only need to make strong arguments and impact well to convince me. Don’t assume I agree with you and then cut your argument (link, warrant, and/or impact) short as a result.

4. I love structure in debate (arguments, cases, format, strategy, etc.) and have enjoyed framework debates in the past. As long as you make it clear why your argument matters both to your side and the resolution, I’ll vote on it. If you and your opponents fail to do so, the argument will not affect the RFD or I will have to insert my own opinion into the round to vote on it.

5. A consistent lack of impacting arguments to the resolution, turns the round into a “two ships passing in the night” experience rather than a high contrast debate round. When this happens, I am forced to insert my own opinion to choose a winner - which I very much don’t like doing.

6. Be professional and respectful. A lack of either of these makes your credibility drop significantly.

Hello Competitors! My name is Gracie. I am 20 years old. I competed in speech and debate events in all four years of my high school career, specializing in debate events. I was a debate captain for two years and this is my first year coaching a debate team. Use any technical debate terms you want - I will understand.

I will be flowing the round, but if arguments are dropped, they will not be carried through the flow unless you make that clear to me during argumentation. What I really want is to be personally moved and convinced. I prefer you don't spread!If I/your opponents were not able to hear the arguments presented and understand what you delivered then it did not happen on my flow. I will likely be timing for my record but I will not time for competitors unless absolutely necessary- I.E. forgotten phone, timer, dead computer. All arguments and questioning should be directed at me to convince me and they should remain civil.

For LD I will be judging heavily on moral implications of your arguments and less on statistics. That being said, statistics still come into play and evidence is still important. Evidence should be used to pull on my heartstrings for LD's morality-based topics.

What I will judge on:

-Quality of arguments

-Clear presentation

-Evidence quality and recency

-Speaking skills and presentation

What I will not judge on:

-Clothing/Appearance

-Pleasantries before or after round (no bonus points for extra niceness/handshaking/etc)

-Technological advantage/ability

-Normal/unavoidable speaking flaws

I am a volunteer parent with over a year’s experience judging speech and debate events. I judge for a number of reasons, most importantly is that a seeing the skills and dedication students have for connecting community members and making society batter for all GIVES ME JOY AND HOPE!

In order for me to best judge events it helps me if students:

1. Speak slowly enough for people who may be unfamiliar with the subject vocabulary to follow what they are saying;
2. Project their voices and speak more loudly if they notice me leaning or cupping an ear toward them;
3. Are silent, still audience members; and,
4. Keep noise to a minimum in buildings where events are taking place.

In debates, as I do my best to follow the arguments, logic, supporting points, refutations, and how definitions and weighing mechanisms apply. When students explicitly indicate what points they are providing support or a critique for, and how they think their definitions and weighing mechanisms matter, it helps me be a better judge of these important factor.

Also, I recognize that critiquing and interrupting others, speaking loudly, dramatic gesturing, and heckling are all used in various debates, but I also pay close attention to any instances of people invading the personal space of others, yelling at or personally insulting their opponent, or otherwise not respecting the equal rights of all debaters, and I will ask coaches for guidance in how to judge what I think I have seen. I love the community I see among speech and debate teams!

I hope EVERY student feels proud and enjoys tournaments as I am impressed by the work and courage of EVERYONE participating. If students do not get the recognition they hoped for I encourage them to remember that judges such as me are not professionals and may make mistakes. That may be a reality we all have to accept, but if anything seems unfair please speak with a coach.

Best wishes and thank you for your consideration.

I value clear, logically reasoned arguments delivered at a comprehendible speed. Signposting is excellent. Pithy and unique turns of phrase are a definite plus. Eye contact, tonal modulations, and a sense of your personality are all important.

An unusual, thought-provoking case is always appreciated provided you can back it up with facts/logical reasoning, and you're not working way outside of the box. Ontological arguments, for example, are often not particularly persuasive.

Email:a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

Outside of the occasional tournament I judge at, I think very little about the topic. Slow down and don’t take for granted I understand any topic specific jargon

tech>truth generally, although some arguments, of course, require more tech to win than others

I’ll try to find the simplest way to the ballot which requires the least work

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate. Have better answers to fairness. I think most 2ac’s lack here

Fairness >>>>>>> Education/Skills > whatever else. Please go for some combination of fairness and strong defense (SSD, TVA, no subjectivity shift, etc, especially if the aff is designed to impact turn education. My voting record in these debates is pretty aff favored despite argumentative preferences, and it’s because 2n’s fail to recognize how K affs are designed to beat certain strategies. Go for a framework impact which is better insulated from case.

However, if going for an education type impact, at least go for an impact related to the intrinsic critical thinking skills we gain from debate versus anything that requires you to win the state is good. Again, you can do whatever you want, but policy education good strategies require you to decisively and substantively engage with case which is often very difficult.

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty. Tbh the more time I spend out of debate, the less I understand functional vs textual competition and the other issues that come up during these debates. Given that please err towards over explanation and clarity

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Slow down and clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

LD: Will judge this like a policy round. Same predispositions as before. Won’t vote on presumption. Bad for frivolous theory. Might be better for phil than I think I am?

Anything Else: will judge like a policy round including biases towards a consequentialist (Risk*Magnitude) unless otherwise stated. Definitely may make me more likely to give the extinction outweighs even assuming a low risk of a smaller impact type decision. To avoid me giving a decision which is too policy pilled, do comparative impact calc and proper weighing! Not sure what the norms are for new arguments so justify if it’s unclear.

don’t use debate jargon incorrectly lol. If you’re not fully sure what a debate word means, just use the plain English replacement.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence if necessary

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

Debated policy for 5 years at CSUF, started as a college novice & also did IEs. I've coached policy, PF, and MSPDP, and I am currently coaching LD.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough

Some thoughts on specifics:

Policy v K: I generally think more time should be spent on the FW debate. How and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

• The link debate- link analysis is key on both sides. Specific/contextualized links are best.

• The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, help me visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: Love KvK debate. Creating an organized story is important (especially in LD bc time constraints)

• I consider myself well-read in many different areas of critical theory, but I wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF/NEG position. I'm here for it. Just explain

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl give to fiated plan texts.

• I prefer the counter-interp route (bc it's easier for me to compare models in my head), but I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn. I just need a deeper & clearer explanation in these debates

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but the AFF has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are more persuasive to me).
TLDR: You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc