Hi! I'm Kaelie. I'm a junior and have been doing policy since freshman year. Also did 2 years of middle school parli debate.

Put me on the email chain! mykaelac2025@headroyce.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

I read a K aff on the aff and usually go for Ks and T on the neg, but I should be able to hold my own judging DAs and CPs.

I'll probably be able to hear you at most speeds, but if you think you're going too fast, you probably are. Make sure to be clear and sound confident.

Good luck and make sure to have fun!

Middle School Debate

PLEASE SIGNPOST FLOWING'S ALREADY HARD DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME!

POIs and heckles

- Love them, so please do it as often as you can (obviously stick to the rules). I think its super important for the clash in the debate and shows me you're engaged and listening to your opponents' speaking.

Impacts/Weighing

- It's super important to me to have fleshed-out impacts and do impact comparisons. I want to know why your assertions matter more than theirs and evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.

- Weighs, when done well, can be works of art. I love weighs that are engaging and persuasive. PLEASE do weighing mechanism comparison, it makes my job so much easier as a judge.

Evidence

- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP RANDOM SOURCES -- I CAN TELL WHEN YOU MAKE UP A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!

Refutations

- These are probably one of the hardest things to do in a round, but a good refutation will put you far ahead in the debate. I like refutations of the flow, and please at least try to refute the arguments, even if its just with your own points.

Speaking

I have a pretty high threshold for speed. That said, please don't go too fast, slow down and articulate each word.

Debate is a fun activity so please be nice and don't be disrespectful.

shubh - he/him - head-royce school '26

email: shubhd2026@headroyce.org for any questions

head-royce policy debate, head-royce parliamentary debate, head-royce middle school debate coach

racism, sexism, or violence in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

my role as an educator outweighs my role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - this ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

i like creative arguments. read arguments you wouldn't normally read in front of a different judge.

tech > truth

extra .5 speaks if you make fun of me or any head-royce kid in one of your speeches (don't cross the line)

ms debate:

I will vote for the team that I think should win solely by evaluating the content presented to me in the 6 speeches. to increase your chances, do impact calc and weigh in the last speech. use your weighing mech. if you do not do this, you most likely will not like my decision. arguments that I will vote on have a claim, reasoning/warrant, evidence, and impact.

i love debates with lots of clash - poi's, strong refutations, case turns, etc.

i want to know why your assertions matter more than your opponents' and i evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.

probably have decent topic(s) knowledge from coaching but don't use this as an excuse to under-explain things

I’ll decide quickly but take awhile to write feedback and the rfd, please ask questions and postround me (don't be offensive/step over boundaries)

please structure your speeches - don't jump around

evidence comparison/extensions with line by line >>>> new evidence in the 2nd/3rd speeches

list of things I don't like: (aka lower speaks)

3rd speeches without weighing

2nd opp speeches with new assertions

pointless/abusive heckling

list of things I like: (aka higher speaks)

3rd speeches with top level weighing and ballot-writing (explanation of why you win)

line by line refutations

clash and good pois

structured speeches that I can easily flow and refer back to

jokes/being funny

if this person judges you tell them im better

speaker points scale:

80 - i rarely give this - best ms debate speech i've ever seen - you won your team the round and ill vote right away

79-79.9 - you did almost everything i could ask for - you were heavily engaged throughout the round and your speeches were almost flawless. top 7 speaker at this tournament.

77.5-79 – great speaker - both content and delivery wise. likely a top 15 speaker at this tournament.

76-77.5 – good speaker - some mistakes/issues - likely a top 30 speaker at this tournament.

74.5-76 – pretty good speaker - mistakes throughout your speech - average middle school debater.

73-74.5 – ok speaker - easily identifiable flaws - you are likely a new/unexperienced middle school debater.

68-73 – below average speaker - you made crucial mistakes throughout your speech and/or weren't clear enough for me to properly flow you.

>68 - you did/said something offensive, or you didn't make any arguments.

policy debate:

Theory-------X-----------Competition

Links to the plan----X------------Links not to the plan

Competing Interps-X---------------Reasonability

Affs with a plan---------------X--Affs without a plan

Insert rehighlights--X---------------Teams can read bad ev with no accountability

Fairness--------------X---Clash

K's with specific links-X----------------K's with generic links

SSD solves-------------X--TVA solves

Counterinterp -----------X---We Meet

I am a parent judge. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument in front of me on the topic given. I would be judging only based on the content and quality of the debate.

Clearly state the following:
⦁ Your value/criterion for the debate and how it is relevant on your side.
⦁ Your contentions/arguments supporting your side. No spreading please. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand.
⦁ Citations (do not count on the number but quality and relevancy) are required. Complete lack of citations is a red flag.
⦁ Rebuttals to your opponents arguments.
⦁ Any inconsistencies on the opponents side should be brought up but in a respectful manner.
⦁ Do not evade your opponents questions during cross examination but answer respectfully and to the point.

Lay judge. Please speak at a moderate pace and clearly. I like POI's and discourse, while being respectful towards each other!

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

Hey Debaters!

My name is Sahira and I have debated 4+ years both in middle school and now high school. I have debated varsity level in Congress, Public Forum, and now Parliamentary!

While I am big on content and weighing, I am all about speaking style in terms of being clear, thoughtful, and audible. When it comes to weighing, I will be anticipating a wow factor that makes me have 0 hesitation that I must vote for your side of the debate. I want to hear road maps and/or signposting laying out what I will hear from you in your speech and appreciate speaking at a steady pace. I appreciate POI's that have substance, so please don't just use them for the sake of it! When I see debate rounds, you need to tell me why your evidence matters, as unless you can prove it to me, I can easily assume pigs can fly.

My BIGGEST rule is to have fun and be nice to other debaters, as I will dock off points for any condescending or rude behavior in round.

Have fun and good luck to all debaters!!

Here are some fun facts about me:

My top 5 artists are:

1) The Weeknd 2) Steve Lacy 3) Dominik Fike 4) Drake 5) Playboi Carti

(if we have any of the same, let me know your favorites!)

My hot take: Pineapples on pizza is the worst combination

Hey everyone!

I am a flow judge with 4 years of debate experience, and a current high school debater. I have experience debating in parliamentary, public forum, and MS debate. I am comfortable with speed, but I may not catch a few points in your debate if you spread.

Preferences:

- State your main points clearly and in an organized manner

- Make sure to sign post THROUGHOUT your case

- Stay respectful to the other team: Don't attack their character, attack their case! (this will impact your speaker score)

Weighing:

One main thing I'd love to see in your case is lots of weighing! Weighing is very important to me and you should spend a good amount of your third speaker case weighing. Your weighing mechanism must compare the arguments made in the round, and also show why you win on impact analysis (irreversibility, magnitude, probability, etc.). You should also address points of clash and show why you win compared to the other team. Weighing can change the entire debate because if you can prove that your one point is more important that the opponent's three points, you have a VERY good chance at winning the debate.

POI's/Heckles:

I believe POI's are impressive and show that you are thinking on your feet, but ONLY if they have a purpose. Wasting your opponents time to make a baseless argument will not earn you any speaker points. Heckles are okay as well, but again, they MUST have a purpose!

Speaker Scores:

I will try my best to give each team member individual feedback that is useful for future debates. Useful POI's, refuting their actual evidence instead of just the point, and also adding some lightheartedness to your case such as a joke will definitely boost your speaker score. I do think I give generous speaker scores, but of course that is based solely on how well the speaker does.

Hey guys, I'm a high school debater with 4+ years of debate experience in both Middle School and High School Debate (PF & Parli).

General Preferences:

• I can handle speed, but keep in mind that there is a chance I might miss things on the flow if you spread extensively
• Stay respectful to me and your opponents throughout the round!
• Make sure to consistently signpost and reiterate the main points that you will be collapsing on

POIs/Heckles:

I value POI's and want to see you all using them throughout the debate! PLEASE make sure that they are actually constructive questions and not just pointless jabs to throw the other team off. I also value heckles, but only when they have a purpose and are actually relevant.

Weighing/Clash:

Weighing is one of the MOST important parts of a round to me, and is also one of the things that most teams fail to do well. The points made by your first & second speaker should almost ALWAYS connect back to your weighing mechanism in their impacts and a large section of the third speech should be spent weighing as well. Make sure you are conducting a thorough impact analysis for your points (irreversibility, magnitude, scope, probability, timeframe, etc).

In terms of clash, make sure you are actually responding to the other team's points with logic and addressing their evidence instead of just repeating your own evidence to show why your point stands. If there is clash on the weighing mechanism, you must PROVE to me why I should weigh this debate using yours -- and even better, if you are able to prove to me why you win on YOUR weighing mechanism AND theirs, I'll be so much more inclined to vote for you.

Speaker Scores:

Although I am pretty generous with speaker scores overall, I am looking for speakers who articulate their arguments well (eye contact, modulation, speaking style, emphasis) and will factor that into your speaker scores. I will always provide teams and individual speakers with feedback and RFDs after the round is over.

Hello,

I judge Parliamentary debates. Even though I am not very experienced, my criteria to judge is based on how well the debaters bring their points on to the table. Either it could be Aff or Neg, I prefer to have the teams present some strong analysis. Please be clear and confident on your supporting evidence. Having an organized presentation will be an addition.

Good Luck and Happy Debating!

Hello debaters,

My name is Emma and I am a high school debater. I did two years of competitive debate in middle school and know the rules well. As you'll hear with most high schoolers, I'm okay with faster speeds but ultimately, no one should ever be going so fast that it detracts from their speaking ability or my comprehension. I'm also someone who is not afraid to give an 80 or a 72 so here are some things I value in speakers:

• fluctuation of tone
• effective and logical refutations
• practical pace
• eye contact
• FUNNY INTRO OR JOKE
• POIs and heckles so long as within ebdl regulations
• ethos + logos evidence
• Trustworthy sources
• How well you fulfill your duty as the first, second, or third speaker
• First --> establish a foundation, be the best in terms of delivery since most prepared, provide comprehensive evidence, break down your arguments establish a weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Second --> Begin to break down the other side's arguments, expand on your arguments,rebuild your arguments, continue to connect everything to weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Third --> Destroy other side's arguments, rebuild your arguments, WEIGH + IMPACT + COMPARISON, stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates

Ultimately, the entire debate comes down to CLASH:

1. If your team and the other team both say the same argument (ex: Aff is saying motion will help economy Neg is saying motion will harm economy) repeating your arguments endlessly is not the way to win. Compare evidence through source trustworthiness, date, which has better/more comprehensive analysis, which is more pertinent to circumstances at hand, etc. Go beyond the wall where most debaters fall and prove to me, not just that your point has evidence but it has BETTER evidence and should be taken into account instead of theirs. The same thing goes if you guys have the same weigh, then you don't need to convince me that the economy matters but rather how you impact it more realistcally.
2. If your team and the other team have different arguments you should always and firstly refute the foundation of their arguments. However, you can also clash through comparison. For example, if Aff is weighing on economy and Neg is weighing on the environment, Neg can say that the environment matters more than the economy because the environment refers to the livelihood of our entire planet and is something necessary to our survival whereas harming the economy affects less people and on a lesser magnitude. Conversely, the Aff can say that serious changes to our environment through reducing harmful practices we rely on are unfeasible in today's age and even if we accept the Neg, while they may provide a benefit in the long term, it does nothing for the millions of impoverished starving people right now who need more job opportunities, higher pay, etc.

- When this circumstance occurs, you prove to me not what your argument is, but why it matters more. The best way to compare in my opinion is using the PMTS methods (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope) and you don't need these terms in your speech but you can utilize the premise of these concepts to compare arguments.

MAXWELL WONG - updated after EBDL May

Co-Head Coach, Head-Royce Middle School Debate. Head-Royce School '25.

I have a name, it is Max or Maxwell, not judge. He/they pronouns.

Head-Royce Middle School Debate '19-'21, Head-Royce High School Policy Debate -current, Head-Royce MSD Coaching -current.

Top-Level:

Hate speech is an L.

Weigh and clash.

Have fun. Look like you want to be here.

tech > truth; truth breaks ties.

Middle School Debate:

I will vote for the team that I think should win solely by evaluating the content presented to me in the 6 speeches.

To increase your chances, do impact calc and weigh in the last speech.

Use your weighing mech. If you do not do this, you most likely will not like my decision.

Arguments that I will vote on have a claim, reasoning/warrant, evidence, and impact.

I will have decent topic(s) knowledge from coaching but don't use this as an excuse to under-explain things.

I’ll decide quickly and write shorter rfds now.Please ask questions or postround me (don't be offensive/step over boundaries)

What you shouldn't do (lower speaks)

No weighing in the third speech

2nd opp speeches with new assertions

Pointless/abusive heckling and interruptions

Taking 10 years between speeches and giving unnecessarily long roadmaps. There is no prep time in MSD!

What you should do (higher speaks)

Weighing and writing my ballot

Line by line refuting

Clash and good POIs

Signposting and good structure - don't jump between flows it's hard to follow, I don't like matching the args for you

Being funny and being nice to others.

Addendum

Please don’t shake my hand.

Time yourself; be hydrated and prepared.

if you get this person tell him I'm a better judge.

I flow straight down on my computer; please ask pre-round questions.

Speaker Points Scale

I try to keep my speaks normally distributed; u = 76.5 sd = 2.5.

80 - Perfect. Best ms debate speech I've seen. I will be sparing with this.

79-79.5 – Great speaker - Both content and delivery-wise. You are likely a top 10 speaker at this tournament.

76.5-78.5 – Above average speaker - moments of brilliance throughout speech, engaged with opponents' arguments, and had clear delivery, but did not grasp strategic moments to win debates.

74.5-76 – Average speaker - you are filling time, making some smart arguments, but not fully engaged in rebuttals of opponents' arguments.

73-74 – Below average speaker - structural speech mistakes, or not clashing with opponents' points.

71-73 – Unclear speaking-wise, did not fill sufficient time, or did not make compelling arguments.

>71 - You did/said something offensive, or you didn't make any arguments.

add me to the email chain: ruyizhang07@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary.I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence", "no warrant", or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

Speed is okay but I hate flowing off speech docs and it's on you if I drop something because I can't understand.

Please weigh and metaweigh.

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If no one weighs and/or no one wins case I'll presume neg.

Prog

1. Any theory is okay. I don't care if it's friv. For anything that's not disclosure speak slower because I may not be familiar with it
2. I've never been in or judged a K debate before. Unless you can make it really really clear you probably shouldn't run a K
3. If you run a framework please meet your framework. Poverty does not meet structural violence unless you directly tell me that people in poverty are mostly minorities. Also, you still have to weigh under a framework

Speaks

Here are some things you can do to get a speaks bump:

1. Bring me food
2. Make a Minecraft analogy
3. Message my public forum partner and tell him I'm the better debater. It's on you guys to stalk him
4. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument

MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE

Hi all! I debate public forum under amador valley. I've basically transitioned into being their coach at this point. Let me know if you want pointers after the round. I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. You do not need to have evidence for a response as long as it has logic to support it. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend your offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence" or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

-IMPORTANT- WEIGHING MECHANISMS AND WEIGHING

If both sides win their argument(s) the round comes down to who has better weighing. First on weighing mechanisms.

1. You have to prove to me that you meet your weighing mechanism. If you can't even meet your weighing mechanism you can't win the round
2. If your opponent has a different weighing mechanism you need to tell me why I should judge the round under your weighing mechanism and not your opponents. (etc why "Net Benefits" is a better way to judge than "Prioritizing Minorities"). If both sides agree on the same weighing mechanism you have to tell me why you meet the weighing mechanism better than your opponent. This is where "regular" weighing comes in. See below for an explanation on how I judge weighing.
3. If both teams choose to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate and you seem to be losing it, you can "link in" to your opponent's weighing mechanism and show me why you meet their weighing mechanism better than they do.

Onto regular weighing:

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If both teams don't weigh or neither side wins their argument, I will presume Opp.

Speaks

You can do these things to get a speaks bump

1. Bring me food! ez peasy
2. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument. I'm tech > truth so I'll buy any argument as long it's well-reasoned.
3. Engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I highlighted above the different options to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I think that a weighing mechanism debate is one of the most spontaneous things a debater can do and it really shows me your thinking skills. Bonus points if you bring up philosophy to support your weighing mechanism
4. Respond to POIs. I know you guys are trying to get your four assertions in but it's okay to sacrifice an assertion to engage in a POI debate. It shows me you can think on your feet.
5. My favorite video game is Minecraft. Please make analogies to Minecraft.
6. Tell/message my public forum partner I'm the better debater. It's on you to stalk him
7. Extend a branch to your opponents. This can be literally or figuratively.

My paradigm is really long so if you have any questions just let me know. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.