UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

Mostly lay judge. I flow a bit.

TLDR: Communicate clearly, be respectful of everyone in the room.

* Prefer a few strong hard-hitting points over many weak points

* Prefer not to hear a boiler-plate off-time roadmap. Inform me only if the structure is going to be unusual/unexpected.

* Spreading: If you speak too fast for me to comprehend, I will end up losing some of the points you made. I don't take too kindly to spreading with the intent of confusing/excluding the others.

* Timing: You manage your time only. Don't worry about how much time your opponent spoke. And definitely do not get up to stop them from speaking.

* Courtesy: Do not be offensive or abusive to your opponent (or the judge ;) )

* POIs: Appreciate making and taking. They add value to the debate. But frivolous POIs are a downer.

* Please do not make-up statistics and please quote the source.

* I have a high bar for theory. If you are running a theory/kritik, please do it in lay terms

* I will protect the flow, but feel free to point out things in POO to bring things to my attention.

* Puns may give you a bit of a bonus. So will any references to start-trek ;)

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

Hello,

I'm a lay judge who flows on-case arguments. Please avoid running Ts or theory (if you do feel the need, explain and spend time explaining it to me); do not run Kritiks. I have a minor hearing problem (I wear a hearing aid), but please speak loudly and enunciate so I can understand your points. Sign post, and tagline as frequently as possible with case debate, but don't worry about the actual structure. Be courteous to your opponents, and please write the resolution and speakers on the whiteboard if possible.

I have been a parent judge at the various debate tournaments for the last couple of years. I would like the participants to be respectful and courteous to each other and any other people in the room. They should speak clearly, slowly and state any facts if possible to strengthen their arguments. There is nothing wrong or right. You only state your opinion.

I'm a newish judge. ASU in January 2018 was my first tournament. This is my 3rd. I'm a lay judge. Professionally, I'm a physics professor and researcher.

I'll try to flow and do my best to keep up, but I'm not an experienced flower, and if I can’t keep up with you enough to take adequate notes, I won’t be able evaluate your argument in making my decision. Keep the flow clear enough for me to judge on it -- help me out by clearly signposting your top-level arguments and rebuttals.

Tech or truth? I don't favor either extreme. If you drop a top-level argument, I'll give it to your opponents even if their top-level argument seems wrong or even silly. Otherwise I'll do my best to judge who won the point based on the importance of each point as well as the quality of the arguments made about it.

The above wouldn't apply to deeply offensive arguments but I really don't expect to see any of those.

I will base my speaker points on the clarity of your presentation as well as the quality of your arguments, because debates matter most when both sides and their observers can follow.

Any questions, ask me.

Overview:

Type of Judge: “Lay”

Speed? - Yes

Judge Disclosure - No

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, my tab email: a_v_rao@yahoo.com

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer