I am a researcher and so I believe in actual facts if you want to convince me.

Instead of spending brief time on lot of arguments, I would love to hear lot of time on a few arguments.

Be concise and clear in pronounciations as the topic might be unfamiliar to me.

Acronyms are ok as long as you make it clear the first time you use it.

I'm a lay judge so please avoid spreading. I cannot flow your argument if I cannot understand it. Don't run any progressive debate (theory, kritiks, tricks etc.), you will be dropped.

Please send your speech doc before the round at vtahuja@gmail.com so i can follow along.

Hello, I am a new judge, this is my first time judging public forum. All I ask is that you speak slowly and be respectful towards one another.

Previously involved in my high school debate team doing Public Forum

Currently on my university’s (Penn State) speech & debate team

I flow and am paying attention to everything!

I like giving verbal feedback if time allows. Everything will be written in the ballot nonetheless.

Former debater (hs policy and college NDT/CEDA...decades ago) and current parent of a PF debater.

I flow. Good with normative jargon. I care about the line-by-line. Number your arguments and signpost--I like a clean flow. I can handle spreading, I'll call "clear" if unable to keep up. If a shell or the arg is a tad squirrelly be deliberate so I don't miss warrants. If this is a fast-paced, high-stakes Varsity round...I’m not going to be up on the latest literature--so Ks will carry a risk of losing me, and none of us want that! Fancy srategies and theory are cool but slow down the explanations—connect dots for me. If it isn’t my making sense, my face will tell you. Please make it make sense :) I'm going to be best judging a normative round--but I'll listen to any argument you want to make.

Little things I’ve noticed about my preferences in PF (but like any tech judge, I work hard to evaluate the debate based on the round not my preferences)

• I’m a fan of case disclosure--in the hopes it will create a little more ev rigor in PF. My biggest surprise in PF is how little ev is read and scrutinized...but ultimately case disclosure is up to the debaters, not me!

• Housekeeping to cut down on time for ev exchange: start ev chain before round; Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting.

• If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it…, meaning it should match your impact/weighing or else it becomes a tad tedious for me.

• I would love to hear more comparative link weighing in PF.

A little FAQ for first/second years:

• I don’t flow Cx. It is binding. But you need to bring it up in your speech to get it in flow. And you don’t have to face me during CX, you can face your opposing team.
• Collapsing is good, if second final focus brings up new arguments, don’t panic. I’m not flowing it.
• Frontline in the second rebuttal. If you don’t, I’ll most likely buy the other team’s argument that it’s conceded.
• Good warranting and implications raises speaks.
• 
  I'm pretty laid back...have fun...sit, stand, go barefoot I don't care. Be clear before you'e clever, but be clever.Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

International Relations Specialist for US Department of Labor working to fight forced labor, child labor and human trafficking.

George Washington University Grad with certificate in Non Profit Management

University of Maryland Grad with Master of Public Public, International Security and Economic Policy specialization

Tuskegee University Grad with Bachelor of Arts in Political Science

Former Lincoln Douglas debater

Married to a debate coach, Julian Dotson.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:

I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:

I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:

A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:

In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:

Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:

I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:

Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

I flow but I'm not impressed by speed and I'm not up on the latest jargon.

Make sure you have clear warrants and links to your impacts and the resolution.

Send a case doc to my email Ranadotson@gmail.com

Be polite in Cross

Don't spread; speed is a no go. will even evaluate Speed theory if your opps are spreading; TKO.

Progressive args and Ks are a no go.

I don't evaluate disclosure theory so just don't run it; seems like a cheap strategy.

I consider ivi

Ask me about my job if you are interested in foreign policy!

Have fun and debate.

I am a new judge. Please speak clearly and slow enough that I can understand. Thank you!

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

TLDR: Tech judge. Do real weighing (not probability/other buzzwords). Preference against spreading/speech docs/progressive args.

I debated in public forum for two years and qualified to both TOC and NSDA Nationals. Add me to the email chain: l.priya@wustl.edu

Core Preferences

• HOW I WRITE MY RFD: If you win both the weighing and your argument, you win the round. I will always evaluate weighing first, then the arguments of the team that won the weighing. If they have won their argument (fully won, mitigation may change this) they win the round. If not, I will look at the opposing team's argument. In the rare case that neither team has won any offense, I presume neg unless told otherwise.

• Signpost everything. I prefer you go line by line (unless you have a good reason otherwise).

• Extensions don’t need to be long but need to include every component of your argument. Briefly explain what extended evidence says instead of solely referring to the author’s last name.

• Do real comparative weighing. I don’t hate buzzwords (magnitude, scope, etc) but they generally become a crutch instead of a tool. Weighing on “probability” is usually redundant—winning your offense or defense decides the probability. I prefer you explain why, imagining a world where both impacts are true, yours should still be prioritized.

• Please use analytics, evidence is not everything! They are severely underrated and it will boost speaks to show you can intelligently interact with new arguments based on your own knowledge. Generally: warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards.

• I prefer substance debate, but have a bit of experience running discourse arguments (generally pre-fiat impacts). I am willing to evaluate progressive arguments if they are clearly explained, but the threshold for defense will be very low and I would prefer you just strike me. If you run a progressive argument and by the end I feel at all uncomfortable voting on it, I will default to the opposing team. Finally, if there is a case of genuine abuse, I would rather handle it outside of the round instead of in a debate format. No frivolous theory or tricks.

A Note on Evidence: While I will primarily act as a tech judge, I place a lot of weight on evidence ethics. In my experience, many teams have awful evidence ethics and often miscut/misconstrue cards—this is cheap, and severely undermines the educational aspect of debate. I will call for evidence if it seems questionable and is crucial to the round, or if a team explicitly tells me to do so. Miscut cards, misconstrued evidence, and taking forever to provide evidence when the opposing team or I call for it will negatively impact speaks.

Other Notes

• Will not flow cross but I may listen. Even though it doesn't factor into the decision, as a debater I found cross one of the most educational (and fun!) parts of debate.

• Although I will not flow directly from speech docs, I am willing to reference them for clarification. AKA I will make sure I understand the arguments on my flow, but will not add anything new from the doc. I can handle PF speed, but the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something and if it's not on my flow that's your issue.

• Defense is not sticky. Anything you want in final should be in summary! First summary/second rebuttal must frontline turns, DAs, and arguments that will be extended.

• You can time yourselves. If the opposing team holds up a phone to show me you are over time, I will stop flowing. The grace period (if any) is up to them. As a debater, I would usually be fine with a few seconds over if somebody was just finishing a point.

Speaker Points

If you care, here is the general point scale I follow for speaks (mostly stolen from Yale Invitational). I believe more transparency in the reasoning behind these decisions makes them more meaningful as feedback, and you are welcome to ask any questions after the round.

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches—hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat

I am a lay judge, speak clearly and have good evidence. Good luck.

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s — in other words, I know little about contemporary American PF jargon. I've been listening, and I've read the paradigms of fellow judges who have deep and recent PF experience and I'm slowly learning from them! Learning on the job, from judging, from talking to coaches and from talking to my daughter who debates.

So what do I understand? I want to understand you! Speak slowly, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a powerfully felt conversation with your opponents and with me. Don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view.

Lastly, and above all. Listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks. (Yes, I'm learning, I know what "block" means, and heart of the argument is another way, perhaps, of "weighing"—the heart weighs more than five nitpicks..)

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Truly the last thing: a debater told me I should say, Truth over tech. Though her coach pointed out that’d be pretty obvious from the above.

I am a parent judge.

First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.

Hi, my name is Julian (Zhanliang) Qin, and I am a parent judge.

For presentation, I am looking for clear, loud and confident voice of speaking, with natural hand & body movement and eye contact with audience. Ok to refer to notes occasionally, but too often especially searching in notes with pause could lead to point reduction. Fully use time allocated but close speech within grace period.

A straightforward roadmap with an outline, organized arguments and summary is essential.

Convincing reasoning from unique angle is applaudable and make the debater stand out of the average.

For the seating debaters, active engagement is not only respectful to opponents, but necessary to have effective counter arguments.

For Parliamentary debate, try to have at least 2 POIs per round (even if you got denied), to show you are engaged and listening, and strategically challenge the speaker in a good way.

Good luck on your rounds! Please email me if you have any questions.

Email: zhanliang_qin@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Dear Debaters,

As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.

I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.

Good luck!

Hello, I'm a parent judge.

I appreciate arguments made in a simple manner that can be connected to your side clearly (+speak slow and clear).

When making refutations, state what exactly you are refuting in your opponents points and provide layers to invalidating opposing side's points.

Give me clear judge instruction and tell me where to vote in the debate. Identify major points of contention in the debate and why aff/neg won in that point.

In evaluating debates, I prioritize the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Misrepresenting evidence is unacceptable. Integrity in citing and referencing sources is crucial in debate. I will call for cards if there are concerns about evidence accuracy or misrepresentation.

Extreme speed and/or overuse of jargon could negatively impact your performance. If you can speak quickly while maintaining clarity, that's perfectly fine. However, if your speed compromises the clarity of your arguments, I strongly advise you to slow down.

I do not disclose my decision after the round to keep the tournament's pace and maintain fairness across all debates. The ballot will be the sole determinant of the round's outcome.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

Hi! This is Andrew Zhao, Ms. Liu's son. I have been doing PF for over a year now.

My mom is new at judging. She knows how to flow, but don't expect her to be a tech judge. Make sure you signpost clearly especially during sum and FF.

Keep cross cool. Don't be rude because that inevitably leads to yelling and she won't like it.

This goes without saying at this point but just don't spread. Your side of the flow will likely be completely empty if you do so.

Hello! My name is Adrielle and it looks like I'm your judge for today.

I am a former debater, did Public Forum for quite a while in high school, so I'm going to be evaluating your arguments on cohesion and the mechanics of what you're doing in a round. Please, prioritize clean link-chains and well-crafted arguments over repeating the same catchphrases.

I am down for spreading as long as you're speaking clearly (and have a good internet connection, should it be an online tournament). Clash during cross is fantastic, and I will not dock points for intensity and passion, but I will for outright aggression. Be sure that you're not resorting to attacking your opponent directly or being nasty, but genuine clash and teasing out their case's flaws is absolutely welcome.

Lastly, I enjoy genuine weighing especially if you name and properly use one of the mechanisms (time-frame, probability, scope, and magnitude) and prove why your side has won. I'm open to funky arguments and small-scale impacts if you can prove to me why they're uniquely caused/prevented on your side and are actually meaningful.

Overall, I hope you and your team have a blast at this tournament, and I will see you in round!