I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.

Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condensed it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.

Teo, Daniel – Judging Philosophy  (https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Teo%2C+Daniel)

1. Personal background
- Parent-judge with broad professional background in international business.
- Third year LD judge - prior experience with Berkeley (JV), Santa Clara U (NLD), State Quals (VLD), etc. First year judging VLD in bid tournaments.

2. Argumentation
- Clear logic, relevant supporting evidence & appropriate refutation are minimum requirements. In summaries, looking for ability to string together contentions, refutations, evidence, Ks and theory into a persuasive narrative, not just a rehash of points made earlier. 
- Long lists of quotes and citations will be useless unless you are able to link it back to your contentions. Impressed by scrupulous preparation, in-depth understanding of opponent’s cards, or deployment of cards specifically written to refute opponent’s evidence. 
- Use Kritiks with great care and clearly linked to specific aspects of your opponent’s position. Ensure that your own position is not similarly vulnerable to the same K, or the double-edge sword can backfire on you and lose you your round.
- Surgical questions and to the precise answers in Cross-X make for the most rewarding repartees. Stalling tactics to time out opponent will be frowned on as unsportsmanlike.

3. Theory
- Use theories, if you must, but they need to pass both objective and subjective test for reasonableness. Use only where there is material violation that could swing vote, not for every minor lapse.

4. Spreading
- Able to follow arguments up to about 200-250wpm. The key challenge is in doing so without compromising clarity. 

5. Speaker Points
- Very clearly separate speaks from the substantive argument, so low-point wins are not uncommon.
- Speaker points are awarded for structure, fluency/diction, clarity & passion
- Expected average points in bid tournaments ~ 27.5-28.5

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.