I am a parent judge, and this is my first year judging. Please use good reasoning and evidence to back up your claims. I will be flowing your arguments, so don't speak too fast because I won't be able to understand you. Most importantly, be respectful and good luck!

I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

Hey guys I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 1 year.

Please speak and a decent pace and make sure your arguments have been made clear. If you speak to fast or not clearly, It will be much harder for me to cast a ballot in your favor. Signposting is extremely important and helps me understand the points you are addressing. I will be casting my ballot based on who is more clear, have a clear flow of thoughts and a proper link chain to follow with. Make sure to have good, relative, and reliable evidence.

I prefer a logical argument with voice that is understandable. Your ability to present convincingly your structure, arguments and cross will earn you speaker points. 

Hello, I am a parent judge and have been to quite a few online and in-person tournaments. I have a general understanding about how debate works and most terminology. I am looking for strong impacts and signposting throughout the round. My preference is that you speak clearly enough to be understood - no spreading, and be mindful of your flow. Please be respectful to your opponents. I look forward to seeing you debate!

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu. Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge. As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches. Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy. My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory. I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments. This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence. Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation. I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts. Speed is Okay.

Individual Events. The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Debate:

I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.

IE:

Limited Prep:

Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.

Everything Else

If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.

speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.

I have been a judge for over a year. While I am a parent judge, I have been a practicing attorney for 20+ years.

The side that addresses everything on the flow will have an advantage on my ballot. In debate, I like to see strong clash and make sure to be clear with signposting. That will be easier on my flow.

Your speeches will appeal more to me when you’re calm and composed.

You’ll likely get more speaker points if you give a thoughtful and comprehensive response during cross because it shows that you are quick at thinking on your feet.

Make sure to warrant all your arguments and during your last speech, crystallize it for me and show why your side outweighs.

I judge based on strength of arguments and skill of arguing.

I participated in policy CX debate in high school.

im a parent/lay judge

if u present theory u will receive a big discount

not good with speed

make sure to time yourself

summary final focus important

if there are any other questions, ask me in round

I am a parent judge. I had some debate experiences in the past and I have also given many speeches to a variety of audiences in the past. It is important to ensure your arguments are sound, relevant and coherent. In addition to elaborate your arguments with evidence, ensure to address your opponent's points clearly and logically.

Speak clearly and in a reasonable speed.

Be on time, and dress appropriately.

Show respect to each other.

and finally, relax and have fun.

I look forward to seeing you at the tournament.

Hey there, my name is Anatoly Chikanov and I am a judge from Tierra Linda Middle School. Below you will learn a little bit about my judging history and my preferences.

I have judged tournament(s) before, so I'd prefer to not retain the status of a lay judge. I have seen many a good round.

In speech: I'm looking forward to hearing excellent presentations. I'm particularly keen on even flow delivery of your presentation that is backed up by facts. Keeping pace, and engaging your audience with occasional humor go a long way towards effectively wining the audience towards your point of view and your argument. Keeping facts accurate and neatly integrating them into your narrative will add substance towards your view point and that is an important consideration.

Now debate: I'm hoping to see good, highly interactive debate between the teams. I weigh tech>truth. I weigh heavily on strong arguments and crystallization, and make sure to ALWAYS tie back to your weighing mechanism/value, aff plan, and definitions.

I might flow your round, so watch out. Otherwise, if you retain a strong grip on your arguments and speak strong, you will certainly get good points. In parliament, make sure to call POO's. POI's are also important for obtaining good speaker points.

Behavior/conduct: make sure to be respectful and responsible. Students who conduct themselves with a good and positive attitude, and are respectful to their opponents add to their speaker point. I do not judge on any basis of discrimination or bias other than your actual presentation. I try to judge as fairly as I can.

Thank you!

add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com

Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals on this unsc topic lol

Tech> truth

Weigh

Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure

I am unfamiliar with Ks run at your own risk

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak clearly and make well-rounded arguments with evidence. I want to clearly know why I should vote for you. Please be respectful too.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

I'm less experienced judge but not new to debate. I debated L/D in high school, but a lot has changed since then. Thank you in advance for extending me grace as I re-familiarize myself with new formats and pacing.

I understand some debaters like to speak very quickly to squeeze in as many arguments as possible. Assume if I can't flow it, I don't know it! I will reward quality of argument over quantity.

Because I see debate through the lens of how it has helped me in my career, I am apt to give more points to participants who debate in a way I would see in a board room. Present cogent, concise arguments. Think on your feet. Demonstrate command of the facts without having to consult numerous outside materials. Politely rebut your opponent's arguments without inappropriate interruption or condescension.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and UW (WI).

2023-24 is my 15th debate season (including competing for four years in high school). Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days. I don’t dislike circuit debate (most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit”), but I do dislike judging it.

I find that I’m generally more likely to vote for debaters who:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge
- Make sound strategic decisions (knowing which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter/affect the ballot)
- Make proper extensions (i.e. don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters)
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make the round (or yourself) stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like they're having fun.

My paradigm has gone through several evolutions over time, but I find that going through all the technicalities is much more important for circuit debate than traditional debate, so I'll keep the document short. I’m also happy to answer any questions you might before the round starts.

I'm a parent judge and have limited experience with judging speech/debate. Please speak clearly and emphasize on the main points and evidences. I can't handle fast speed. I value speech quality and offer speaker points. As for PF, I like contestants that defend their cases well and raise questions/validations of their opponents' case.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.

I value quality over quantity. A citation or example where there is a depth of understanding shown will be given more value than numerous examples with little explanation. Connect your arguments to the resolution. I will judge the round based on arguments for and against the resolution. Arguments that can break a topic down to it core issue are valued over arguments that come at a topic from tangential and/or superficial angles.

Speaking at a high rate will result in examples being missed and reduce the effectiveness of the argument. A barrage of citations show a students ability to do research, but not necessarily an ability to dissect an issue and reason.

I appreciate signposting. Just speak clearly and do your best.

hi I'm aimee, I do ld and I've judged ld, pf and some policy before.

• I don't flow cross
• I don't time speeches- if you'd like me to time for you or your opponent, please let me know

I am a parent judge and I am new to judging.

I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. I value well-structured and logically sound arguments. Use credible sources to support your claims, and make sure your evidence is relevant to the topic. Clear and concise communication is essential. I'd prefer you speak slowly and pause so I can absorb your arguments. Avoid jargon and use plain language. Organize your speech in a way that is easy to follow. Road maps and structure would help me. Speak audibly, and make effective use of gestures and body language.

For winning criteria, I will consider the overall quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence, the effectiveness of rebuttals, and the clarity of communication. Regardless of the outcome, I encourage all debaters to use this experience as an opportunity for growth and learning. Good luck to both teams and let's have a great debate!

I am a 2nd year parent/lay judge with limited experience. Treat me as a generally informed person off the street whom you're trying to persuade. I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments. Usually, the debate gets repetitive towards the end. So no need to rush.

I highly value signposting of arguments and well-structured summaries. Furthermore, I prefer that you address which weighing mechanism you'll be using, and resolve your clash when it comes up. Please do not spread or misrepresent your evidence. The existence of a card is not enough to be persuasive but a thorough explanation of your arguments is.

Be respectful of your opponents at all times. That includes eye-rolling, condescension, and other ad hominem will result in lower speaker points

This is my first year judging; however, I was a competitive LD debater in high school and so have familiarity with the format. I generally prefer clear, well articulated arguments to technical points, and I ask that all competitors please be courteous, respectful and civil to other participants. Good luck!

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I am a lay judge. Please speak at a normal pace.

Nice to meet you! I have been debating over 4 years (1 year in PF) and would be an honor to judge you. Here are some of my preferences.

1. Do not spread. But as long as you are clear, talking fast would be okay.

2. Adequate weighing is critical in the later speeches.

3. Good reconstructions usually lead to better weighing at the end.

4. Collapsing is totally fine.

5. I would not flow words that are said after 10 seconds grace period of time.

Enjoy!

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Parent Judge

Speaking speed as long as its understandable

keep crossx substantial and don't get sidetracked

Do not use crossx time to look at evidence; limit only necessary one

No cutting off to intimidate the opponent too frequently

finally please be respectful refrain from yelling or being rude to opponents

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

Judge: Prince Jose
Background: Over 3 years of experience in speech and debate.
Philosophy: Prioritizes clear, structured arguments with effective communication.
Delivery: Emphasizes good eye contact and gestures.
Content: Values structured content with evidence and support. Memorable phrases, content recaps.
Persuasion: Engage the audience, include thrilling stories and surprises.
Dislikes: Disrespectful behavior and over-reliance on notes.
Advice: Advocate with conviction. Be daring in your presentation approach.
Feedback Promise: Committed to offering insights that foster growth and enhance speaking abilities.

Treat me as a PF lay judge during the round. To win the round here are the following things to prioritize:

1) Slow and steady speed

Although I will be able to understand most of your content, make sure to slow down and be clear about what you want me to prioritize in the round (main arguments, pieces of evidence, voter issues).

2) Make sure to extend your arguments (the arguments you want me to vote on) to the final focus.

3) Be respectful to your opponents and everyone else in the round

I am a parent judge. Please speak up so I can clearly hear you for virtual sessions.

Hey there, I’m a former 7 year competitor at the high school and university levels from John Swett HS, Diablo Valley College, and Sacramento State. I am a former national champion in Extemporaneous Speaking at the university level, and have a strong background of LD, Parli, IPDA, Imp, and a functioning knowledge of everything else.

In the debate realm, I allow all theory arguments to be made, however you will have to show me how your shell is tied into the current resolution very clearly if you want to win. I don’t want to hear a Capitalism or Climate Catastrophe K when you don’t actually know how it ties into the res, it’s vague and your opponent has an automatic leg up if you don’t do that work. One thing to keep in mind, is that I will almost never vote on a criterion of "morality". Everyone in the world has their own subjective morality, and for you to impart your own as a voting issue is not convincing. Of course, if your opponent is being clearly racist or something like that, call it out and we'll deal with it, but I would refrain from using it as a voting issue. I can keep up with moderately fast spreading, but i may ask you to slow down. If i do, please do so, I’m a kindergarten teacher now and my spreading ears are a bit rusty, haha. For the 2AR, 1NR, PMR, and all applicable ending speeches, I love collapse and am well persuaded by a snipe shot of 1 or 2 voting issues rather than a shotgun approach, but I am particularly hawkish on dropped arguments, especially if your opponent puts significant work into them. Do your best to link it into your turns or inherency at the end without breaking the new argument rules. Use cross-X wisely, I don’t respond well to sarcasm or arrogance in cross, be respectful and ask relevant questions. I’m not afraid to give out under 25 speaks if you’re going to act out of turn. In general, be clear, concise, and respectful.

In the speech realm, much less to go over. In LP I’ll give 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 30 second, and countdown from 10 seconds hand signals. If you need to time yourself, please ask me first. I like short intros and conclusions, your time should be spent in the main points, and the more relevant sources, the better.

Please remember to have fun. This is an incredible activity, and I’m not handling out college scholarships. Do your best, I’ll give you relevant feedback, and we’ll all hopefully have a great time.

My pronouns: she/they

Be respectful!

IEs

Competed in limited prep, platform, and public forum for Fullerton Union High School. I've seen dozens of coaching sessions and performances of all events, especially the drama events. I competed in British Parlimentary debate and speech on the collegiate level.

DEBATE

General:

I'm mainly a speechie. Competed in limited prep and platform for Fullerton Union High School. Competed in public forum debate my senior year. Competed in British Parliamentary debate and speech for Cal Poly Humboldt. I'm midway between a lay and circuit judge. Okay with fast speaking but might miss a thing or two so take that however you like

List our your voters clearly. If you have extra time, repeat those voters please.

Start ASAP! Be aware of how you characterize the other team and sound during crossfires; be mindful and respectful, marginalization frequently happens

for disclosure rohankrishna0719@gmail.com

run whatever you want. I don't like spreading so be reasonable with speed. Don't have to go super slow.

Framework is really important. Weigh and Give me clear voters.

Fourth year judging.

Please be up to the point and logical. I'd like to take notes and as well as observe so please do not spread and try your best to signpost.

Will look for how you articulate your contentions and the backing evidences..

Please be respectful to the opponents and the judge.

Looking for a fair debate.

Please be respectful towards your opponents. I am fine with some aggression, but I will not tolerate any discriminatory, offensive, or disrespectful behavior/remarks.

Remember to collapse, extend, and weigh! When weighing, please explain why your argument matters more than your opponent's. For example, say "We outweigh on magnitude because..." and give me a valid reasoning to your weighing.

Try to respond to all of your opponent’s arguments if you can. It is critical that you respond to a turn. If your opponents do not respond to a turn, call them out for it so that I can take note.

I will not be flowing crossfire. If you want me to take note of something said during crossfire, bring it up in one of your speeches. I will also not count anything that is said during Final Focus if it is not said in Summary (remember to collapse).

I would rather not see any Ks nor spreading.

Email Chain: leesyemi@gmail.com

I’m a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly so I can understand and keep up. Please be respectful of one another as every student has been working hard at their cases. Please provide concrete evidence. It helps if you send your case to me so I can follow along.

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Hi I'm Eowin a student at SFSU I'm a relatively new judge with some experience in observing debates

Please make sure that you speak loud and clearly and if you can also time yourselves

Good luck!

Here's my approach to judging. First and foremost I assess each debater on the merit of their core arguments as well as their use of supportive evidence. I also look for how the debater rebuts their opponent arguments. Finally I am looking for each debater's overall organization, clarity and presentations style. I suggest to keep the arguments simple so they can be explained without involving too much theory like spreading.

Lay judge, please speak slowly, focus on narrative building, and clearly explain all terms. Try to keep this round simple and concise, and focus on telling me why I should vote for your side.

For the April 2024 PF topic, please avoid discussing Israel as it is uncomfortable for me as someone who knows people impacted by the Israel Hamas conflict.

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

Parent judge, some experience judging novice rounds last school year.

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more. Be aware, however - I'm no longer in the debating scene, so if I'm judging I'll probably be heading into each round with little topic background.

Just a couple things:

1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)

2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.

3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.

4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.

5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.

6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.

Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Content

truth>tech

I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)

Theory

Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.

Kritiks

Big risk in front of lay judge - I don’t expect that you’d try it in front of me. am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.

My Style

I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.

I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.

If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly as I need to take clear notes for myself.

Please be respectful of your opponents at all times.

Enjoy yourself!

I am a software professional with responsibilities in managing Engineering orgs.

Although I have not competed in public forum debates, I have been a parent-judge for few tournaments now and understand the process and its intricacies.

Here are few things I like :

1. A good rebuttal, not just questioning an argument : It doesnt just help questioning your opponents argument but providing a counter argument aka rebuttal adds true weight to your argument.
2. Clear communication
3. Focus and stress on your key winning points.
4. Good evidence : Reasonable logic is good but a legit evidence can trump a good reasoning given legit evidence is based on research by a reputable organization. As a judge, participants are welcome to question either the source of evidence or the content within by providing counter evidence. I will intervene when there is a contradiction in interpreting the evidence / card.

Here are few things I do not like :

1. Running away with words : Communication is about your ability to get your message across to your listeners. If your listeners are unable to catch your words, your message is lost. When you run away with words, to me its more about you vomiting words more than communicating.
2. Back your statement with legit evidence : Do not throw statements that you are unable to backup with legit evidence.
3. Going tangential and not Sticking to the topic and its scope : Don't play scare tactics. Such as calling out potential nuclear war for topics such as "High Speed rail" or "Single Usage Plastics ban". The result will be counter productive since I perceive this as a lack of an understanding and being focused on the immediate impacts.

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year of judging. Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help. Keep your own time. Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches. Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

add me to email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

you don't have to ask if i'm ready before each speech, just assume I am

PF:

weigh

nothing new after summary

progressive args and spreading ok but don’t run disclosure. I do not care about disclosing at novice tournaments.

(if ur novice ask ur opponents before spreading on them, debate should be inclusive especially at the novice level)

extend all arguments, framework and defense that u want me to vote on - and explain why your arguments matter more (weigh)

Hello Debaters,

I am Smitha Praveen, a parent judge and am happy to meet you all. I am sure everyone has worked really hard in preparation for your tournament and will give it your best. I care about what you have to say. My job is to give you all the points you deserve! So, please help me do that.

Speak slowly and have clearly outlined arguments. I will attempt to flow but if you speak fast, I may not be able to keep up. It's your job to make sure my flow is organized through your speeches. Winning arguments are the ones that are enforced, brought up, and defended throughout the round. Any arguments brought up last minute will not win you the round. I value presentation as well, but as long as your speech is understandable, that is good.

Please be courteous to your teammates and opponents. If I see any condescending behavior or hear any sexist, or racist remarks you will automatically be downed. If you lose one round, you always have room to grow in the future and improve. Most importantly, have fun and all the best!

Hello, I am Naveena Premkrishna. I am honored to serve as a judge for today's debate. I am a Software Engineer and a People Leader. I am a parent judge and I am new to judging parli.

I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. I value well-structured and logically sound arguments. Use credible sources to support your claims, and make sure your evidence is relevant to the topic. Clear and concise communication is essential. I'd prefer you speak slowly and pause so I can absorb your arguments. Avoid jargon and use plain language. Organize your speech in a way that is easy to follow. Road maps and structure would help me. Speak audibly, and make effective use of gestures and body language.

For winning criteria, I will consider the overall quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence, the effectiveness of rebuttals, and the clarity of communication. Regardless of the outcome, I encourage all debaters to use this experience as an opportunity for growth and learning. Good luck to both teams and let's have a great debate!

Please do not spread when speaking. If you want to spread, please share your case with me and your opponent.

Email: srr6915@gmail.com

Please weigh your impacts, and have clear arguments.

I am a fellow parent and has a very little experience judging PF and speech tournaments. Expecatations are very less to speaking clearly and slowly , explaining key points or terms as understandable to common audiences . Stating your sides politely . Good contentions and tactful rebuttals are a value add .

Expecting a good decorum among debaters!

I am a parent judge

Competitive Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Extemp, OA, PuFo, LD

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Coaching Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Assistant (Alumni) Coach; Head Coach/Program Coordinator

Judging Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - All events

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Background

I have been involved in speech & debate in some capacity since high school and competed at the collegiate level. My emphasis has namely been geared towards extemporaneous speaking and debate (namely PuFo, LD, and Policy/CX). Though I'm new to coaching, I've been in this community of wall takers for over 10 years and love every minute of it!

In terms of my general judging philosophy I'd say two phrases should be considered, those being "tabula rasa" (clean slate) and "sell me!". My perspective is that it's the competitors burden to prove to the judge or show why their performance is equipped to pick up the ballot. Certainly I can make the connection and piece together the narrative/story, but the more you ask me to intervene the more I have to implement my biases into the round. Long-story short it's disheartening to see competitors lose rounds because they leave ambiguity to be pieced together, and as a former competitor who has lost more than one round to this - I don't want to do the same to other speakers/debaters.

In general, from a technique standpoint if you act as though your judges are lay judges it's easier to ramp up than it is to tone back.

Debate Cues

1) Procedures - Card quals, roadmapping, and signposting

These make for a smooth round and much more efficient! Do your judge a favor and get things moving the longer the day, the less quality the adjudication- we get tired too haha

2) Arguments - Impact Calculus, Topicality, and Solvency

I generally am pretty open to what is brought forth, hence my "tabula rasa" spiel, but need to see a clear end result from either team in the debate. Whoever has the more believable and impact narrative will pick up the ballot.

3) Evidence - Needs to be there, this is debate...

No matter the style of debate, if you make an argument it needs to be proven in some way. If not then you ask me to be an "activist judge" where bias takes precedence over argumentation, in my view this is unfair to the competitors and bad for debate.

4) Sportsmanship - We all want to learn from this experience

Compete with honest intent and assertion, but not to cause harm. Too many a time debates get ugly and personal, that's not why we're here. This is a learning opportunity and academically stimulating. Let's keep it civil and competitive.

Speech Cues

1) Structure - Clear and concise

My coach taught me this rule and it's what I teach unto others: a) Tell them what you're gonna tell them; b) Tell them; c) Tell them what you told them. There should be a logical pattern in your speech.

2) Impact - Make it personable

Cultural competency is a really big aspect of public speaking that goes unsung. Find someway to connect with your audience and give us something tangible to take away from the speech, once completed.

3) Creativity - Bring it to life

I have a really special place for Interps and OPP because it brings forth the creative energy and so too can other speeches. Make this speech an experience for us to enjoy!

4) Authentic - You are the centerpiece

With speaking you are the epicenter, give the audience a reason to divert their attention to you! Also, bring some creativity to the forefront this makes for a more compelling speech.

I'm a relatively new judge for middle school novice. I appreciate teams who clearly identify their contentions and arguments as well as the points they're rebutting. I'll usually give oral feedback at the end of the round on arguments as well as a decision; if the round is close I might take some extra time to review notes and render a decision offline. I'll also give you notes at the end of the day in Tabroom. Thank you and good luck!

I did speech and debate competitively in LD, PF, and speech for many years. Nationally ranked in LD debate and received multiple top speaker awards.

Looking for clash, don't just repeat your claims, tell me why yours are better than your opponents. Tell me why your evidence is better, quality>quantity.

Be respectful and courteous, especially during cross. Be honest and have good sportsmanship.

As a two year college level debater, i have modern experiences and can relate with whatever style or strategy you know. For Debate, my biggest takeaway is clash with opponents and that would win you my ballot even with decent on-case arguments. I'm open to Topicality, Kritiks and any other strategy you can employ. For speed, talk in a decent pace. If a non-debater walks in the room, can they relate with you? However, I can keep up with whatever speed. I just think that's a plus.

Foe I/Es, confidence, structure and performance is what i care about. Implement subtle humor where needed.

JUST DO YOUR THING!!!

vedhshetty06@gmail.com

did debate for 3 years - heres my highschool wiki. Ive done both lay and circuit debate. on the circuit I got 7 career bids and champed 2 tournaments. on lay i made elims at nsda nationals, and I won uil state.

important—i do not care what you do in the round, just enjoy yourself and i’ll evaluate everything as best as i can. we all made the choice to spend our weekends here, so make debate fun to some degree but ofc keep it competitive. I do think its impossible to be perfectly tab, but i will try my best. I will avoid intervening as much as possible, but sometimes its inevitable -- try to minimize it. I will listen to your controversial arguments---my thoughts are that if it is a truly a bad arg then your opponent should be able to beat it easily.

- creds: agastyaand lukasparadigms.

- u deserve a quality rfd -- if u ask i will send my flow, i encourage post rounding if it helps you understand the round, ask as many questions as you need if it helps.

Prefs Shortcut:

baudrillard > truth

IMPORTANT—these short cuts are how often i read these arguments in highschool, NOT how much i want to see these arguments.

1. K's, Phil, TFW, Theory, Topic Related K AFF's

2. Adv, DA, Non-T K AFF's, Tricks

3. Soft Left AFF's, PIC's, Topicality

4. T-Subsets, Adv CP's

5. Process CP's (im getting better at these), Politics DA's

Arguments:

Disclosure: my wiki was top tier so anything flys --- go for cites, round report, os, new affs, preflip.

If it makes you marginally irritated then make it a shell. I will intervene if you get caught lying. I think disclosure is not an out of round violation. Asking 'why didnt you disclose the aff?' in cx is a pretty easy way to prevent the 'unverifiability' warrant.

Kritiks:

I'll eval it that you can explain it --- read quite a bit of lit but dont expect me to fill in the blanks if you dont warrant it. overviews are good, but keep it short and explain it on the lbl. I love K tricks, 1nc framing interps are strategic, love floating pik's just have some semblance of it in the 1nc. im good for either plan or generic links, go for ur fiat k or extinction reps k lol.

authors read or have good general knowledge on --- beller, benatar, ligotti, robinson, moten and harney, wilderson, weheliye, puar, edelman, stanley, baedan, st. pierre, mitchell & snyder, kristeva, mollow, fritsch, hughes, kim, zavatinos, selck, tuck and yang, rifkin, fanon, robinson, ganser, vizenor, baudrillard, artrip & debrix, hoofd, nietzsche, hardt & negri, rodriguez, agamben, escalante, pawlett, berardi, wang, reece, badiou, dean, deleuze, and saldhana.

agnostic on k-framework--hard left impact turning fairness works, beating it back on a middle ground framing is what i usually did, love "hard-right" plan focus -- just win it properly since there are easy 2ar's on this. consequences tied to scholarship is a good arg. 1AR intrinsic perms that beat k's are beautiful.

K aff's:

K v T - neutral on this -- imo impact turns are easier to win, and an ethosy fairness push is easier on neg. Solid tva's are deadly. T-Tactics is under used. weird T shells that arent frwk is fire too.

K v K - I love it. compare theories of power--I think framing gets under utilized in these debates. I dont like no perm blocks, they're not very persuasive.

K v Phil - i think negating using a phil nc versus a k aff is really good if you do it well, will give you phenomenal speaks if you execute it well. K versus phil affs should in truth always lose, but ive gone for this interaction a ton and won both ways.

K v Turns - (taken from nick fleming) love heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. Imo, if you take a radically left position but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are a coward.

Phil:

lit ive read --- agonism, kant, butler, contracts, deleuze, existentialism, god, hegel, jaeggi, levinas, locke, nietzsche, pettit, rawls, testimonies, polls, util, virtue ethics, death good, determinism, hobbes, intuitionism, particularism, pragmatism, sentimentalism.

i love substantive phil -- tons of great ways to execute it. I dont like phil w/ apriori's bc those debates always devolve to tricks not phil, which at that point just make it a full tricks debate. That absolutely does not mean phil 'tricks' are off the table - i loved reading induction fails, calc indicts, afc, nfc, somewhat explicit skep triggers, performativity, ect. Hot take - theres no winning ci to converse theory.

Skepticism - I love it, i went for it a lot. Ive read all the general skep stuff, anti realism, determinism, log con, indexicals, relativism, non-cognitivism, monoism, solipsism, egoism, ect. Love the Permissibility and Epistemic Modesty/Certainty -- just do impact calc for how I should evaluate the debate. TJF's are strategic but dont let it be the only tool in your tool box. Theology is super interesting---if you can execute it, i would love to see it.

Theory:

Love these debates when its executed well - do it strategically and you'll win. these debates get underwarranted, if everything is developed youll get high speaks. Love restarts. Will evaluate anything -- read everything from AFC, to T, to Spec. 1AR theory needs to be fleshed out. Weigh between standards, judge instruction makes theory debates easy to resolve.

Evidence ethics -- please debate the shell in round -- if you chose to stake the round, I'll only vote for you if the wording of a card is egregiously miscut to intentionally change the meaning of the card or if words are made up.

Independent voters need to be at least slightly fleshed out - otherwise a 2 second response is sufficient. i think calling tab or DTA definitely solves these, make that argument fs.

I will not vote on out of round violations, or out of round issues. BUT I do think that disclosure is in round,

Tricks:

Great, but I prefer substantive ones like trivialism and indexicals. Go for a few and develop them in later speeches. Be innovative -- reading a new trick that I've never seen before gets you 30 speaks. I err against strats that require multiple concessions all over the place for a coherent strategy.

Won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). Err agaibst extemping spikes, I will likely not catch them. if you do, please look me in the eye or make sure im flowing you.

TT: TT v K is cool, go for it, i think k debaters are terrible at answering it. TT v comparative worlds -- will flip each side on this, TT is prolly more true. TT v Theory -- agonistic on this, whoever is ahead will win this.

LARP:

Gotten better at adjudicating this after extensive topic research/going for Case turns almost every 2N at a few tournaments. I love 7 mins of impact turns. Will judge kick but if you tell me too.

Net benefits dont have to be germain, but its better if it is. Both functional and textual comp is not needed, but 1ar args for why they are, is valid. Neutral on textual and functional comp. Intrinsicness tests are interesting, if u win it i will vote on it. Neutral on 1ar intrinsicness in general, just justify it -- also applied to the k.

Trad:

Circuit vs. Trad. No mercy.

Speaks:

I will disclose. yes speak spikes - the funnier they are the more likely i'll give u the spks - be confident if you're good, if u read a spike then do terrible expect ur speaks to reflect that.

Speaks are arbitrary so let’s play the prisoners dilemma. Both debaters should email me separately before the round with the subject “Prisoners Dillemma” and ask for speaks:
A] If only one debater asks for the 30 then I’ll give you a 30 and your opponent a 28.
B] If both debaters ask for a 30 then both of you get 28’s.
C] BUT if both debaters ask for a 29 then I’ll give both of you 29’s.

Accessibility:

let me and your opponent know if you have or want anything -- please avoid having to debate about accessibility issues because i think it trivializes accommodations, dont weaponize this for strategic benefit either.

Hard no to voting on out of round issues - barring wiki stuff and disclosure ofc.

Policy:

Everything from the LD section applies.

First, don't worry about this paradigm, just debate and have fun!

I debated for Sierra Canyon from 2019-2023 in WSD, BP, Parli, and PDP (Public Debate Program).

Most of the events I participated in were heavily focused on style, and I consider speaking skills to be equally as important as strategy and argumentation, so make sure you make an effort to present your case and rebuttals engagingly with strong public speaking.

Most of all, be ethical, clear, and present yourself well. Make sure to weigh.

Ok that's it bye

Please don't run critical affirmatives in front of me. Please go at a conversational speed. I can't understand/ be able to flow spreading. If running a theory, please walk me through it so I understand you. I will judge based on how persuasive an argument is. I will also take evidence into account. I’m not big on debate jargon. Please be polite to your competitors. I also will a lot of times judge on if an argument is responded to.

Hello. I am a new judge, so I would appreciate clear arguments, a good speaking tone, and a respectful atmosphere.

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

I'm a high school varsity PF debater.

Treat me like I'm a lay judge - please explain things thoroughly, speak clearly, don't spread, and avoid prog args. I will vote off of what I flow, and I can only flow what I understand. Signposting is a must or I likely won't be able to flow your speech. Note that I will not flow crossfire, so if there is something you would like me to pay attention to, please address it in your speech.

Things I like: good clash, comparative weighing, collapsing in the second half of the round. Respond to all turns!

Make sure you extend your argument through all speeches in the round. I will not vote for arguments brought up in Final Focus that were not in Summary.

Regarding evidence: I take evidence ethics seriously. Add me to the email chain and I'll check the ev myself if you call your opponents out in speech.

Please time yourself.

Lastly, please be respectful! No hate or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun and enjoy the round!

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Parent judge so go slow. Please state your framework clearly.

I am pretty much a debate judge, I can follow along and flow a debate really well. I understand parli jargon, but I dont like to see it outside of appropriate rounds. I also very much favor structure in debate. If you can make your arguments clear and understandable, then it makes it so much easier for me.

Hello,

I'm Engin Tuncer, and I'm excited to be part of the debate community. Here's a concise overview of my judging philosophy:

Judging Philosophy:

I aim to provide a fair evaluation of each debate round. My decisions are based on the strength of arguments, evidence, and persuasive communication. I do not favor specific arguments or styles, valuing adaptability in debaters.

Speaker Points:

I use a 25-30 scale:

• 25: Significant issues with clarity or argumentation.
• 26-27: Solid performance with room for improvement.
• 28-29: Excellent performance with strong arguments.
• 30: Exceptional performance.

Argumentation and Style:

Clear, well-structured arguments with relevant evidence are appreciated. Engage with opponents' arguments, and prioritize clarity over speed. Respectful cross-examination is encouraged.

Framework and Role of the Ballot:

I evaluate the round based on the presented framework or default to a comparative approach. The role of the ballot is to determine the debate winner based on the criteria established.

Final Thoughts:

• Respect and courtesy are essential in debates.
• Discriminatory behavior is not tolerated.
• Feel free to ask for clarification.
• Remember, debate is about learning and improvement.

Best regards.

Jill Van - Preferred Debate Styles: Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress 

I believe arguments are effective when audience can properly understand your points of view and supporting evidence presented. Therefore, I ask you to consider the need to moderate your speed to ensure proper audience understanding in the time allotted.

When you begin your debate, tell me who you are and who you represent, maintain eye contact, speak clearly throughout.

I welcome all types of evidence including philosophical, theoretical and empirical. I look for all elements of a well-reasoned debate, including ethos, pathos and logos. As you begin, I evaluate your contentions from the structure to framework and then to elements. From your contentions, I look for your understanding of the resolution; whether there is clear definition of the questions raised in the resolution; logic supporting your arguments, including relevance of evidence cited. I also look for your understanding of the evidence presented, not a mere recitation of them. 

When rebutting, I look for questions directly addressing opposing side's facts and evidence, whether there is meaningful exchange of ideas, not just insistence on one's own point of view. 

I strive to only judge based on the merits of the debate itself, including content, delivery and style; not based on my preference of one approach vs. another. The individual (team) with the well-reasoned argument and effective delivery will prevail. 

I am not a lay judge.

I am a pf debater some policy experience, I can evaluate progress args but am not the best at it.

Please send speech docs to kanishk1031@gmail.com

Savoy High School, Savoy, Texas / Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

DEBATE EXPERIENCE:
I competed in CX Debate, LD Debate, and Informative/Extemporaneous speaking during my four years of high school. I then went on to join the Debate Team during my two years at Florida State University as well. In the years following college graduation, I have both judged and coached students/tournaments on all levels from Elementary School through Collegiate levels.

JUDGING EXPERIENCE:

Experience Judging: CX Debate, Policy Debate, LD Debate, Parli Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congress Debate, Informative/Extemporaneous Speaking, Editorial Commentary, Spontaneous Argumentation Debate (SPAR), Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, and Oratory.

AWARDS/CREDENTIALS:

High School - 9th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 10th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Impromptu Speaking High School - 12th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 12th Grade - 2nd Place (Silver Gavel) Speaker Award - 2nd Best Speaker in State of Texas - 1A Cross-X Debate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

CROSS-EXAMINATION DEBATE:

Briefly, I am a traditional CX judge, and, as you can see above, the majority of my experience both on a competitive level as well as that of a judge has been on the CX circuits. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules that affirms or negates the resolution. I am always open to hearing plans/counter-plans and find a debate round to be very intriguing if/when I see two teams who know how to present, execute, and defend a quality plan/counter-plan, etc. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. However, at the same time, basics are still very important to me. (i.e., Pay attention to AND provide/present strong, credible, current evidence in support of any contentions/arguments presented. Be quick to point out/counter old, outdated, irrelevant/unreliable evidence given by an opponent. I believe very strongly in backing any/all contentions/arguments with strong evidence from reliable/trustworthy sources.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:

PARLI DEBATE:

I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. However, again, please refer to my notes above under Cross-Examination Debate regarding my thoughts on evidence, etc. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence. FLOW, FLOW, FLOW a debate in it's ENTIRETY from start to finish. It is almost ALWAYS easily apparent if/when a debater fails to do this as arguments/contentions almost always end up being forgotten/skipped/unresponded to as a result. This could prove catastrophic to a debate. I tend to carry any arguments/contentions presented in the constructives all the way through to the end and, in most cases, will consider them to be fact if/when an argument/contention is skipped over and/or not responded to by each team member.

IN MORE DEPTH:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle speed, having competed myself on a collegiate level, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, I'd go with more focus on creating strong, compelling arguments vs reading your speech faster, etc.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker. Though debates can be/often times are quite contentious, even heated at times, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that ALL DEBATERS treat one another, their teammates, their opponents, coaches, judges, and staff with the utmost respect AT ALL TIMES. I do not like ugly (mean). I can appreciate an aggressive/contentious debate/cross-examination, etc, however, it is imperative that each and every competitor carry themselves with class, dignity, and respect at all times. Remember, we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER at the end of the day!

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give perfect speaker points. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged state champions, and have, personally, been the recipient of a Silver Gavel Speaker Award my Senior Year in High School. However, even then, I did not receive perfect speaker points from my judges. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair. If you are hoping for a lenient judge who gives out speaker points like they're nothing...that's not me. While I will ALWAYS BE FAIR in giving out speaker points, I expect any debater that I give perfect/near perfect points to to REALLY set themselves apart from the rest in some form or fashion and EARN those high points. Again, however, I am not one to be TOO STRINGENT/STINGY with my speaker points and will, always, be fair to all.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

I am a parent judge. DO NOT SPEAK FAST. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot rule in your favor.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

Hi, I'm a parent judge. Please don't spread and signpost in your constructives and rebuttals. Don't run Theory unless absolutely necessary.

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

Hi debaters,

I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate. 

I’m a volunteer parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand the points you're making. Be succinct with your reasons and keep track of your own time. Maintain a respectful environment.

Add me to the email chain: camillesyip@gmail.com

Currently a junior at Monta Vista High School in CA.

• pf for 3 years
• duo speech 1 year
• original advocacy 2 years

Pf judging:

• starts speaker points at 27-28
• automatic L if a team is sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
• NO THEORY PLEASE DONT TURN PF INTO POLICY (automatic L)
• Being funny and engaging = more speaker points:)
• have fun

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

Philosophy: As a judge, my primary goal is to impartially evaluate the arguments presented by both sides of the debate. I firmly believe in the importance of logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the presentation of coherent, well-supported arguments. I strive to maintain neutrality throughout the debate and base my decisions solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

Listening Approach: I approach each debate with a commitment to active listening. I will carefully consider each speaker's points, weighing their validity and relevance to the resolution. It is essential for debaters to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, allowing me to grasp the core of their positions.

Expectations: I expect debaters to adhere to the principles of logic and reason in their speeches. Arguments should be supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning rather than relying on emotional appeals or fallacious tactics. Clarity of thought and expression is key to persuading me of the strength of an argument.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Logic and Reasoning: I prioritize arguments that demonstrate logical coherence and are supported by relevant evidence.
• Clarity and Organization: Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.
• Relevance to Resolution: Arguments should directly address the resolution and contribute meaningfully to the debate's central theme.
• Respectful Conduct: I expect debaters to engage in civil discourse and respect their opponents, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

Decision-Making Process: I will carefully weigh the arguments presented by both sides, considering their strength, relevance, and persuasiveness. I may take notes during the debate to help me remember key points and evaluate the overall flow of the arguments. Ultimately, my decision will be based on which side presents the most compelling case in support of their position.

Final Thoughts: I approach each debate as an opportunity to engage with complex issues and learn from the perspectives of others. I encourage debaters to challenge themselves and each other intellectually, fostering a productive exchange of ideas that contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.