I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

I debated parli for 2.5 years at Irvine Valley and had intermittent experience in BP and IPDA during that time. 

As of this semester I coach Campolindo HS's parli team and am a member of UC Berkeley's parli team, although my schedule rarely allows me to compete for Cal. 

I have judged policy, parli, ld, public forum, congress, BP, and a plethora of IE's, and privately tutored speech students.

Overall:

I will not protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless it is clear--after a few pts of order--that the speaker is trying to be sneaky. I expect that if your opponent asks for a text of the plan/cp/alt/perm(s), it will be provided. I can flow speed to a reasonable extent, but will dock speaks/not be able to evaluate your arguments if you are so fast that you're unclear. Please answer at least one question per speech if asked. Tag-teaming is fine.

Case debate:

AFF--Please make warranted and impacted arguments. I don't like voting on any remotely slippery scenarios and very much enjoy interrogative link debate. I am not keen on intrinsic permutations, otherwise perms are fine as tests of competition. I am also fine with unconventional affs so long as I am given a clear way to evaluate your performance and the other team is given a clear way to engage the aff/compete for the ballot. I will not vote on an RVI.

NEG--I believe theory precedes all other arguments in the round and will vote on it with a proven violation. I do not need articualated abuse to vote on theory. I am fine with DAs and CPs (including PICs). I do not like politics DAs because the links are usually awful. 

Trichot:

Please always debate policy. 

K:

I am fine with k affs and neg k's. I am not a k debater myself but will vote on one. However, I have a very high threshold for buying the efficacy of the alternative, and I view k debates as a comparison between the alternative and the plan. Please try to include specific links

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round! Best of luck! 

I am a lay judge, and have been judging for over three years. Although I am aware and cognizant of the framework debate, the technicalities of it are not as important to me as the clarity of your argument and speaking. Please make sure to be polite to your opponent (being rude or abusive does affect your speaker points), signpost clearly, and speak at a reasonable pace (NO spreading or circuit debate please!).

No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

About me: I am now out of high school and attending Santa Clara University for Political Science. I am contracted in the US Army who is in ROTC to become an officer after I graduate. That being said, I may have some bias with military-related impacts in the round. I am also a member of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity at SCU.

Previous experience: I was a varsity LD debater at Oakwood High School in Morgan Hill, CA. I was the President of the club for 3 years, and in that time have become well-versed in most aspects of LD.

Preferences: For a typical novice/JV round, if you want me to vote for you, present to me your voter issues in your 2NR/AR and explain why they're important. I won't vote off of "I refuted more contentions" or "I have more contentions standing in the end". Link your arguments to your framework and show why your framework is dominant.

If you want to try more advanced LD techniques, feel free to do so. I know how to debate traditional and circuit, so if you run either I'm okay with it. If you know how to debate Theory/T, K's, etc., I will consider them and vote accordingly. That being said, don't run it just to make yourself look better in my or your opponent's eyes. The last thing I want is someone to haphazardly run advanced LD just to impress me and think they won because of it.

I LOVE impact calculus! If you use it with good analytics there is a strong chance I'll vote for you if your argument makes sense.

Link turns are awesome and I would like to see more of it.

Perms are cool, but explain the benefit/impacts of it.

When extending cards explain why the extension matters. Saying "my opp dropped x cards so extend it" without an explanation won't warrant me to flow it

Also, if you've made it this far into my paradigm, use the word "charcuterie" in a legitimate context to gain yourself an extra speaker point. Reading paradigms are important, so consider this my treat.

if you had a round with me and wanted to ask more questions or get clarification, feel free to email me at coreybaldyga@gmail.com

I have been judging LD debate for the past 3 years. I am a lay judge who does flow, but please make sure to be clear with your arguments to make sure I get everything you say (no spreading!).

The main things I take into consideration when judging are your clarity in speaking, confidence in your persuasion, and ability to prove why your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Please make sure you weigh both sides to make it clear to me why you believe the world you are asking for is better. Also, I will not understand any circuit arguments and I will likely vote against you.

Furthermore, it is very important that you are respectful to your opponent. Failure to do so will likely result in a loss.

Happy Debating!

I have been judging Speech and Debate for over 4 years, primarily in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I have judged over 50 LD debates so far. I will not impose my personal values and beliefs, or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. I appreciate the hard work you have put into your case and will do my best to fairly judge which side has the stronger case and debating skills. I do expect that participants act courteously towards their opponents at all times during the debate round.

I take both quality of arguments and speaking clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can directly address the topic with a convincing case supported by specific evidence; use appropriate body language, volume, speed and diction; and clearly articulate logically cohesive arguments.

I will not disclose who won or how everybody ranked, rather, I will provide constructive criticism on your ballot and after the round if asked.

I am parent/lay judge with a couple of years of experience. I believe in the values aspect of LD and will look to your V + VC and how you tie back your contentions to the values.

I pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and understanding of the topic. It also provides a way for you to expose or set traps for the opponent or emphasize your position.

LD is a debate between you and your opponent. If your opponent states a fallacy or is illogical in their approach, I expect you to attack them and point them out for me. I will not make the connection or use my own bias for determining the winner of the round. Please make sure that you have the evidence to back up your claims - this is important for me.

Speaking: Please do not rush through your speech - a fast conversational pace is OK. Spreading is not OK with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you.I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and will take speaker points off so please keep the rounds civil and courteous.

Note taking: I write down key contentions and notes during the round - usually on my laptop or tablet.

Voting issues: Not entirely necessary but helpful where you can provide.

I am a parent judge with approximately two years of judging experience in both novice and varsity LD. I prefer concise speaking, and want clear signposting when refuting arguments. Don’t spread. Flush out your impacts and show me why everything you say matters in the larger scheme of the debate. You won’t get the vote if you only read pieces of evidence but don’t show me how they matter. Most importantly, be courteous to each other.

I am a lay parent judge.

I prefer debaters who speak clearly and are confident in their arguments.

Avoid speaking too fast.

Be courteous to your opponent.

Please try not to run theory, Ks, Phil, or any other circuit arguments. I will not be able to understand them.

Pls say "and" or something of the sort in between cards !!!!

About Me:

Email: pranav.chillappagari@gmail.com

Computer Science major @ SJSU

Debated for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years, now debate for SJSU (mainly do speech now tho).

Call me whatever pronouns you want, I default to using they/them unless specified.

Have done Congress, LD, Policy, Parli, and a bunch of speech events, this paradigm is geared mainly for LD/Policy.

Preferred K debate in high school, read many performance affs, now I prefer plan-based debate (policy).

Plan Affs:

I mean pretty straight forward, make sure impacts are relatively recent, I appreciate an overview of the aff in the 2AC or 1AR and this is where I would like impact calculus to happen (IMPACT CALCULUS SHOULD BE HAPPENING).

CP:

I LOVE advantage counterplans, every chance I had to read them, I would. Specify how the cp solves the case’s impacts and specify how its competitive (if it is). Don’t spread through every plank of a counterplan, go a little slower so I can write what’s important of them. Run however many you want in however way (not literally, but I don’t mind cheaty CPs).

DA:

I don’t really like ptx DA’s, Ill still evaluate them obviously, but they can be called out so easily and all it takes are generic cards with no real warrant to beat some of them. But if they drop your terrible uq, go for it :). Impact calc, case turns, and case analysis are all important. The more specific the links, the better.

I like process counterplans, I feel like the impact debate becomes a little more nuanced depending on whoever passes, and even though meticulous, it is fun for me to watch.

T:

These are fun regardless of what you read them against. Legal precision and reciprocity are super influential to me. I default to Competing Interps on T. LINE BY LINE THE STANDARDS, why are y’all not putting offense on the actual standards. Remember to externalize voters and give a good interpretation as to why your definition isn't just better for the round but debate (not necessary, but added layer of defense).

Framework:

One off fwk is strategic, must have a TVA: and use it as offense against the aff.

ALSO EXTERNALIZE YOUR TOPICALITY IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEBATE ROUND.

Kritik/K-affs:

All of what I ran my last two years in hs debate, I am going to be critical when judging, but don’t be scared I still want the round to be educational so I will give good feed back.

How come half of y’all can’t spread clearly, I understand the words are long and annoying but is it THAT BAD. Overall, I am pretty well versed in a lot of generic K literature and have an extensive knowledge in identity based arguments. I would like if framing explained how I am supposed to evaluate impacts rather then just saying a ROJ/ROB. Like if your opponent gives a counter performance or is able to materialize their impacts according to your framework, I need to know what goes into the argument that “best solves [ROB].” Because that’s super arbitrary. IF YOUR OVERVIEW IS LONG, IT BETTER BE THE ONLY THING ON THE K SHEET OF THE 2NR. Otherwise, short overview explaining the story (and further explaining the alt) and an efficient line by line is good. If you are going to read a K, don’t just arbitrarily question the framework / case of the AC during cx. GO IN on the links you want to generate from them, this can save you a lot of time with your link walls since you can just say “refer to cx” rather than some long explanation. Other than that, impact turn and collapse. AND ENGAGE WITH CASE IF THE K IS SUPER SHORT OR GENERIC.

Piks / Word Pics -- honestly I don't hate word pics if the discourse needs to be called out, but I have never voted for a PIK (and probably never plan to).

K-aff specific: Explain why your model of debate matters against framework / t-usfg, this will probably be what I am going to be voting for in the round, so it matters. Other than that explain what the advocacy and ballot does. And yes answer the “what does the aff do?” Question.

Theory:

Default reasonability, I use a brightline of evaluating potential and actual abuse, putting more of an emphasis on actual abuse > potential abuse. I like condo bad, pics bad, and disclosure. But am easily swayed with these arguments as long as you impact out your standards properly.

I love new affs bad (I will never explain further).

Phil:

just explain well, go slow on analytics. Not your best judge for these, but I am more tolerant than most.

Tricks

cruel optimism, I go into debate rounds hoping that each debater will get something substantive from the round, and by the time the round is over I have effectively left the community.

But in all seriousness, go for it, I will evaluate it how you tell me too, and maybe you will be the one who helps me change my mind about these arguments.

I am an experienced judge who has been judging on and off since 2015.

1. What is my preferred rate of delivery?

   Rapid Conversational Speed

2. How important is the criterion in making my decision?

   It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

3. Rebuttals and Crystallization

   I prefer voting issues being given as the student moves down the flow.

4. How do I decide the winner of the round?

   I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

Please be concise and clear, stay on time and manage your pace so it is not too slow or too fast. If I don't understand it, I can't judge it. Thanks

Lay judge, not interested in spreading. Keep debate civil but I do give more weightage to cross ex so use that time aggressively. Have been judging for a few years now so surely not a novice. Have judged most debate formats

I am new to judging. I enjoy listening to debaters and here are a few things that will help me:

o Keep in mind that I am a lay judge when debating but do not make the debate less educational because of this. This is also only my 3rd tournament judging.

o Speed is great and I understand you want to spread, but I want to understand what you are saying. If you talk to fast I will stop flowing your argument and if your argument is missing a lot I will not weigh it when I make my final decision.

o Ease into your topic and then move into your preferred speed. If there is anything important please slow down.

o Organization is key. Establish your case and layout your arguments clearly.

o Respect your opponent. If you are disrespectful in round, such as laughing at them during a speech or not giving them a proper answer during cross X I will note it down.

o Louder doesn’t make it believable. I like carded responses but I will believe reasonable analytics.

o Do not repeatedly say I have responded or my impact is greater give me a reason. If you respond to an argument once then the rest of the time say I have responded, I will right on my flow that you are not willing to restate your argument for a reason such as it is not true.

o Plans and counter plans are good in my view but please explain them.

o I will Vote on who proves their impacts are greater and whoever is respectful in round.

Explanation by my son:

Basically my mom is not that familiar with debate language, dont try running higher level arguments. That means no ks no theory no t. If you have a question about if she will understand it, then the answer is usually no. No spreading. She's fair when it comes to speaker points. And if an argument is unique she'll be interested. When it comes to 2ars and 2nrs, you have to do the work, my mom wants a clear answer for who has and has not one. Don't kick pls. And in general, keep the debate educational.

I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

I am a new judge, a parent volunteer.

I prefer quality over quantity, and if you speak too fast I won't be able to follow your argument effectively. I appreciate clarity, and will notice if you cannot pronounce the names of people and places used in your case.

I appreciate when opponents are courteous in the exchange of notes, keep the tone civil, and don't eat the clock in cross examination with rustling papers and repeating the questions.

have fun and good luck!

if emailing docs pls include me at jgdfok@gmail.com

***PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN FOR PARLI***

First, you don't need to use your time to thank me, and you really don't need to shake my hand. Both of these concepts feel gross, personally.

I debated parli in high school, but not since, and heavy use of theory will likely get lost on me, just because I was never that sophisticated. I am open to some artful experimental/off-topic stuff, but actual trolling is a pathetic waste of everyone's time.

I am not a "blank slate" judge and will struggle to accept what I know to be blatant falsehoods.

I can have trouble understanding very rapid speech, especially if quiet, partially due to an auditory processing disorder. If you start to spread and you've lost me, I will throw my pen down in anger and glare at you dead in the eye and/or yell CLEAR at the very top of my lungs. Further, the sound of constant gasping for breath makes me want to shove my pen through both eardrums just for a moment of respite. This is debate, not auctioneering. In other words, don't spread. Just don't do it.

Humor and wit and personal style are great ways to earn speaker points! Invective toward the other side, etc. is the fastest way to bleed them. Ditto *any* sort of hostility to marginalized/oppressed groups in your case (racial minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, so on and so forth). That is a quick path to me giving you the lowest score possible and reporting you.

Final pet peeves: if you're going to talk extensively about funding, know how appropriation works. If you're going to cite the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, get it right. I don't expect anyone to grasp the nuances of foreign policy or anything like that, but you should have a very good functional understanding of the US government structure, laws, and especially the legislative process.

Ultimately, please have fun and DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, because I'm having fun when y'all are. And if you have any questions or clarifications to bring up before the round, please feel free to do so.

Avoid spreading and jargon, both are lazy. Focus on direct clash with opponent. While I expect you to time yourself, I will also time you. Anything said beyond time will be disregarded.

I am a parent judge in my second year of judging . I prefer to see a traditional debate with a slow communication emphasis and a conversational rate of speech. I want the debaters to tell me exactly why I am casting my ballot for them and why I should prefer their arguments to their opponents.

I do not accept sent cases. Please do not spread. Speaker quality is very important, be respectful during cross but I do not dock a speaker if they cut off their opponent.

I am a LAY JUDGE. I have been judging Public Forum and Lincoln - Douglas for the past two years. You will need to speak slowly for me to understand your arguments. Signpost and weigh your arguments clearly. I expect you to know your speech times and keep track of them yourself. Please do not use unnecessary jargon, this means no Kritiks, Theory, or Topicality. If you believe there has been a rule violation, please bring it up after the round while your opponent is still present. Do not be aggressive or rude, otherwise it will hurt your speaks. No shouting or raising your voice, emphasizing words and phrases is fine. Please be civil.

No spreading -- Speech and Debate should be focused on oral presentations that can be heard and understood. When a speaker spreads, IMO, he or she simply regurgitates every bit of information discovered during research with the hope that something in the spew will address an opponent's points in debate or will somehow connect with the judge in speech. Think about elegant and effective speakers like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malala Yousafzai or even Mr. Rodgers. They touch the heart with their words, make listeners want to hear what they have to say, or convince them their point of view is correct. All of those should be a speaker's goal.

Do not be rude to other speakers--including those you are paired with on a team. In one PubFo debate I judged, one team member kept calling the other one "stupid," rolling his eyes, and demonstrating in every possible way that he did not want to be teamed with the other person. It was completely inappropriate and distracted me to the point that I couldn't even focus on that team's arguments. The rude team member received the lowest score I have ever given. Whatever flaws his team member may have had were completely overshadowed by the other's rudeness. If you cannot conduct yourself professionally with consideration and proper decorum, you are not a winning speaker.

In addition, do not talk while another speaker is performing during speech events (this also has happened numerous times), turn off your cell phone and other noise producing distractions (also a frequent and inexcusable occurrence), do not leave the room while a competitor is speaking--wait until the speaker finished, and leave all negative or positive comments about the speaker or the speech outside the competition room.

Debate is a two- or four-person event -- Make sure everyone has time to speak--as the rules require. Don't try to shut down an opponent (or your partner) by being overly loud or interrupting. It may be a permissible tactic in some forums--or with some coaches--to aggressively talk over someone or ask questions without giving time for response, but I think that shows weakness in addition to rudeness. If you have to rely on tricks or intimidation to win, that may be because you are unable to think quickly enough to organize an effective answer and use it to win the point. At any rate, if best option to win is using a trick or intimidation, you haven't really won, IMO.

Moderate the volume of your voice in accordance with the room - - Speaking too loudly in a small room is unnerving and makes it hard to focus on a presentation. Speaking too softly in a large room or when there is lots of ambient noise is also distracting and frustrating.

Firoz Gill

Background:
4 years of high school parli, 1 year of NPDA parli

Default paradigm:
- I am a flow judge.
- I default to comparative worlds and net benefits.

Flowing:
- If I don't understand an argument the first time I hear it, I won't flow it / vote for it

- Voter issues are crucial. Weighing arguments is super important to me. Otherwise, I may have to weigh things myself.

Presentation:
- Most debaters think they can spread, but very few can. Unless you are absolutely certain in your ability to remain crystal clear at high speeds, don’t go over 300 words per minute. Every time I yell “clear!” your speaker points suffer.
- Slow down A LOT on argument taglines, author names, theory interpretations, case theses, K alternatives, plantexts, and CP texts. For the latter three, you should have copies of the text ready for your opponent and the judge.
- I prefer cards to have author qualifications and year read aloud.
- Eye contact doesn't matter, but voice modulation does.
- If you said everything you needed to say, don't ramble to fill up speech time, just sit down.
- Example of a bad NC roadmap: "First, I'll read my NC in which I argue that justice doesn't exist, then an off-case which will be a topicality on "ought", and finally I'll prove why the affirmative case is wrong."
The function of a roadmap is to help me put the pages of my flow in order; any information that doesn't do that is superfluous. An off-case is anything that's not on the affirmative case. NC stands for "negative constructive," not "negative case."
Example of a good NC roadmap: "2 off, AC."
- I will typically give an oral RFD.

Argumentation preferences:
- All arguments should have warrants. I will not vote on blips.
- An empirical warrant can appeal to common knowledge, but cards trump common knowledge.
- An analytical warrant does not require a card. A quote from a philosopher may contain a warrant, but simply the fact that some philosopher agrees with you does not constitute a warrant – that’s the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I hold up analytical warrants made by carded philosophers to the same level of scrutiny as analytical warrants made by debaters.
- I like positional cases.
- Weird stuff is great if you can pull it off.
- Critical/discourse cases are fine, but slow down on confusing parts. Specific alternatives with solid solvency are a plus. I tend to buy intuitive answers to Ks.
- Theory is fine if they're actually abusive, but don't overuse it. I tend to buy "reasonable limits" answers to it. I'll vote on RVIs (high threshold). I think theory is a type of a discourse argument (Fairness K or Education K), with violation as the link, standards as the impact, interpretation as the alternative, and voters as the framework. The implication is that theory can be weighed against other discourse arguments. Also, most theory debates are boring (Prefer not to have theory debate).

- The value/criterion model is often abused to exclude relevant argumentation. I think that debate rounds which are more practical are better off with a generic standard without a criterion (as a parli debater, I am used to net benefits) and with impacts weighed out primarily on the contention level; the more philosophical debates should just have the philosophical framework as the standard. I will use net benefits unless you give me good reasons to prefer another standard.
- I won't vote any type of argument down right away, so if you feel confident you can win it, run it, and have fun.

I love good Neg. strategy and think multiple positions (T, CP, K) is a great way to strategize. Also, I love great CPs (especially PICs). I think they're pretty real world and test the Aff plan fully. I am fine with conditional stuff as well. As Aff. make sure you ask if things are conditional or not.

If possible try not to exlclude the other team by spreading. Also, if you do spread through a CP, T, or K it would be helpful for you to give the other team a copy in order for them to better follow along.

I think the Aff. Should limit the resolution in a way that’s beneficial to them. (I’m fine with some Extra T).

Parent Judge of a LD debater. Flay: understand FW arguments.

I was a policy and LD debater in high school in the 90s, qualifying for TOC and CA States my senior year. I also coached my high school team while I was in college.

My LD ballot will go to the debater who persuasively argues that their position maximizes the most important values. I'm looking for a clash of ideas; for critical thinking and evidence that backs it up, and for the arguments to be tied back to the values in the end. It's a big advantage to you to crystallize and weigh for me; if I have to decide for myself you're leaving it up for grabs.

I will hear out topicality and theory arguments, but they will only decide my ballot if I think one side has been abusive or off topic beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is important to me that debaters show respect and courtesy to their opponent, to me, and to the event and tournament organizers. Etiquette violations will show up in speaks (but not decide my ballot.)

If I judge students from the same program running word-for-word the same case, I will also deduct speaker points. I'm completely fine with pooling ideas, contentions, and evidence between teammates, but debaters should write their own cases.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

Public forum: I judge mostly on arguments presented and backed by cards/ evidence. For Argument and counter I would prefer to see direct contradiction of the point made by opposite team.

I prefer clear and concise speakers/debaters who are aware of the content and topics they are arguing for. I usually disregard high speed and lack of clarity of delivery in favor of the contents and arguments.

If both teams are comparable on contents and arguments then I weigh in on approach , clarity, composure exhibited by the team . Flow and articulation of arguments/contradictions provided by the team are of prime importance.

I do negative points if argument made is not followed/ supported by card/evidence if asked by opposite team.

I am a parent judge. I will try to flow your case and follow your arguments as well as those that your opponent has made. If you speak so fast that your contentions are not clear or if your citations are unintelligible then I am unlikely to weigh the associated argument in your favor. You need to convince me that you're right, not your opponent. I will judge based on clearly presented and compelling arguments and vote for the debater who is overall most convincing.

I am a lay judge and I like clear and well constructed arguments. I have not judged circuit debates which include theory and kritiks so do not run these. Extend your arguments and explain why you win the debate under the framework. I’m looking for coherent arguments with strong warrants and stronger impacts. Sources for evidence need to be credible for an argument to have value. For presentation, make me feel interested in what you have to say. Use vocal variation, pauses, and eye contact to show that you are talking about your most valuable points. Lastly, it is important to show respect for your opponent and use assertive ways to prove your point.

Abhijain1175@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge with two year experience. I'm a generally a lay judge, and if you are going to spread, please spread slower than usual. Not very experienced at judging theories and kritiks, I prefer debating about the given resolution.

I am a parent judge with a few years of judge experience.

This is a debate, so feel free to run what you like as long as you can defend your arguments. Please remember that I can only assess what I understand so focus on clarity in your speech and arguments. Make clear transitions, point out flaws and tell me how to weigh impacts. Tell me how and why you are winning.

Be respectful and have fun. Happy debating!

I have judged Lincoln Douglas Debate for a few years now. I am a lay judge, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:

1. Please don't say or do anything that is offensive

2. I like a great Cross-Examination

3. Having good evidence comparison is really good

4. dont cross examine for the sake of examination, have some depth to it

5. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

6. Most importantly, I cant process your arguments at the speed of light, so please please speak slowly

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

i am a parent judge

I have been judging for one year

Preference

Please go slowly

Please avoid debate jargon

Very experienced - don't be mean or disrespectful.

Adapt to the panel or face the consequences.

Have fun.

I have enjoyed serving as a judge for middle school/high school debates. On one side, I am looking for a presentation with clear contention, consistent logic and concrete supporting materials. On the other hand, debate is full of dynamical interactions between players, I pay a lot of attention to approaches of responding and countering the other side.

Hi! I participated in Lincoln Douglas Debate and Oratory for three in high school and competed at the Washington State Debate Tournament in 2018 and 2019! I've been out of the game for about two now but, mentally, I still eat, breathe, and sleep debate.

Comfortable with theory and love, love, love kritiks. I have to admit, I'm a sucker for any post-colonial, pre-fiat impacts. Counterplans are fine, great, and encouraged; just make sure that you explain to me how it's applicable and why your plan is exclusive. If you're using some well known authors that describe values or frameworks like Kant, I still expect an in-depth explanation of exactly how I should frame the round. It's been a while since I've read any of the literature and I'm not too updated on any of the new kritikal arguments that have been circulating, especially in California.

Love when debaters spread (well)! I do, however, value clarity of the flow over everything else. If you don't explicitly tell me to flow things over, cross apply, signpost, etc. I will try to follow and pick up the slack but no promises! I also love clear strong and crystallization of the voters at the end of the round. If you don't provide me with a framework, I'll defer to util or minimizing structural violence, depending on what seems more appropriate. Please keep your own time! I'll have my own timer but it's more helpful when you do it. Also, I'm not really familiar with the whole Zoom debate online situation but I'm sure I will make do.

At the end of the day, you control the debate round! Do what you want with it, just tell me how to vote and what I should be valuing. Can't wait to see what you'll do! :)

I am a parent judge. No circuit or spreading. I like logical arguments substantiated with evidence. I also appreciate good crystallization that helps me with the voting decision.

Unlike many judges, I participated in mock trial for 4 years and coached it for 2. But I have been judging debate (mostly policy) more recently LD for a year. TLDR do not spread. I will not necessarily take away points but I highly prefer having one single well-developed argument than 100 ones you spit out as fast as possible. If I can't understand you, your speaking points will suffer. If I'm not making constant eye contact it's because I'm processing on paper/flowing -- I am paying attention to you. That also means I tend to vote on the flow and want you to tell me how to evaluate the round. I am more of a flow and classical judge.

I'd be careful with progressive debate -- if you have a K, T, DA, PIC etc please, please, please tie it back to the main argument/question -- EVEN if you're using it to dismiss the main argument I need to hear that so I know you understand what you're doing and are not just regurgitating some technique a friend or coach told you about. Progressive debate techniques have potential but I really dislike when they are used as a reason not to even address the topic at all -- just be clear about why you've chosen your direction.

I can't emphasize enough my preference for a rich, in-depth, well-developed, argument. I prefer that over "gotcha" statements against your opponent. If you do pull a "gotcha" don't just leave it hanging (that's why I don't like them to begin with), explain why your opponent's oversight reinforces why you're right beyond just saying "and that's why we're right" -- ie "my opponent has clearly failed to consider issue x, allowing it to be dropped" or "my opponent's willingness to conflate these two issues in their framework is why our framework does the question justice." If you're "got" by your opponent please do explain why it wasn't actually a "gotcha" moment if possible -- it's totally possible to flip it on them and I do appreciate that.

I strongly prefer concrete examples over abstract theory. If you use theory, I prefer some use of historical or contemporary real world examples to show how your ideas would be implemented.

Explicit examples go a long way!

email - mloupeda@stanford.edu

I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.

It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.

Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.

Have fun, do your best and good luck!

Hello! I have been judging speech and debate for the past two years. I would consider myself a flay judge, I take both the flow and speaking style into consideration when making my decision. I will flow and see what arguments are brought up and being responded to. Make sure to weigh your arguments during the debate, so that I have something to vote off of. Please do not spread, instead talk at an understandable pace. I like to see confidence because it shows me that you are prepared. Good Luck!

ABOUT ME:

College LD and Parli

SJSU Senior majoring in Communication Studies.

QUICK STUFF:

Let's use Speech Drop !!

As a last resort put me on the email chain: anthony.meixueiro@sjsu.edu

please run what you're comfortable with.

Fine with speed, in fact I prefer it.

Traditional / non-speed debate events: only difference is that I will value presentation skills with things like voice inflection and good pacing. Talking slow and robotic will make me tired and bored, be loud clear and passionate.

Stuff

Case

- A proper win/loss to the internal link of any DA / Advantage will definitely fuel my decision.

- A strong link turn is also super persuasive.

- I love impact calc

- In terms of T vs Plan Affs: ground/limits leading to fairness and concept mastery/limits leading to education is super persuasive. I resort to competing interps

- Politics DA's are oftentimes not nuanced enough or just a hard sell, either way, if the link is dropped, go for it.

Kritiks:

- explain the alt well, and why the ROB is specifically important

- perms need a net benefit

- I want interactions with AFF framework, structural violence can easily engage and link turn A LOT of K’s, so I need to know WHY we should prefer the K to the aff’s framing.

- STILL DO IMPACT CALCULUS

Nontopical AFFS:

- Need a good reason why you are non-t

- Perform however you want, don’t be offensive

- Clear explanation in an overview or 2ar of what the aff does.

- Here’s a secret if you’re running framework: Education is a lot more persuasive and easier to win then fairness.

- For Non-T AFFS: Weighing the offense of the aff against T is smart.

- Prepare to defend your model of debate, this is most likely going to be the argument I will have to vote on at the end of these debates, so if you can defend your model of the debate you most likely win the round.

Theory:

- Every K debaters’ worst nightmare.

- ^ do with that what you will

- I love disclosure

- ^ This means disclosure theory is super persuasive

- Presume: Reasonability, and no RVI’s

Philosophy:

- Explain well.

- If I do not see analytics in the 1AC / 1NC doc, I will be annoyed, probably won’t understand ANYTHING.

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.

I am a parent judge.

HS: Milpitas '17

College: UC Berkeley '20

Last Updated: 2/13/2018

Yo, waddup, include me if you're e-mailing evidence: tvn0599@berkeley.edu.

Active from 2013-2017, mainly in Policy, but dabbled in LD and PF. Pretty much open to anything you want to throw at me; big fan of theory/Ks (don't run them "just because," please know what you're doing*), but also down for classic stuff, DAs, CPs... Personally, I've run both traditional cases + narrative Ks, and don't really have a preference, so just follow your HeArT, do what you do best, and I will listen. I will also be fine if you spread, but please signpost clearly for the sake of my flows.

*If you whip out a K that you don't understand/can't explain well, then it'd be better if you just didn't. I judge based on in-round discourse, so even if I understand the technical terms, I won't favor your stance unless you can articulate the significance. I will not vote for you based on buzzwords.

Please stress your impacts, point out your opponents' shady arguments and evidence if you can, and don't be too rabid during cross-x because everyone will just be sad and uncomfortable afterwards.

And I don't know how relevant this is anymore, but I'll automatically give 30 speaker points to teammates running a Vermin Supreme CP. :-)

Okay, that is all. Ask me if you have any other questions. I am chill. Let the discourse begin.

***One thing: don't love T arguments that are clearly a stretch/last resort.

I am a lay judge with no previous debate experience. Please speak slowly and clearly; I will try my best to evaluate both sides of the argument in order to assess the round...but I cannot judge what I cannot understand.

I prefer clear speeches, though they don't have to be super slow. I welcome great professional cross-examination that doesn't need one to be rude to others.

I have judged high school debate for 3 years.

My paradigm breaks down as follows:

1. Value clash in the debate. Prefer lay style. Do not spread.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs.

3. Be consistent with a story throughout the round and avoid contradicting arguments.
The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these simple tips and clearly summarize voters at end.

Do not use any wordings that are abusive, rude, or prejudicial.

Have fun, and best of luck!

I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: hitesh_rastogi@hotmail.com These are my preferences:

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.

In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.

Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Enjoy yourself

UC Berkeley '23

Okemos High School '19

My name is Akash Rathod and I am a freshman at UC Berkeley. I did four years of Policy Debate at Okemos High School (Okemos, MI). I qualified to the TOC with 3 bids reading mostly kritikal arguments on both the Aff and Neg (Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Baudrillard). However, don’t let that influence your thoughts on me as a judge. I have found many “policy” debates much more interesting/enjoyable than many “k v k” debates. Go for whatever you think is the best strategy to win the debate and execute it to the best of your ability – I will be happy regardless of the specific content.

There is no argument I am not willing to listen to. Debate is a space to explore your intellectual interests and be creative, so you should take advantage of that. So, if you like going for the politics DA, go for it. However, you should refrain from arguments that directly attack a person’s identity (such as racism good, sexism good, etc.). I am perfectly ok with listening to extinction good.

Tech > truth – as long as an argument has some warrant attached to it, it is true until addressed by the other team. I will do my best to protect the 2NR.

Topic Knowledge – I have some familiarity with the topic, however, it will benefit you to explain complicated nuances and to spell out acronyms (only once).

I flow on my computer and like being able to line arguments up.

My email is akashrathod2019 (at) gmail (dot) com. I would like to be added to the email chain. You can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or want additional feedback about the round.

Speaks

I will try to keep speaks in the range of 28 – 29.5.

Speaker points will be determined by your persuasiveness, clarity, and strategic mindset. Smart debaters will always outspeak debaters who are just really clear.

Kritiks

Neg

I won’t hack for your K – you must do the work of explaining your argument.

I don’t mind a long overview, but I would prefer it if all relevant parts could be moved to the line-by-line. I would prefer it if links were done somewhere on the line-by-line (I don’t care where just don’t put them in the overview). Also, labeling links with cool names is good.

Specificity is key – if you aren’t doing the work to show why the 1AC specifically is bad (by pulling lines from their evidence and contextualizing your 1NC cards to the action of the plan), I am likely going to buy the perm solves. You don’t need links to the plan, but you should try to contextualize your generic links to the 1AC as much as possible.

You don’t need an alt, but you should spend time framing what my ballot means in a world where there is no alt to resolve the K’s impacts.

“K tricks” are fine but be smart with them – don’t just throw stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.

FW is important – you should very clear offense here as well as defensive arguments. Having good framing cards in the 1NC (especially if you are going one-off) is important. I can be persuaded that I shouldn’t evaluate the plan.

Demonstrating robust knowledge of your theory, as opposed to constantly reading blocks off your computer, will likely boost your speaks.

Aff

FW should never be “Ks bad.” Winning the FW debate for the Aff requires having a clear reason why your model of debate is good (e.g. fairness, political deliberation, etc) and making sure you answer all the neg’s tricks (e.g. Antonio 95, fiat is illusory, etc.). Being technical here is very key and I can be convinced to weigh only the consequences of plan action.

Perms should be thoroughly explained by the 1AR.

I think a lot of the common “policy tricks” (pragmatism, extinction first, etc.) make a lot of intuitive sense, but you still need to do a good job establishing them.

Coming into the debate with a strong understanding of the neg’s position will help you immensely, so you should be reading their cards and making sure you use cross-x to really understand their argument. It will make it easier to find their weak spot.

K v K Debates

I can be convinced not to give the Aff a perm, but a lot of the neg’s arguments for why I shouldn’t are usually quite silly, but must be answered by the Aff.

Both teams need to have a robust number of historical examples.

Links and net-benefits to the perm should be clearly labeled.

FW (T-USFG)

Neg

While I read a K-Aff in high-school, I am very persuaded by a lot of the arguments by FW teams. You can definitely go for procedural fairness as an impact. I also like arguments about truth-testing/argumentative refinement and research. Explaining the importance of each these in the context of predictable limits can make a very easy neg ballot.

I am not very persuaded by impacts like dogmatism or state good. While I think there is some merit to the dogmatism impact, I haven’t heard a very strong argument about why that would outweigh any offense the Aff generally goes for. I think truth-testing functions as a much more persuasive defensive argument to mitigate a lot of the Aff offense. State good is more convincing to me as a K of the aff’s refusal of certain forms of political engagement.

TVAs don’t need to solve the Aff but should somehow align with the Aff’s criticism of the status quo. Having a card isn’t necessary but would be cool.

I am perfectly fine with a short 1NC shell with no cards other than definitions.

Aff

Impact turn stuff and you will probably be fine.

You don’t need a W/M.

You don’t even necessarily need a C/I – but it will make it harder for you to win unless you go for debate bad, which is perfectly fine.

Slow down when explaining your DAs – teams often breeze through several 1 or 2 sentences DAs that I can’t follow. Your 2AC analysis should have a clear warrant as to why the neg’s interpretation is bad, what the impact to that is, and how your interpretation solves. Examples here are key.

Defense is important, don’t forget it.

You should be very clear and upfront about why the TVA or reading it on the neg doesn’t solve.

DAs

Not much to say here. Impact calc is good and should be done sooner rather than later.

CPs

I don’t have many thoughts about CP theory – so do whatever you like. Words pics are probably not cool, but if you want to go for it.

You should probably have a solvency advocate. Using 1AC lines to justify a cp will boost your speaks.

T

I enjoy a really good T debate. Both teams should be doing a good job explaining what debate looks like under different interpretations of the topic.

Impact Turns

I love a good impact turn debate. DeDev, Heg Good, Heg Bad, Warming Good, Extinction Good, etc. I love them all. Especially, against K-Affs or new Affs they can be very strategic and should be heavily utilized.

Theory

I will vote on new affs bad – given the neg can explain a coherent impact.

Clipping

Don't clip. I will keep my eye out for it. If I catch it, I will warn you (unless it was egregious). If I catch you doing it again, I will give you 0 speaks and the loss. I will also allow the round to continue to the end.

If you believe the other team is clipping, start recording them and present the recording to me after the speech. I will listen and decide. You won't be penalized for calling out another team for clipping, as long as you do so in a manner that allows the round to continue smoothly.

If you are reading unhighlighted cards, I will expect you to read the whole thing, unless you clarify before your speech. If you don't, I will consider that as clipping.

Hello, I'm a parent judge and I've judged a tournaments over the past 2 years. Please don't speak at a fast pace, a medium pace would be good. Please provide clarity in your arguments and articulate your value clearly, for me to be able to follow along. I'm judging on speed or number of arguments, rather how strong and compelling are your arguments.

Updated 10/02/2020:

TLDR: Lay judge who takes notes.

I take notes and evaluate the debate to the best of my ability — I will be fair in the debate. Please extend arguments throughout the debate. If I hear that an argument is not extended through the 1AR or 2NR, I don’t vote off of it. Also, if your opponent drops / does not extend an argument, please point this out in your next speech. Tell me why I shouldn’t evaluate it (as simple as: it wasn’t extended so drop it because the ballot should not consider arguments that aren't extended).

Please add me to the email chain. My email is dheerajswa@gmail.com.

Truth matters because it persuades me more - do what you will with that.

I cannot stress this enough: please refrain from spreading. I don’t have enough practice in understanding super fast talking so I probably won’t understand what you’re saying. You can risk it, but I will dock off speaks for it. If you want, you can ask what an appropriate speed to talk is at before the round starts.

Types of arguments I am comfortable with:

• Stock/lay (advantages/contentions and disadvantages)

Type of arguments that I don't understand:

• Kritiks
• Theory
• Counterplans also risky

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Do's:

Speak at a moderate pace. Use a tight, strategic case delivered with elocution.

Listen carefully to your opponent.

Be very mindful of impact, including cost v. benefit.

Offer a framework that is narrow enough to be defensible, broad enough to have impact.

Use contentions that connect your philosophical framework to real examples and statistics.

Don'ts:

Don't sneer or shake your head at your opponent--stay poised and professional.

Don't make logical leaps, especially ones that distort your opponent's case or lead to ridiculous outcomes.

Don't debate "circuit" style: my opinion is that a firehose of words is both unnecessary and clutters up most cases.

Do NOT use the strawman technique, or misquote your opponent to present a distorted or weakened version of their case.

Don't spend too much time on weak or overly vague frameworks, such as "justice" or "morality." Whose justice? Whose morality?

My vote is guided by the ballot rules.

Maintain good decorum, always.

Don't forget to have fun!!

(For email chain: michael.christler@gmail.com)

Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.

I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.

Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.

Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.

What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.

Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.

T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.

K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)

Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.

A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.

Good luck.

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

No spreading or I will drop the team.

Other than that, basically anything is fair game, just don't be mean to me or your opponents.

And include me in the email chain: marybelleuk99@gmail.com

I am a parent judge

No spreading, I prefer conversational speed, after 3 clears I will deduct .5 speaker points

I am epistemic modest

I do not understand/want to hear theory/kritik arguments

Do impact calculus

Tell me why I should prefer your evidence

I am an ex-LD debater with an emphasis on framework arguments. I do not like theory. If this is an LD round, I want a values debate, with persuasive, coherent, and eloquent arguments. Sign-posting is important! If you don't sign-post, it is very easy for the debate to get muddy very quickly. We don't want that. I can't be as fair and as effective of a judge if that happens. Also, please come prepared, be professional, and you'll perform well. So let's make this a great round: sign-post, weigh, crystallize, win. Looking forward to evaluating your round and good luck!

I am a lay parent judge and have judged at multiple local tournaments. I prefer understandable argumentation, with clear crystallization, weighing, and connected logic. I also prefer clear speaking over spreading, as I do not have much experience in judging circuit debate. Please be polite to your opponent during your round, and don't forget that debate is a learning experience!

EXPERIENCE

- Judged for PF one year and ongoing LD judge for 4 years

- Yes, I flow and yes, I'm okay with speed but not so much spreading

PERFORMANCE

- Signpost for rebuttals otherwise I won't track it on my flow

- Substantiate your claims with logic and reasoning, not just throw a card at me with no explanation or analysis

- Do not spread or attempt to talk really fast if you cannot because I will flow what I hear, not what I think I hear

- Have clear links to impact and uniqueness is good

NOTES

- All feedback will go into the RFD not given after round unless elims

- Don't be rude or condescending to your opponents

Hello, first time judge here!

Jie Xu Preferences:

Speaking: Don't speak too fast otherwise known as spreading, you risk me not being able to catch it. Please signpost as much as possible

Theory: Explain all theory to me thoroughly, I am unexperienced so you must convince me.

Debate: Prefer clash, don't bring out of the ordinary arguments without justifying probability

Time: Please time yourselves.

Hi, I’m a lay parent judge.

Please explain yourself clearly and I won’t consider anything that I cannot understand.

Please be nice to each other for higher speaks and don’t speak too quickly (refer to above).

I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

I am a lay judge.

I prefer simple to follow debate cases.

I'am a lay judge, I had over one and a half years of judging. One years in PF, and this year in LD. I don't know anything about ks and please don't read theory.

Make your arguments straitforward, or else I won't be able to vote off you easily. I will take notes so don't lie, just because I'm a lay judge, I can catch stuff like that.

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

I like when you have enough evidence to support your argument.

I also like when debaters speak clearly and confidently.