I competed in parli in college and I currently coach Public Forum Debate. I understand stock issues and I look for them to be used during the round. I am big on the structure of arguments and expect the entire round to follow NSDA rules. With that being said I pay close attention to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, so to me, it is more important to make good arguments than to make a lot. On the subject of arguments, while they are allowed, I do not prefer debates about evidence or debates about a debate. I would prefer that T arguments and evidence questioning be limited during the round. I think a debate is supposed to be educational and I prefer debates that are exactly that. So have fun, make good arguments and do not get caught up in the details. 

I am a parent judge. I have judged only a couple of tournaments. Please avoid speed and jargon, and explain your arguments clearly.

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. I have had 4 years of judging experience, but generally do not vote on any theory arguments. If you are running topicality or any other debate technicality, please explain it clearly and explain its impacts on the round. I can handle mild speed, but please do not spread. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. I normally vote heavily on impacts so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism. Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round.

I generally dislike the application of theory or kritiks in debate. I prefer clear, concise arguments at the speed of a regular, non-debate human. 

Hello Debaters,

I have been judging middle school and parliamentary debate for the past 4 years. I am a lay judge and I am looking for clarity in speaking in terms of speaker scores, and well as confidence in your speech. Slow and clear speaking is preferred. For the ballot, I am judging based off of the quality of your advantages and the articulation of your plan text and stock issues. I believe that a strong case is presented with logical arguments and well explained evidence that supports your points. For the negation, I would like well refuted arguments, which could help you win your debate even though you do not bring up any disadvantages at all. Finally, impacting out your arguments will greatly affect your chances at winning the debate. This will help me understand your points well. Good Luck!

Background

I've been debating in Japan, mostly in British Parliamentary style and Australian style.  I am currently an exchange student from a university in Japan, and I major in Political Economy.  I have experience in becoming a Grand Final judge in JPDU Pre-Australs, which is one of the biggest Australs tournament in Japan.

Basics

I myself is a debater, so I try my best to do justice to debaters.  By this, I mean that I will try to listen to every argument and rebuttal you make, and take them into consideration as much as possible.

I do value precision in speech and having a professional manner is a great thing.  However, it is rare that I make one team win/lose just because of that.  This is purely because judgement based on how they look is a ad hominem, and valuing  somebody's argument less than other people's.  This is unacceptable, so I am not going to do that.

Debating is about arguments and persuasiveness is important.  There are many things that decide a person's persuasiveness, but mainly they are:

1.  Logic

Arguments that logically make sense is a one that is persuasive.  This is an essential part of an argument and I strongly stress that every debater should put emphasis on engaging to each other based on logic.

 2. Rhetoric

Rhetorical techniques such as examples and appropriate wording should be valued.  If I thought what I am saying is more probable than what the other side is saying because of the words you used to deliver them, I am happy to let you win the argument based on that too.

3. Relevance

Please try to stay relevant to the resolution.  It should not be true that everything lead to a nuclear war!

Adjudicating is also about an art of persuasion, and it is important that you understand what I mean.  If you have anything that you feel unclear, ask me!  We are in the round for you.

Theory

As long as they are relevant to debate and clear, I am willing to take into consideration.

If I feel like an average reasonable person would not understand them though, I am reluctant to take them.

Speaking Preferences:

Please, please, please speak in a manner that you would in a normal conversation.  I am a EFL, so it would be best if you could speak in a normal speed.  (I can basically catch them as long as they are not ridiculously fast).  I will not base decision on how you speak, but it will appear on your speaker scores. 

POI/POO/RVI:

Those are important, and step up to offer them.  You should make sure that you take at least one in your speech.  Stay relevant and stay respectful, period.

Experience: I debated in high school, doing British Parlimentary and Public Forum Debate. I also do APDA since I joined the debate society of UC Berkeley.

Basics: I would love to vote for the team with a good framing. It will be brilliant if you can structure your speech clearly and strageticlally. Your need to show me the link between your argument and the motion, the relation between your story and your arguments. Please do tell me why your argument matters to the motion and do tell me why your arguments matter more than those of your opponents. If you let me weigh all the arguments on my own, I can't guarantee that your argument will have large impact to me.(Well, to me, swallowing five boxes of shampoon certainly doesn't damage a person as much as a hard CS exam does.) 

Strategy: Do take POIs at the right time and avoid taking too many of them. Please do point out if something your opponents say is False because the default value of your statements will be set to True. (If your opponent says that aliens will overtake this planet tomorrow, please tell me that it's not possible. Otherwise I have to belive it and prepare a spaceship for escaping the planet.) Also, I value teamwork. Cooperate with each other and never contradict your own arguments.

Theory: I really don't like theories! Please don't use theories in your debate. 

Speaking preferrences: I would really appreciate it if you have a clear structure, some easy-to-understand arguments (Avoid lecturing me about Nietzsche's view of life, I find it complicated and depressing.), and a not-so-loud voice with clear utterance. (Am I asking too much?) And really, do respect your opponents, avoid profanity.

Final Remark: Debate is about having fun and I really don't want to end this judging philosophy with all kinds of ways you could lose a debate or the standards you need to achieve. Enjoy yourself, otherwise, what's the point?

I have judged parliamentary debate for the past 2 years and 3 years in the past. I am a parent judge and I am not familiar with theory or kritikal arguments, so make sure to explain these arguments before you run them.

I don't have any preferences, as long both teams agree with the rules and are respectful to each other.

I don't have that much experience judge for debate, but I would like for all the speakers to talk slowly and clearly. Have an organized and confident presentation!