I've done congress throughout high school at Harker, and am now back working as a coach while I'm an undergrad at the University of Michigan. If you manage to subtly include the phrase "go blue" in your speech, you'll probably get the win from me.

However, if multiple people are able to accomplish this task, or none at all, I will rank competitors in the round based on the following criteria:

1. Giving the right content at the right time.

This is extremely important for me. It means that if you're one of the first few people to speak, I would like to see fresh new arguments that can set the stage for the debate. Strong impact analysis matters too. Try not to spend more than a minute refuting in an early speech, just because many arguments you refute may never even come up later in the debate, and I don't want you to waste your speaking time.

If you're speaking after the first 2 cycles, you'll want to shift to refutation-based speeches. These should continue on until the last 1 or 2 cycles. I need to see clash. I need to see some amount of impact weighing. I need to see actual debate. I especially like arguments that show the unintended (helpful or harmful) consequences of the bill.

Finally, the last couple of speeches should be well-planned crystal speeches. Give me a summary of a couple points from your side of the debate that I should care about, and refute the strongest standing arguments from the other side. Tell me why your side wins.

2. Speaking clearly and succinctly.

Personally, speaking isn't too important for me. If you want to separate yourself from the crowd, speaking is a great and memorable way to do it. Having a unique and energizing speech can only make a good speech even better. In this category, I care most about how clear your delivery is in terms of speed (speak at a reasonable pace, don't make me feel rushed), and continuous flow (think about what you're going to say next so you don't trip up over your words).

PO'ing: if no one else wants to PO, and you choose to step up and volunteer, I'll be considering that positively while I rank you. If you do enter an election for PO, I expect you to do a damn good job and have at most 1 or 2 small mistakes. That being said, PO'ing is difficult, and you will almost always get ranked as a PO. Speak loudly, evoke a sense of confidence, maintain communication with judges as appropriate, and keep speeches going efficiently.

Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

*Updated for Stanford 2018*

Bio

I am a new judge to debate, but my son engages in the activity. Please do not spread. Emphasize your args and make sure to organize your speeches and reiterate why you win the debate in you 2nr/2ar. Also please do not use jargon because, as you know, I am not a flow judge/familiar with judging.

Email chain/sending of doc

Please add me to the chain: rhdani@gmail.com

If it takes more than 30 seconds to send a doc out, I will either restart your prep or probably just dock speaks.

Affs

NO MATTER WHAT PLEASE READ TOPICAL, NON CRITICAL AFFS. You can read a plan but I will not listen to an extinction scenario at all. This leads to extinction, that leads to extinction, its just crazy. I know you might think differently but I will automatically drop you if you read them(unless your opponent does too). Framing is important and do not go too heavy on spikes etc.

Disadvantages

Basically the same stuff as the aff(look above ↑↑↑). Emphasize your links and make them comprehensible. Do not read PTX DAs at all please. Also no extinction. Please. You should probably read your own framework unless its the same as the aff's.

Counterplans

I'm fine with normal counterplans and Plan-Inclusive(please specify that its a plan-inclusive counterplan, just you have to clearly explain the net benefit otherwise I won't understand it and if I don't.... you don't win. Also do NOT run the 50 States Counterplan or pic out of authors.

Kritiks

NO. I am pretty much fine with the way society works and being a parent I am not going to listen to people talking about the destruction of capitalism etc.

Theory

The abuse better be pretty clear. You need to clearly point out the abuse and tell me why that is bad for debate. I will not listen to frivolous shells like font size theory(yes that exists).

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

About me:

• I am a Harker Teacher Judge. 
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect.