Please speak at a normal conversational pace. Be clear on the argument and respectful to your opponent. Enjoy the experience.

First, some general background info about me. I just graduated high school last year and participated in Big Questions debate for 2 1/2 years. I got 1st at state last year in division one and top 10 at nationals. I was also ranked top 3 in the US throughout the 2 1/2 years I debated. I currently teach Big Questions Debate at an elementary, middle school and high school level. However, I haven't researched too much into this topic as I have previous years.

For your construction speech, you can spread (speak as fast as you want); however, if I miss something, that is on you. Emphasize the points/words you want me to take note of. You should not just be reading your case mindlessly. This is not policy debate so be engaging with your audience.

In rebuttal, make sure you attack all of your opponents points. Even if you don't have evidence against a certain point, use logic. If you leave a point your opponent made untouched, it will be an automatic win on their end, no matter how bad the argument may be.

I know judges are not supposed to flow cross, but that does not mean it doesn't count for anything. I LOVE CROSS! It was my specialty in high school, and I think it's the most amusing part of the debate. I take note of the clever points you bring up or the holes you make in your opponents case. I also value how you respond to questions. You must be clear, concise, and intelligent in the way you respond to your opponent. However, if you want me to flow (weigh) a point you make in cross, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Summary and final focus are challenging for many students. Students tend to be redundant and not know how to differentiate the two. Many times these speeches become repetitive, which wastes both my time and yours. Make sure you avoid this. You are not allowed to bring up new evidence in your final focus. I will automatically drop it, so don't bother wasting your time. Notably, there should be weighing in the final focus. Basically, you should tell me why your points are more important, in the context of the resolution, than your opponents.

General things I should see in the debate.

1. Sign Post (you should know what this is... if you don't, ask) If you don't sign post, I will still be able to follow along; however, it will definitely affect your speaker points.
2. Have a burden and some sort of observations or framework. If you don't and your opponent does, I will automatically use your opponents for the entirety of the round, even if it is abusive and allows no room for you to win. This is especially important for this resolution.
3. If you and your opponent differ on definitions, framework, burden, or any other arguments, you MUST tell me why. It is not sufficient enough to only restate the definition, burden, etc., you should clearly tell me why yours is better than your opponents. If neither of you do this, the debate basically becomes a wash in this aspect.
4. IMPACT out. You should always always alwaysss tell me WHY your points are important and HOW they relate to the resolution. This is super duper important in debate.
5. Use examples. If you and your opponent go back and forth on a point and have opposing evidence, give me a real world example that proves why your point is better. If you can apply it to society, and your opponent cannot, I will most likely weigh more on your point for relevance. This debate is not about who has more evidence, but rather who portrays their side best in relation to what actually occurs (which is seen in examples). However, evidence is equally important. You must have both, not just an example.
6. Be respectful. I do NOT tolerate talking over each other in cross. I do NOT tolerate disrespect. I do NOT tolerate any racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments. If I sense this behavior in round, I will be professional and address it at the end, unless it is extreme. I will also heavily weigh this in my decision on who wins. That being said, I do find light "aggression" (for lack of a better term) appropriate. Show confidence, be direct, call out your opponent on mistakes they made in the round, etc.
7. Have fun! I know you all want to win, but it is much more valuable to learn from your opponent and grow as both a debater and person.
8. If you have questions at the end of the round, you can ask them. However, do NOT talk back to me. This will also heavily influence my decision on who wins.
9. Call cards. You guys can decide if prep time will count towards this. I will also call cards because I do NOT appreciate lying. However, if I am the one who discovers a discrepancy in the card, and not your opponent, I don't know what I will do yet. I will either drop that piece of evidence, if it was a HUGE point, or leave it, as your opponent never brought it up. It depends on the round.
10. Make eye contact with me. I will nod along if you made a well point; hopefully, to give you some encouragement. On the contrary, I will look confused if you make a strange point, or one I do not understand. This will hopefully hint to you that you should elaborate more or explain the point differently.

*Extra speaker point to whoever makes a funny joke or reference in round*

This paradigm might seem scary or intimidating, but please don't worry. I am actually very nice in person... well, at least I think so. Relax, be kind, be professional and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!

Also, feel free to talk to me privately before or after the round if you have any concerns :)

I am a parent judge and this is my first time to volunteer for PF debate. Please speak "clearly" and slowly so that I can understand what you are saying. Make sure that you stick to your allocated times. I prefer well-reasoned logical arguments that are supported by clear evidence. Please be respectful and professional at all times! 

Judging Philosophy: As a new judge, my primary focus will be on the arguments presented by the debaters. I will strive to be as objective and unbiased as possible, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments and the evidence provided. I will not intervene based on my personal beliefs or opinions on the topic.

Framework: I believe the debaters should provide a clear framework for the round, establishing the key terms, values, and criteria for evaluating the resolution. The framework should be well-defined and linked to the arguments presented throughout the debate.

Value Premise: Debaters should clearly articulate their value premise and explain its relevance to the resolution. The value premise should be supported by well-warranted arguments and evidence.

Contentions: I expect debaters to present clear, well-structured contentions that directly support their side of the resolution. Arguments should be backed by credible evidence and examples. I will evaluate the strength of each contention based on its logical reasoning, relevance to the framework, and the refutation provided by the opponent.

Rebuttal: Debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, identifying the key points of clash and providing effective refutation. Simply repeating one's own arguments without addressing the opponent's case will be less persuasive.

Weighing Mechanism: In the later speeches, debaters should provide a clear weighing mechanism, explaining why their arguments outweigh those of their opponent under the established framework. This comparative analysis is crucial for me to determine which side has presented the strongest case.

Delivery: While I will primarily focus on the content of the arguments, clarity of delivery is important. Debaters should speak at a reasonable pace, maintain eye contact, and provide clear signposting to help me follow the flow of the debate.

In summary, I will strive to be an objective and attentive judge, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments presented and the debaters' ability to defend their positions under the established framework.

I am a parent judge.

Don't spread. If I can't comprehend your argument/ what your points are, I will not flow it, and therefore will not vote on it.

I don't like aggression, especially in crossfire: you have no reason to be aggressive to your opponents - you're both here for the same reason.

I pay attention to cross-fire, and am willing to vote on it.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Even then, be structured in your speeches, so I can follow.

Be clear when evaluating and/or weighing.

I do prefer more recent evidence, but if you cannot explain what the evidence is saying, or your argument is not logically sound, I won't consider it.

Hiiiiiii I’m Brandon Pham and I competed on the circuit for 3 years (if you count online as competing XD). Tbh I’ve done it all, as in I preferred to just try out different events rather than focusing in on being good at one event (weird ikr but I’m here to have fun). I typically know what to look for in each event and what the standards of each event are like. I consider myself a fairly technical and flow-based judge. Most of my success was in my senior year of s&d consistently placing in my events, and I qualified for nationals reaching triple octas representing Arizona on the World Schools Debate team: Team AZ Citrus or Team AZ Yellow idk they kept changing the name (at one point it was one of our teammates’ names). not only that but i’m also part of the ASU forensics team traveling across the country for our own tournaments so if im not on the judging pool its probably because im competing at my own tournaments. i *kinda* know what im doing. im practically yalls age so i dont mind if you treat/see me as such. im chill like that.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

DEBATE

I’ve done every debate event (PF, LD, CX, BQ, WSD) except congress, so if I ever judge congress bc of judge desperation, go easy on me o.o. (I have judged congress a few times including the harvard semis round so I still know what I'm doing ish) Regardless, I know how each debate event is run with their nuances and how to judge.

1. SPREADING: idc about spreading and can keep up with it bc i used to spread *occasionally* but if you’re gonna do the “speak in a super loud monotone voice with no inflections thing” you better start an email chain or at least preface that you’ll spread. If I say “clear”, chill out brev, and that means you have either a) not started a sufficient email chain and b) are just speaking way too fast to the point I can’t even flow.

2. SIGNPOSTING: istg if you don’t signpost i’m docking speaks and am less likely to give you the dub. it helps with flow reference, make you appear organized and not fumbling mid-speech, and it even helps your opponent know where you are to sufficiently rebut!

3. CARDS: tag cards appropriately during speeches and reference them as such + key info during later speeches. saves time, helps flow, and is just a more organized form of debating. novices, i get it i was there too, but if you have questions on this or other things ASK. for checking cards, i won’t take prep unless its just a seriously long time. ill start prep the moment you show your opponents the card bc ngl the longer you take to find a card, the more time your opponent will have to prep and that’s your own downfall for poor organization. if you as the opponent need me to check a card bc of a mutual misunderstanding of it, lemme know. also, i *might* ask for cards post round - shouldn’t affect decision too much but it better be cut appropriately!! misconstrued cards reflect HORRIBLY on you so be careful!!

4. CROSS FIRE: lmao i don’t pay attention here. if im on my phone, its bc i couldnt care less what happens here. this is your time to clarify or find weak points. anything brought up in cross ex MUST be brought up in a later speech if you want me to consider it. also for policy i am cool with tag-teaming.

5. EXTENSIONS + WEIGHING: this is the most critical point in the round. i go by the flow, so if you do not flow it through in summary, its lost in the abyss forever. obv u dont need to flow everything, just collapse on the key voters. again, flow cards with tag + info/stats and explain why this is important. i also like seeing great clash and further elaboration on your arguments/rebuttals, not just a repeat of your constructive/rebuttal. also, pls try and properly weigh. ive seen too many debaters weigh the wrong way. use weighing mechanisms and why you win on a certain arg. also, don’t forget to frontline! and be very organized with these speeches/say which side/arguments you are addressing. if you want you can offer an off-time road map, up to you.

6. TIMING: time yourselves bro. i’ll be timing too, but take responsibility. if you’re over by five seconds, ya done. anything you say after i won’t even listen/flow. if your opponent is over and you want them to stop, raise a closed fist in the air and i’ll cut them off. also, yall shouldve practiced speeches beforehand so you should know what your time is like. if you’re under time, i couldn’t care less and won’t dock you as long as your arguments are great and well developed. i will have a bit of judgement in the back of my mind if you give like a 2 minute constructive tho, i just wont consider how short your speech is in the round.

7. DEBATER MATH: no.

8. THEORY: i was never too much of a theory debater, but if you are, you do you boo. i do understand theory and will know what you’re talking about, but just thoroughly explain what your argument is and also why your form of theory is necessary here. poorly run theory will get docked!! pf i don’t really see theory and don’t see much of a purpose, but for other debates feel free. policy, make sure you have your stock issues, or else… youre dead. and for policy make sure you guys have a solid solvency card(s) bc this is one of the most important parts of the debate for me.

9. SPEAKS: lmao speaks will NEVER determine who wins an argument for me. you couldve given the worst speech ever but if your organization and arguments were there and you were doing your job to win the debate, you can def still win. i do appreciate some passion and style tho bc lets face it, debate in the real world relies on this type of stuff and for those of you looking into any kinda public speaking career, nows the time to start practicing! i will, however, give extra speaks for people who gimme a snack or some kinda energy drink or coffee/tea. i love love love boba o.o. but don’t try to suck up to me. i will give you LOWER speaks if you do this.

10. tech>truth

11. Congress specific: I have two primary criteria for judging your speeches; Content and Delivery. I might abbreviate them as "C" and "D" on the ballot but that's just for efficiency for me. I like to see a lot of critical analysis on topics and providing originality on your speeches rather than just regurgitating info you found from a card online. Having a unique and attention-grabbing hook helps with receiving delivery points from me. Also, make sure you are asking questions that help to develop the bill and opens room for debate, if that makes sense. As for my POs, I rank you guys very well and POs almost always make it onto my ranking list. As for whether or not you rank highly depends on how efficiently you run the chamber and ensuring that you are allowing each representative a fair chance at giving a speech and ensuring that everyone tries to speak once per bill for around a total of two speeches throughout the session. I personally don't know much about the certain nuances or the amendments to bills and whatnot, so just make sure that in the event that this does happen, POs, that you handle this situation properly and whatnot.

12. World Schools Debate specific: I go based on exactly the ballot, so I judge based on content, style, and strategy. I need content that develops why we should or shouldn't pass this motion and has a highly analytical basis. Make sure you have evidence that really drives your points and helps with developing your arguments. Make sure to hit the golden number two P.O.I.s and make sure they develop the argument. also be INCREDIBLE speakers pls to me this event gives debaters the chance to simulate actual policymaking when being voiced in a public session. gimme some passion + good arguments. obv have your own style of speaking, but motivate me! for strategy, I also love some good bench comm bc it shows you guys are a team! try to be a lil more ad lib and dont read off your notes. be sure to incorporate things your opponents have said and what your teammates put forth in the round to really bring it all together. like everything else have good organization, speak clearly, and be confident. ive never judged world schools before but ive done it.

If there is ANY instance of discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, or ANYTHING that needs to be brought to my attention PLEASEEE do. I take these things seriously and will make sure that your opponent is NEVER seen on this circuit again and receives sufficient punishment. pls do this asap before/after round or whenever is most convenient so that we can get appropriate action to prevent further tournament complication. and if for whatever reason your opponent isn’t punished, i’ll sick my poodle on em.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

-for email chains or if you have any questions about rfd or just want advice or even need a friend to talk! i swear im not that scary uwu fish are food not friends i mean huh wo- i think imfunny huh..

that was a lot im sry even i got tired of typing all this but i got a lotta things to say. im pretty flexible tho so lets go wild. if you have any questions ask away ehe. again if you have any questions about rfds or my ballot, need advice, whatever, my email is phambrandon668@gmail.com.

glhf girls bros and nonbinary ho- *ahem* :D

Hi! I’m Maddie, I was a competitor all through high school. I have done PF, interp, but mainly info. Although I’ve done debate I’m not really a flow judge, so please make sure your arguments are clear, that is very important to me. If I’m confused on a point because it was not made clear I most likely won’t weigh it. Talk at a normal speed please, that always helps confusion! Thanks for reading and good luck!

Hello, I am Rayna Shaik, a current freshman at ASU. I did LD, BQ, CX, and PF in high school, so I understand pretty much all the nuances of debate, and I am a pretty technical judge. I can follow any type of argumentation. I value evidence, but I also very much value the logical side of debate. I think if you can show me that you are able to argue with logical reasoning, that has the same weight as cards in my book.

I am a flow judge, and I WILL NOT weigh new argumentation in final speeches (I see it done a lot), and I expect you guys to signpost. If I cannot follow or understand an argument, I will probably ask you about it or drop it, depending on my mood. I flow rounds, and even though they are messy, I would like weighing done for me; just pretend I am a dumb 5th grader when it comes to the topic. I will give feedback, but I generally don't like disclosing.

Debaters who portray a persona of racial or gender bias and discrimination in any form and use it as a tool to bully or demean other debaters will be marked down. We want to make sure that debate is a safe place for us all. So please be kind.

No, I will not disclose. (Sorry.)

Linkchains-- Explain your linkchains like I'm five. If you explain a linkchain fully, with cards to back it up, I'll probably buy it, even if it's a very tech impact. If you don't explain it fully, I probably won't buy it.

Flowing-- Make sure to flow everything through. I won't hesitate to drop anything that you don't flow through. Furthermore, don't bring up any new arguments/evidence in the last speech.

Cards-- Have quality cards, cite them properly, and explain their relevance. It's your prerogative to call your opponent's cards-- and I absolutely expect you to call them, and call them often. I won't count it against your prep time, but be reasonable about it. Don't take ten minutes. And don't try to secretly prep while calling cards!

Weighing-- Weigh for me. Please explain to me like I'm five why $X many dollars in economic benefits is better than Y many jobs added in a year.

Spreading-- Please don't spread. This is mostly for your sake. I have terrible hearing and I will miss whatever it is you're saying.

Signposting-- Please signpost! There's a lot going on during a debate, and signposting makes it orders of magnitude easier to keep track of all your arguments, rebuttals, cards, drops during cross, frontlines, impacts, weighing, evidence debates, cross-applications... you get the point.

Progressives-- Don't run progressive arguments (K's, theory shells.) I won't understand them. Also, please debate about the thing you're supposed to debate about for heaven's sake.

Crossfire-- Keep it relevant and civil. Other than that, maximize the chaos.

New Evidence/Arguments-- Follow the rules as to when new evidence/arguments can be presented. If an opponent introduces new evidence too late, you can tell me after their speech. Just say something quick, like "Judge, just really quickly, they used new evidence." If you accidentally use new evidence too late, I won't count it against you (mistakes happen), but I won't flow it either.

-----BQ Specific-----

Definitions debate-- I will almost always take the definition that is argued for better. Generally, my hierarchy of definitions is as follows: relevant, credible source > widely used dictionary > less widely used dictionary > other website. If the definitions debate is at a standstill, I will probably resort to common sense.

Burdens-- I expect you to have a clear burden, not abusive, and back it up with cards if possible. Also, if you don't provide a burden, I take your opponent's, no questions asked.

Hi I am Miranda Vega. I competed in PF debate, Congress, info, and various interp events in high school, and now I am the assistant coach for ACPHS. This will be my 4th year judging debate, so I am looking forward to it! I will disclose quickly after the round if time permits; however, I will not disclose if the tournament directors explicitly tell me not to, or if one of the competitors are not comfortable with it. I do try and provide really extensive feedback within the ballots but for some reason if I forget to finish it or it cuts off please email me @ mirandakathleenvega@gmail.com you put in a lot of time and effort and you deserve your feedback.

(ASU Congress scroll all the way to the bottom)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some general paradigms I have:

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage, like talking at the speed of light. For this reason, I HATE SPREADING, I think this makes debate inaccessible for the general person, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. This is especially true for debate formats like PF and BQ, as they are meant for lay judges. DONT SPREAD IN PF AND BQ. If you spread in PF or BQ two things will happen. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging the round, and I will not get very much down on the flow which will more likely than not lead to you losing the round. At a certain point I just stop flowing, and as a tech judge you are probably going to get the L. If you are going to spread in LD and CX, that is fine. HOWEVER, you should only be spreading the card text and I should still be able to understand what you are saying. If you are mumbling and I don't know what you are saying then I am not going to understand the evidence being read. You need to slow down on the Contention Names, card names, tags, warrants, and analytics. Spreading anything that isn't card text will ultimately end up with me not really flowing and you, most likely, losing the round. Debate is an oral argument so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. That is why if you are going to spread you only spread card text. Anything else I won't get on the Flow

Evidence Violations:If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuit and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. So make sure your card says what is says and don't misconstrue the evidence. This also includes debater math. You can't just mush two stats together and call it a day.

Cross examination/fire: I never flow this. I am typically writing in the ballot during this time; however, I am still paying a bit of attention to make sure you guys are being respectful to each other. If I notice it is getting out of hand I will give a warning to the person being disrespectful, and if it happens again then I will drop debater. If something completely and horribly disrespectful happens in round (racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism), I will just drop debater. This is also a period for you to clarify things, not do another rebuttal. CX no tag teaming. The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way anyway 2) that is time that your partner can be prepping. No tag teaming.

Tech>truth: you still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something I am not just going to automatically flow that through. Also, if you run something really far fetched you can, but the second your opponent calls it out as such I am less likely to buy it.

No sticky defense: if you drop an argument it is conceded in the round. That doesn't mean I am just going to automatically flow it to the opposing team. They still have to extend in every speech that it is conceded. If you pick up a dropped argument, I will not weigh it at the end of the round. Generally, when you do that you are wasting time that you can be telling me why you should win the round.

Signpost:Please please please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On their C2, "specific warrant", we have "number" of responses". Or for progressives tell me what part of the progressive you are going to attach. If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible. If you are going to address an argument as a whole TELL ME THAT, and tell me why that should be enough.

Weigh: Tell me why you win! Please weigh for me! If I have to do this you may not like the outcome. Also, it is not enough to tell me "I outweigh therefore I win". How do you outweigh? Are you outweighing on magnitude, scope, timeframe???

Extensions:You MUST extend in every speech. However, just saying EXTEND is not an extension. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over theirs.

Everybody should time their own prep: I am timing speeches and cross. There is no 10 second grace period, I don't know where everyone got this rule from, but it doesn't exist. I stop flowing at the end of the time regardless if you keep speaking.

STAND FOR ALL SPEECHES AND CX PLEASE (exception GCF in PF)

If aff doesn't win enough offense or impacts for me to weigh that offense I presume negation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC FORUM

The paradigms mentioned above are pretty much it.

If no framework is mentioned my default is a cost-benefit analysis.

The team that wins my ballot will tell me why their impacts outweigh the others.

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS. I can't believe that I have to say this, but this is a lay friendly debate format. There is also not enough time to properly run and respond to them. I will drop the argument if it is run. Please just don't I will be so annoyed. If that is something you love to do then join LD or CX, but no progressives in PF.

I don't take prep time for calling and reading cards. That being said. If a card is called and it cant be located within 2 min it is dropped. It should be already cut and easily found. If there is a tech issue that is different. That being said. If you are reading the card don't take an eternity either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICY DEBATE

Refer to the general paradigms I listed above.

You can put me on the email chain with my email, but know that I am only flowing what I hear you say. You can spread but ONLY CARD TEXT. You need to slow down on your tags, warrants, impacts etc and for your analysis for why I should extend your argument further in the round. I am NOT going to yell clear, so if you see me stop flowing you need to slow down otherwise you are most likely going to lose the round.

Run whatever you want, just make sure that what ever you are running is formatted correctly.

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST PLEASE I BEG OF YOU For some reason policy people don't sign post enough. If you are reading responses to a disad or the plan you should tell me what parts you are responding to so for example this is what I am expecting:

"Onto the [BLANK] Disadvantage. First onto uniqueness, we have [#] of responses. 1) response response response 2) response response response. Then onto the external link we have [#] of responses" That is what I am expecting when I say signpost.

Any other questions please ask me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I think I have judged LD on a circuit only a few times. I judge my LD kids all the time, and judge Policy now on the circuit regularly.

Like I said no spreading but card text. If there is an email chain put me on it, just know that I am only flowing what I hear.

The way I will judge the round is whoever wins under the winning framework. So just because you don't win your framework doesn't mean you can't win the debate. If you can still prove to me that you solve for the standard better than your opponent I will vote for you. That being said I understand that sometimes your arguments may be mutually exclusive from your opponents.

Since I judge policy so often I am fine with progressives run whatever! I am cool with K's, performance K's if you want (just make sure your K's are well linked), any plans or CPs I am cool with.

If you have any other questions please let me know!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS

For the love of all that is holy, this is Congress not debate. Do not use debate jargon. Dont say drop, extend, my opponent, vote aff.... this is Congress you say "pass this bill" or "fail this bill", "my fellow representative/senator" etc...

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SPLITS BEFORE THE ROUND! My biggest pet peeve judging Congress is when y'all agree on a docket, and there is no first aff or neg. And you have to take a bunch of 1 minute recesses. Those are also a pet peeve.

I really do not like rehash, at a certain point in the cycle you need to start doing rebuttal speeches and if you are all the way at the end of the cycle then do a crystallization speech.

Try not to rely heavily on your legal pad.

The more you sound like a Congress person the better you will rank. Rhetoric is your best friend.

I will rank PO pretty high if you do a good job. I won't rank PO in the top 6 though if there are A LOT of precedence and recency errors.

I am certainly not a tech judge, but I wouldn't say I'm exactly a lay judge either. I'm experienced enough to know how the events work, but I am no expert. That said, my greatest emphasis in a round is on the content of the arguments. I do not spend as much time thinking about technicalities as some judges; I prefer to focus on what is actually being said. Please look to the quality of your contentions and debate. That said, I'm not fluent in all the rules, so if your opponent violates a rule and I don't say something, please point it out.

It would be advisable to avoid spreading when I am judging. I can pick up most of what's being said (depending on your enunciation), but most is not enough to focus on the argumentation. Please rely on fundamentals and avoid cramming as much into your speaking as possible--go for quality, not quantity.

Finally, I am a stickler for respecting one's competitors. Keep things civil, and especially stay calm and treat your opponent like you would like to be spoken to. We are here to debate, after all, and not to argue.

Side note: I prefer not to disclose--my typed comments are a better representation of my feedback, and I don't like you as a debater to be focused on your wins and losses instead of your performance in rounds.

Beyond these relatively simple expectations, I am mostly here to see you do what you do well. Relax, have fun, and do your best.

I am a parent judge new to the national circuit. I'd like to see debaters debate in a civil and professional manner demonstrating sound logical reasoning while building a strong case. Please pay attention to your warrants, link chains, and questions you may ask during crossfires. Please speak clearly and do not spread or speak too fast, so I can fully understand you. Please do not use too many technical jargon but treat me as someone who had minimal knowledge on the topic, so please explain your logic and convince me fully why I should vote for you. I am looking forward to seeing you in rounds. I wish you all the best!