Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -

I am a parent judge and have been judging Speech (primarily) and Debate events for the past 4+ years.

Summary:: When judging any event, my philosophy for ranking students high or low is subject to the rules / guidelines that are relevant to that event. Aside from that I am listening to your flow, observing your body language and most importantly your attitude towards fellow competitors, judge and audience.

Debate:

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals.
• During rebuttal speeches, do not bring the earlier points, bring something fresh to the debate.
• I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your warrants and evidence.
• I am not too big on “spreading” (fast speaking), it is hard enough to process your arguments so make sure to slow down and enunciate. I will stop if I fail to understand you.
• A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent.
• Providing a roadmap will help as well.
• It helps if you tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for.

My judging experience is mostly within speech and when judging debate, my preference is quality over quantity.

Speech:

For Speech, I am looking and hearing you as a Speaker not only as a judge but also as a member of the audience. As an audience member, you do not connect to me, then your speech lacked a certain element - this could vary. So in order to connect, you need to have Clarity, Pace, Organization and Engagement.

Delivery--I am evaluating you on content, delivery, speed of delivery, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. It helps if you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the topic, character.

Overall, I want you to have fun and know that you will rank higher if you follow rules, are able to keep me engaged through your delivery and are respectful of everyone.

If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks

General:

Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com

Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.

General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.

Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.

Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

I have participated in Speech and Debate from middle to high school mainly in speech events such as HI, DEC, and IMP. I love seeing people engaged with what they're presenting and seeing planned blocking in events where it is applicable.

main event pf

stanford '28

rapte824@gmail.com for email chain

get me food for high speaks hehe

general:

• i can handle speed but if ur unclear even after i say clear im not evaluating!

• i love metaweighing and implications, this will win u the debate
• loveeee aggressive cross but that doesnt mean u can be rude
• dont steal prep ik when u do, sending cards shouldnt take more than 45 sec (if i notice u cutting cards in round its bad looks)
• tech>truth
• be funny have fun dont take too seriously
• time urselves im not flowing anything more than 15 sec overtime (debate only speech 30)

pf:

• rlly familiar with this event, dont bring up new args in backhalf, extend everything thru every speech. if a rlly good response ISNT extended thru ff i am not evaluating it
• ill be up to date w topics too so dw abt giving context
• flowing everything except cross
• love extending+frontlining at the same time in summ

policy:

• SIGN. POST. otherwise if i flow smth on the wrong side it is on u
• please do impact calc. it is SO hard for me to evaluate if i dont get any weighing from any side. whoever weighs first will be more ahead on the flow. no impact calc means i have to pick which arg i like better which i dont want to do so just do it for me so that u dont get "screwed"
• if ur gonna run theory dont make it messy, i dont think spreading theory is valid, if u run this i am most likely NOT voting on it (unless i say clear and they still are unclear then i see a valid reason for u to run this)
• send speech docs, DO NOT SKIP OVER STUFF. ur talking like 500wpm, i cant catch everything, im relying on these speech docs so if you skip a card or anything 1) dont, 2) make it VERY clear that u are 3) send marked copy
• im not the most comfortable with friv Ks so if u are running this please make it clear and understandable otherwise i have to guess what ur trying to say and i dont want to do that
• make your links VERY clear, especially for Ks
• spreading/speed is fine but BE CLEAR, if i say clear and i still cant understand u, and then u get hit with spreading shell, thats on u.
• WRITE THE BALLOT FOR ME, EXTEND UR ARGS, TELL ME WHY I SHOULD PREFER U

ld/congress:

• treat me like a flay. ill be familiar with general topic and how the event works but i will evaluate mostly thru a pf lens
• PLEASE SIGNPOST. please please please keep my flow clean

prog:

• plz dont run theory just to win rounds, esp friv theory. yes its funny to run if u alr popped bubble and ur clowning but if ur genuinely running theory to win rounds and i can tell then it better be warranted rlly well and should be legit otherwise dont expect me to vote on it
• same goes for ks, i lwk hate ks more than theory. do not be the team to run a k just to run one and then run it terribly too

speech: i dont have a lot of experience judging speech, I have never completed in a speech event in my life but I do have knowledge abt current events and most of the topics but i might mess up the rfds and stuff im not rlly sure what that entails sorry

I debated in high school LD and PF and was a college Parli debater, so I have a good amount of experience. I was a quarter finalist in CA for LD and a TCFL State Qualifier in LD (if that matters).

LD is first and foremost a value debate. Be sure to keep that in mind.

- Be cordial to each other. There is no reason to be rude to your fellow competitors. For zoom competitors, that means no giggling or whispering when your mics are off. Treat it just like a normal round.

- Time yourselves and each other, please.

- I am fine with speed, but I do not like spreading. I can keep up but I think that it's poor practice and your speaks will be reduced.

- Sign posting is extremely important to me. Always tell me what contention you are talking about or responding to.

- It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit and reiterating them.

- While I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to progressive debate (K, T, Theory, ect.) but give substantial explanation.

- I love clash. Be sure to actually respond to your opponents arguments rather than just say they don't matter.

- Apologies for any weird faces, I am processing and writing notes!

For speech competitors:

- Do your thing, I have no strong preferences!

Hi, I'm Harshia (she/her/hers)! I have competed in extemporaneous speaking, declamation, and original oratory with multiple medals and national bids. I have also judged public forum and speech for various leagues. If I'm your judge and you have any concerns, comments, or questions, please do not hesitate to email me at harshia31@gmail.com!

I will be timing you during rounds but I prefer you also time yourselves so I don't have to constantly time-check and monitor you as that puts me in an uncomfortable position. I flow everything other than cross, so please let me know if you'd like any points noted in my flow during cross if you'd like to.

I will always look for strong logic and assertive speaking, but please be weary of crossing the line between rude and assertive. Any discriminatory or hateful behavior will not be tolerated and will automatically be reported and will result in deduction. Please be considerate of your partner and opponents. This is an educational activity, I like to see passionate speakers, not bullies.

As a competitor, your job is to tell me how to decide the round. I will be following your framework, your signposting, and your weighing. Focus on what will help you win, not miniscule points that won't necessarily help you win or lose the round. Citation should be accurate and intentional.

Good luck, thank you for your participation, and P.S you'll get bonus points if you tell me your favorite kind of chobani flip :)

Hi, I’m a second-year college student and did 4 years of PF, Debating on the National Circuit from Orlando. Debater on the Florida State University debate team

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to the framework most brought up in rounds throughout speeches, If no clear framework is applied I will be forced to decide the argument by myself. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other. However, if only one team brings up a framework and the other team does not engage with it I will weigh all arguments of that one framework.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell me why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me to evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first-speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality, you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: If you are going to run it then do so well and actually explain it with warrants. I will not buy a simple shell case that gets dropped.

Other things:

-I will flow cross. If something important happened in cross, mention it in the speech. A good cross is a great way to up speak.
- Will be lenient with going over time however DO NOT make it excessive, if I think you are abusing the system I will stop flowing.
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

L/D

Debate is like driving a car - you need the right accessories, and most importantly, you gotta know how to drive the car. You get better the more you drive, and eventually, you learn some pretty sick moves.. Getting a judge and getting a new car is pretty similar. Both require some getting used to, but once you figure it out, the highway is yours. You might be wondering what kinda car I am. Well, I'm not a 2020 Ford Mustang, but I'm also not a broken down 1988 chevy impala. I'm a 2006 Ford Fusion. I've been around the block and got some miles on me, but now I tend to sit in the garage. Let me give you some advice for driving a 2006 Ford Fusion. Here are some things that make the car run:

If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action, preferably an action that can be written in one to two sentences and can be passed to your opponent. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense. If your entire 1AC is the text, maybe this isn't the car for you. I also tend to think that the plan action should be topical, or at least topic adjacent. This is really a preference, instead of a hard and fast rule. I'm not a big fan of rejecting the res outright unless it's just that bad. If you find yourself constantly rejecting the resolution, that's awesome, but maybe I'm not the car for you.

Your 2006 Ford Fusion goes 0-60 in 8 seconds, which is a long time. As a debater, try to avoid going 0-60 in 8 seconds. I'm down for speed, but if you start the speech going full speed, I'm probably gonna miss some stuff. I can hang with your top speed, but work your way there. You can drive the car on the highway, but make sure you're using the acceleration ramp.

The car you've been given also has some weird dimensions. I think that debate is a game of net benefits, regardless of the arguments read. I tend to not vote for tiny IVIs or RVI's, but instead, I look at the entire flow. Your job is to create a larger narrative as to why I vote for you, so you should do impact calculus.

This car is a little old. Here's acceptable brands of fuel:

1. Topical affirmatives are great - especially with fleshed out advantages. I tend to award speaker points not just based on the quality of the debate, but the quality of your research. Well researched advantages with tangible impacts are best. The fiat question here isn't too important for me. I assume everything is fiated to some degree, even K affs. Just have something sticky for the neg to garner offense.

2. DA/CP debate is great for me. I love politics and hegemony debates, and I especially love them when paired with counterplans. Make sure your counterplan is competitive and actually solves the aff.

3. Theory. Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory, with some exclusions, which I'll get to below. Please note. You don't overfill your gas tank - so don't read too many theory arguments. I tend to think that 2 pieces of theory during a speech is the absolute ceiling. Otherwise, the debate gets messy and the car won't run well for you.

4. K debate. You should do some of that! You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan actually trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a really dumbed down two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended.

5. I'm gonna be honest, this car can only take special types of fuel. If you read the following K's in front of me, I'm more down to understand what you're getting at: Neolib, biopower, antiblackness, cap, fem, and on occasion, D&G. It's not that I'm not familiar with other lit, but I'm just not as well read as some others might be.

2006 Ford Fusions are not super complicated to drive, but here are some things that make it break down:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC you should read it with your chest. SPEC is cool, but maybe only read it if you're actually going to go for it AND it would be strategically viable for you to do so. Also, I can't really get behind the whole "you should read the plan text in the first X minute thing." Just don't read silly theory. Make it count.

3. The car breaks down when you read disclosure. I won't vote on disclosure arguments, regardless of the format. It's not my realm to decide what happened before the round, but I often think disclosure only benefits larger schools. Disclose, don't disclose, I don't care.

4. I'll be upfront with you, there's a fair amount of car manuals that are not compatible with this version of the Ford Fusion. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Buddhism, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high theory. Again, I might not be the car for you, but if you do have to drive this car, don't use cruise control. Drive the car where you want it to go, and I'll go there with you as long as the path is clear.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out. Read maybe 3 offcase positions and drive the car real nice.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Ford Fusion isn't a hard car to drive, but there are certain ways the car needs to be driven. The car doesn't have a GPS. I don't know where you are going unless you make it explicitly clear. Rebuttals need to be wholistic and have clear win conditions. You've gotta park the car if you want the ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I expect y'all to be nice. Don't spread your opponents out if they're a novice team, and more importantly, don't be hateful in your speech. It's been a really rough year for all of us, and this is a space to get away from the noise around us. If you start spewing that kinda speech, the car windows are getting rolled up and that's an auto loss. No exceptions. I really don't really think that people should be rude.

Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about speaker points. If you drive the car mostly right, without a fender-bender, the average is around a 28. If you wreck the car or deliberately start reversing on the highway, it'll probably go down from there. Don't wreck the car.

NSDA 2021 Updates: Add me to the email chain, or however you prefer to get me the evidence.

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
GLHF

Speech: I am a college professor have 3 year debate and speech judging experiences. All types of presentations are welcome. I make decision base on individual presentation confidence, stage body postures, eye contacts and logical thinking flows.

I value professionalism above all. Maintain respectful and professional conduct throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks or offensive language. Wishing all debaters to be an "empathetic" leaders!!

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!

hey! I debated LD at Oak Park High School (2018-2022). I currently debate british parli @ usc.

preferences:

logically explained and warranted argumentation please. weigh comparatively & metaweigh

i'm a non-intervening judge. unless you say something blatantly false, if you have evidence and mechanize well, then i'll buy it

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range. you can send me the doc if you would like (esp if you spread). however, i would prefer if you just read a shorter case

be nice during cross & don't speak over each other, especially if we're online

signpost, signpost, signpost

don't just tell me to "extend Johnson." tell me what Johnson is & why it's important & why it should be extended

i primarily debated traditional LD, so unless you really want to run a K or run theory, explain it like you would to a lay judge. no tricks pls

be nice and you'll get good speaks!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

Experience: In high school, I competed primarily in PF, LD, BQ, Value, World Schools, Congress, and Extemp debate. I was a 2x national qualifier and a 2x state qualifier. I am now an undergrad at GWU.

All Events:

• If you have a specific part of the round you want feedback on, just let me know before or after the round.
• If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask.

Debate:

• I'll be timing you, but please time yourselves and your opponents.
• Speed is fine, but please don't spread.
• Signpost!
• WEIGH!! (Why does your argument matter?? Why is your argument better??)
• I'm not a huge fan of trigger theory, K's, etc.

Speech:

• I competed mainly in debate events, so I don't have as much experience with speech, but I'll still do my best to provide meaningful feedback.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

I am the coach of my club's extemp program. With that being said, debate is a prominent staple in my family. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying, you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Telling me that you are winning is not a strategy.

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots and follow on the flow.

4. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertiveness, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You will absolutely lose for snarkiness. This is debate not arguing.

I am a parent judge and will be judging individual events (speech). I look forward to your presentation. Good luck!

· Be creative and relevant

· Speak clearly with confidence

· Find the right tone and pace

· Connect with audience and pay attention to other performers when not speaking

· Be kind to others

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Introduction:

Hello, my name is Pavan Katragadda. I have been involved in the world of speech and debate for over five years, serving as a parent judge. My journey in this field has been enriching and enlightening, and I am eager to continue learning and growing with each debate I judge.

Communication Style:

Clarity of speech is of utmost importance to me. I believe that the essence of a good debate lies not in the speed at which arguments are delivered, but in the articulation and structure of those arguments. Therefore, I encourage debaters to speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow their line of reasoning. If you choose to spread, please be aware that if I cannot follow your arguments, it may impact my evaluation.

Technical Terms:

While I am familiar with the general rules and format for most of the Debates, I may not be well-versed in all “technical” terms from the debating vocabulary. If you plan on using any such terms, I would appreciate it if you could explain them during your speech. This will ensure that I fully understand your argument and can evaluate it accurately.

Post-Round Process:

After the round has concluded, I like to take a few minutes to reflect on the arguments presented and enter my feedback and results. Please understand that this process takes time, and as such, I will not be able to disclose the results or provide judge’s feedback immediately after the round.

Expectations:

I expect all debaters to come prepared with strong arguments backed by solid evidence. A good debate is not just about winning or losing; it’s about learning, growing, and enjoying the process. So let’s have a fun and engaging debate!

I

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

Hi all,

I am a new judge andI prioritize several key elements during evaluations:

1. Clarity and Pace: Effective communication is crucial, so I expect speakers to articulate their points clearly and at a moderate pace. I encourage participants to enunciate each word and avoid speaking too fast, ensuring that their message is easily understandable to the audience and judges.

2. Content: While delivery is important, I also assess the substance of the speeches or arguments presented. I look for well-researched, insightful content that demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic at hand. Participants should provide relevant evidence, examples, and analysis to support their claims and effectively convey their message.

3. Organization: A well-structured speech or debate argument enhances clarity and comprehension. I evaluate how speakers organize their thoughts and ideas, looking for logical progression and coherence throughout their presentation. Clear introductions, transitions between points, and concise summaries are essential for effective communication.

4. Engagement: Engaging the audience is a key aspect of successful communication. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate enthusiasm, passion, and confidence in their delivery. Eye contact, gestures, vocal variety, and body language all contribute to creating a compelling and memorable presentation.

5. Adaptability: Flexibility and adaptability are important qualities for effective communication. I value participants who can respond thoughtfully to questions, counterarguments, or unexpected situations during debates or Q&A sessions. The ability to think on one's feet and adjust strategies accordingly demonstrates skill and composure under pressure.

Overall, as a judge, I prioritize clarity, content, organization, engagement, and adaptability when evaluating participants in speech and debate competitions. By emphasizing these key elements, I aim to encourage and reward effective communication skills that will serve students well in both academic and real-world contexts.

Info:

• I use she/her pronouns, and I'm tech>truth.
• I'm a freshman at Wesleyan, add me clei@wesleyan.edu to any email chains pls!
• I've debated for 6 years in PF at both the local and state level

More info: If you're going to read anything sensitive, give consent warnings otherwise change what you're running.

- Extend your links and impacts through all speeches, unless dropped by their summary

- New args in ff/2nd summary are unnecessary and unfair, don't do it/i wont evaluate them

-I'm good with speed, but don't speak fast if it won't be eloquent. It's much better to be slow and understandable (if you're 300WPM+ send a speech doc if you can

- Pls pls collapse

- When you weigh, tell me why. Don't just say "we outweigh" Metaweigh if you can!

Evidence:

- If you tell me to call for a card, I will.

- If the card is misconstrued I will dock speaks, and drop u if it’s a key card

Preferably, don't make it an evidence debate those are not fun :(

Other:

-I'll put your speaks as low as I can if you make any sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic comments and drop you

-Let your opponents finish speaking in cross. I don't evaluate cross but if you're being REALLY rude i'll deduct speaks

-tell me ur zodiac sign, and if we're compatible, ill start ur speaks from 29, otherwise they start from 28

Canyon Crest Academy 26'

Parli:

1) Time your opponents and call them out politely when they are running overtime

2) Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory

3) What is an off-time roadmap?

4) Tech >Truth

I prefer substantive debate over K debate. With that being said, Ks being argued well is super impressive!

Ts: Good with Ts, feel free to run them. RVIs are ok if you argue them well.

WEIGH THROUGHOUT ALL SPEECHES! Collapse PLS in the 3rd.

Cleaner the round, the better the ballot (don't make me intervene).

Hi my name is Andy, I've been a debater since grade 6 and this is my 7th year of debating and 1st year of judging. I've won lots of NSDA PF regional championships and I have 4 years experience in BP and WSDC too! I don't have a specific preference when judging, just try your best with evidence, mechanisms, proper structures, examples and so on! I will take note of every single detail and make sure that everyone will be valued the same! Lastly, have fun and relax when debating!

To add, I also have experience in NSDA speech tournaments and Extemp format speeches, I will be as fair as possible!

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge and have been judging / debating since the early 2000s.

Value (V) & Value Criterion (VC) Debate:

The decision-maker & breaker is based on whichever side BEST upholds their Value / Value criterion. Essentially, the winning debater will be able to showcase that in his/her world his/her value is superior and is better upheld. It is always beneficial to attack the logic of the other side's Value / Value Criterion to demonstrate this. For example, say the affirmative has a value of Justice and a value criterion of Equality. A successful attack on the logic here would be to show how Equality and Justice are in conflict such as if we set hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. (everything will be equal but it is not always fair). Of course, bringing this up in the context of the resolution will bolster the argument (for example, if we are not debating affirmative action). Logic and reasoning hold a lot of weight and can substitute for traditional evidence (statistics, studies, quotes, etc.)

Value criterions are there as such: a weighing mechanism. This is often lost / falls on deaf ears amongst debaters. A weighing mechanism is just that -- a method to determine what is the best determinant for a specific value. Let use this crude example illustrate that. Say we are debating what makes a great UFC fighter. In an LD context, our Values are "Successful MMA Fighter." Well, what determines their success? Is it heart? Is it experience? Is it youth? Speed? Strength? Striking? Wrestling? Resilience? Whichever criterion you think best allows for a successful UFC fighter should be the "VC" in this example.

Burdens and Case Logic:

The affirmative has the Burden of Proof during the round. This means, they must prove the resolution valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar to a criminal case, it is the prosecution job to prove the defendant is guilty. It is not the defendant's responsibility to prove his innocent, he simply has to prove that he is not guilty. This applies to the negative as well, he does not have to prove the inverse of the resolution. Please ask me for clarification on this point if you wish.

The negative the burden of initiating clash during the round. I would prefer that AT LEAST SOMETHING is said for each of the contentions and sub-points, even if you are running out of time. It can be something minor.

That being said, just because someone misses a contention doesn't mean that it can make or break a debate. The debater must demonstrate WHY that particular contention matters. Of course, the other extreme is not appropriate either (i.e., a particular side fails to attack anything or misses major parts of the case but has a strong case of their own).

In addition, I like when the contentions relate in someway to the value and value criterion. It clarifies the logic in the case and in general makes it easier for the side to argue their Value/VC.

The Negative's case can be flawed yet still win if the attacks on the affirmative are strong enough. Conversely, the negative can have a much better case than the Affirmative but if it never initiates clash, then I will defer to the affirmative (this hasn't been a problem).

Evidence is great, but evidence is not an argument. Debaters need to explain how/why that piece of evidence matters and relates to their argument. In addition, debaters need to explain the source and why this person's opinion matters. Just throwing "cards" at me, will not sway my decision.

In some ways, I prefer philosophical and logical discussions based on axioms and syllogisms. Stat-bombing me with studies and "cards" are not a substitute for solid argumentation and logical analysis. This may be controversial to some of you. But should we dismiss the arguments of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle simply because they didn't have peer-reviewed studies which fit a certain criteria?

General

I am a traditional LD debate judge, have been doing this for 20+ years. I generally dislike when you concede frameworks it shows a lack of analysis into the values and criterions themselves and kind of comes off as lazy.

Speaking can be a little quick but if you speak too fast and I miss contentions/sub-points it will negatively affect you (i.e., spreading).

Obviously, sign-posting is a must.

Cross-ex needs to be used strategically. It only matters if you refer back to it in a subsequent speech.

Clear, specific and unique arguments for each contention that are powerful and sub-point is superior. Repeating the same argument over and over again is not a strong strategy for success. Quality over quantity.

Voting issues are best at the end and it helps when the debater provides a clear reason why I should vote for a particular side.

I have no preferences other than the following: be respectful of your peers and speak clearly.

Hi, I'm Joseph Mwamba, thank you for looking into my paradigm.

I'm a lay judge, a professional TV writer by trade. I'm most moved by a well-crafted story. Don't pref me if you don't want a lay judge. Otherwise, looking forward to hearing your points!

Have been judging speech and debate for the last 4 years. Iam pretty current on the national and international events. What Iam looking from the debaters are - No spreading, Kritiks, or Theory. Make sure to refute all the important points raised by your opponent. I have my own opinions but i dont go by them when judging a debate, i go with whoever is able to convince me better.

Hi! I'm a high school debater at Mountain View High. I've competed in LD, Parli, Spar, and Impromptu at tournaments and have general knowledge about most events.

I consider myself a flay judge and value good link chains and fleshed out impacts.

uc davis 26 james logan high school 22

former circuit policy debater qualed to the toc my senior year

tech>truth

yes add me to the email chain - lucnguy@ucdavis.edu

I'm cool with speed but be clear that being said if I'm on a panel with other judges, please adjust your speaking speed to the level of comfort in the room

my paradigm will closely reflect my teammates --> mateo mijares + jack jacobs -- (cept the part on jacks paradigm where he says copying ev onto a doc to send out is prep. this is objectively wrong. i don't care) you can check out their paradigms for a more comprehensive understanding of my judging philosophy

don't be racist or homophobic i hope this goes without saying

K's r cool, Policys cool - just warrant out your arguments & have fun

Extemp, LD and BQ competitor at CSHS

I try to be a pretty well-balanced and lenient judge except for the following scenarios:

1. incomprehensible speech: if I cannot understand you or follow during your speeches then that's a -1
2. disrespect towards opponent: I get you're trying to win the round (everyone is) but you need to uphold your moral standing nonetheless

I'm relatively new to judging so please be patient and if you have any questions feel free to talk to me :)

NOTE:

I am fine with spreading BUT I do NOT enjoy listening to incredibly fast speeches with no meaning. If you spread, ensure I can understand you, or I will unfortunately have to stop flowing.

I like engaging speeches as long as they do not override your content.

Time: I will give you time signals depending on your preference and allow you to keep your own time as well. If you hit the max for your speeches I allow a 10-second grace period and within those 10 seconds, you have to end the sentence (if you say one more word after that time you're disqualified). I know it depends on TFA, NSDA, and UIL circuits, so I'll be going with whatever the tournament requires.

LD:

• Okay with spreading as long as I can understand you.
• I'm all down for clashing; if you're able to clash your opponent's argument and address each of their points while EXPLAINING why they're not as crucial as yours then you have my attention.
• If you just sit there while talking extensively SOLELY about why you should win then I will lose interest. You should mention between contentions how your points are superior and give emphasis to them, but I prefer a good and well-structured case to support that.
• I like the integration of philosophy as it plays a big part in LD. I'm not fond of focusing just on policy but I like the combination of both.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

• Your AGD is key. If you have a meaningful or creative AGD I will be engaged. I'm fine with humorous ones depending on the severity of the topic. If they're very corny or hyperbolic it will throw me off.
• Your content matters the most. I am all for sufficient content with thorough explanations. make me believe that you know about what you're talking about.
• delivery delivery delivery. YOUR PRESENTATION IS SO IMPORTANT. I do not like heavy repetitiveness but I like consistent flow. Again, if I can't understand you then I won't have much to judge you on.

Interp Events-

- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?

SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate

• Be specific with the topic at hand
• Not a fan pf spreading
• please be respectfull
• I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

Hi my name is Micah Poole. I currently go to Western Kentucky University. I do more of the Interpret events but have watched a few of my teammates in debate rounds. I’d rather the competitors to not spread during the debate. I’d like to soak in and process the information being thrown at me. Also before the round starts, I want you to send me your docs, so my email is micahpoole2003@gmail.com. Even though I have not done the event myself. I’m looking for strong and well rounded arguments built on facts.

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.

** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I do not like seeing theory shells in PF. Please do not do it. Debate substance. Pretend that I'm a very well-read parent judge at this point

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. I value logically structured arguments. Use credible sources to support your claims, and make sure your evidence is relevant to the topic. Clear and concise communication is important to me. I prefer you articulate and avoid jargon.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!

Background: I am a lay judge for SPAR debate. I have judged PF debate tournaments in the past few years.

Speaking: Please prioritize clarity over speed. I will request debaters to slow down, if I am unable to follow.

I expect all debaters to conduct themselves in a polite and respectful manner. Please do not interrupt when anyone else is speaking.

Arguments: Please weigh your impacts and provide sufficient evidences. Ensure you cover all the opposing teams arguments during your responses. Do not bring any new facts or arguments during the final speech because it does not give the opponent team a chance to respond. Please provide clear analysis for why you should win in the final focus.

As Aristotle mentioned, use all three modes of persuasion - "Ethos, Pathos and Logos" to score a Win!

All the best and have fun at the tournament!

I am a parent judge who has judged middle school debate for 3 years, and this is my first year judging high school debate.

I prefer clarity in speaking rather than spreading. I will not flow what I cannot understand.

I am more likely to vote for arguments with logical reasoning and supported with evidence.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

I have primarily been around Lincoln Douglas Debate so that is what my paradigm is geared towards. I like to see clash with value and value criterion debate; don't forget your value in the round. Pull everything back to your framework including your rebuttals. If you run theory run it well; I don't prefer a round based on theory but I am open to it if you can run it correctly. Make sure to state your impacts as I weigh them heavily when deciding the winner of the round.

For all debate types please be respectful of your opponent in cross ex and during round. Run your arguments clearly and have fun!

I have a couple main preferences:

- Do not talk too fast. Make sure I can clearly understand what you are saying, and slow down if you need to.

- Make sure you give reasoning/warranting for your claims along with evidence to back them up. Do not only read off cards.

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

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!!!

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

PF

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

Hi, I'm Deepika Sujay, a high schooler with experience in both speech and debate. I've had three years of experience in LD, three years in platform speaking events, two years for spontaneous events, and one year for interp events. Without further ado, let's get right into it!

Speech:

There are a few things I value in speech:

1. Passion: Be passionate about your topic! If you're genuinely passionate about what you're saying and believe every word of your speech, it'll show. Judges will feel more impacted by your passion than content. (For spontaneous events, I understand that it may be harder to speak on a topic you're passionate about, but for Impromptu, try to it to something you're passionate about).
2. Volume: Be loud! You want your words to be crisp and clear. Now, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't have vocal fluctuation (keep changing the tone of your voice to hold the audience's attention).
3. Energy: This speaks for itself. The more energy you have, the better. Once again, remember to fluctuate your tone (you don't want to be extremely cheerful your entire speech).

The best speakers always incorporate all three of these elements. So don't forget: Passion, Volume, Energy!

Debate:

1. Evidence: Fill your case and rebuttals with evidence to back your arguments. Judges have no reason to believe you if you don't provide evidence.
2. Speak Clearly: Remember to enunciate your words and have vocal fluctuation. You can spread (talk fast) for your cases and rebuttals, but make sure your judge and opponent can still understand you.
3. Ethos/Pathos/Logos: Make sure to try and use these to get the judge to vote for your side.

And that's pretty much it! Hope you have a fun time in whatever tournaments you're competing in. Good luck!

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a 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 prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- 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 - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- 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 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

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.)

Judge Paradigm: Albert Wang

Experience: I have been actively engaged in Model United Nations for multiple years, participating in various conferences and honing my skills in public speaking, critical analysis, and diplomacy. Additionally, I have extensive experience in the business world, serving in leadership roles where effective communication and strategic thinking are paramount.

Philosophy: As a judge, I value clear and concise communication, backed by well-researched arguments and a strong understanding of the topic at hand. Drawing from my background in economics and business, I appreciate speakers who demonstrate analytical thinking, creativity, and adaptability in their presentations. Moreover, I believe in the power of persuasion through engagement, whether it be through storytelling, humor, or emotional appeals.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Content: I expect speakers to present thorough research, well-structured arguments, and innovative ideas. Originality and depth of analysis are key components that I look for in evaluating the strength of a speech's content.
2. Delivery: I pay close attention to vocal clarity, articulation, and nonverbal cues. A confident and dynamic delivery can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of a speech, capturing the audience's attention and effectively conveying the speaker's message.
3. Engagement: I appreciate speakers who engage with their audience, fostering a connection through compelling narratives, humor, or emotive appeals. Audience engagement is fundamental to effective communication and persuasion.
4. Adaptability: I admire speakers who can adapt their delivery style and content to suit different audiences and speaking environments. Flexibility and the ability to adjust based on feedback demonstrate skill and versatility as a communicator.
5. Relevance: I value speeches that demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the audience. Speakers should effectively convey why their message matters and how it relates to broader themes or issues.

Feedback: I strive to provide constructive feedback that highlights both strengths and areas for improvement. My goal is to support the growth and development of speakers by offering actionable insights and guidance. I encourage speakers to seek clarification or further discussion on any feedback provided.

Additional Notes: I believe in fostering a positive and inclusive learning environment where all participants feel valued and supported. I welcome diverse perspectives and experiences in speeches and encourage competitors to approach me with any questions or concerns they may have. Let's work together to make this tournament a rewarding and enriching experience for everyone involved.

Hello,

I have been participating in Speech and Debate for 15+ years. I believe speeches are "meant to be heard" and judge in the same fashion. If you speech is fast, unclear, and/or inconsistent, I will take note. Lively body posture and eye contact are a must. Ultimately, have fun, perform the way you practice, and nothing will stop you!

I have been judging debate for over a year now. In high school, I participated in the speech team. Although, I wasn't a debater as a high schooler, I have a background in policy and research/presenting research. I believe in coming into tournaments with a objective perspective. I mostly have experience with public forum/policy debate/ Lincoln Douglas Debate/ and the various categories of speech (mainly Dramatic Interpretation). Please keep your delivery at a pace that can be understood. I'm fine with off-time roadmaps for categories that use roadmaps. I also don't mind giving time signals :) In general, I'm relatively flexible and just believe in judging rounds fairly and according to the NSDA rulebook. But please keep in mind, like you, I also have much to learn.

I have mostly judged in Northern Virginia and Chicago!

Good luck to all debaters.

I am a lay judge. Theory is okay, but please state it in simpler terms so I can understand better. Please speak under 270 words per minute because english is not my first language. I will lower your speaker points if I can't hear you clearly.

I care about your presentation and contents of the speech, though your case takes the highest priority in my judging. If you are doing a speech event, my reason for decision will be for debaters who have the better presentation.

For those participating in debate events: in your final/summary speeches, explain to me WHY I should choose you, not why your opponents are not good.

I have no debate experience, but I have judged some rounds, so I know a bit about debate.

Have fun debating!

With 30 years of experience as a university history professor, I have developed a keen interest in judging speech and debate competitions, particularly Extemporaneous events. My approach to scoring encompasses various aspects, including content, voice, demeanor, and the use of visual aids (when applicable).

I am a parent judge, and it would be helpful for debaters to speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Additionally, I value clear framework and organization.