Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

Background

I work as a Program Manager; I work with 8 to 10 teams across the globe. All team members think differently and they are all right. Relationship and communication, regardless of the culture, are the keys to be successful in the type of work I participate.

Approach to judging

I believe a debate is the process of clarifying my own belief, but it may come across as I am imposing my belief upon another person. When I judge, I get so busy comparing the arguments of both debaters and completely consumed by listening so my own beliefs do not get a chance to influence me. I compare two arguments like a math equation, but do not forget to add emotions because that is also part of the equation.  I do use standard Lincoln-Douglas flowchart and depend on that heavily. 

Presentation preferences

All debaters, I have seen in my career as a judge, are amazingly respectful, professional, neutral, constructive, and disciplined and that is why I like to participate. Clearly understanding the content is important to me your opponent and speaking style should reflect this.

Background

I work as a Program Manager; I work with 8 to 10 teams across the globe. All team members think differently and they are all right. Relationship and communication, regardless of the culture, are the keys to be successful in the type of work I participate.

Approach to judging

I believe a debate is the process of clarifying my own belief, but it may come across as I am imposing my belief upon another person. When I judge, I get so busy comparing the arguments of both debaters and completely consumed by listening so my own beliefs do not get a chance to influence me. I compare two arguments like a math equation, but do not forget to add emotions because that is also part of the equation.  I do use standard Lincoln-Douglas flowchart and depend on that heavily. 

Presentation preferences

All debaters, I have seen in my career as a judge, are amazingly respectful, professional, neutral, constructive, and disciplined and that is why I like to participate. Clearly understanding the content is important to me your opponent and speaking style should reflect this.

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.

I have been judging LD for the past 5 years, and I have a very limited threshold for anything that is not traditional LD. ie NO Ks, NO THEORY, NOTHING NON T. I do appreciate well thought out policy affs and anything stock. Philosophy is ok, but you have to tell me why a phil debate would be productive ie why anyone should care about what our moral obligation is when we have people dying etc.

Speed.

Spreading is fine but include me in the email chain when you are reading your case or any cards. AND SLOW DOWN AT TAGLINES

debbanerjee@gmail.com

Judging Style.

I pay a lot of attention to framework and impact analysis. Did you win the impact calculus and if so tell me why I care and why your arguments matter. If you don't mention a weighing mechanism, I default to Util. Clash is important, don't just reiterate what you previously said.

Good luck and have fun debating!

I would prefer the debaters to talk at an appropriate speed.

Another thing I would appreciate asking for cards only when actually its needed, unnecessary demands about cards consume time and also breaks the debate rhythm.

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

1. Debaters can speak as fast as they can … but remember if I don’t understand the debater’s point I don’t give debater a point, given that I can understand fast speaking but not ultra-fast speaking;
2. I don’t give a win just because someone is better speaker; I look at how good the case is and how well it is supported throughout the debate.
3. I take Cross X Q/A (and clash) seriously and how debaters use them to attack opponent case or support their own case.
4. If case or argument doesn’t support Value and Value Criterion debater lose. Establish the connection between case and V/VC, don’t assume that it is self-explanatory.
5. Confidence is good but arrogance is no go; a strong attack on the opponent case is expected without crossing the arrogance line.

I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.

I judge on:

1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!

2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.

Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!

I have been judging speech and debate for couple of years. I love to hear good debates with good use of language and arguments related to the topic. I take copious notes. My expectations is that the debaters will have mutual respect for one another.
At the end of the debate we all should leave the debate learning and gaining something new from one another.

Palo Alto High School (CA) '18

Cornell University (NY) '21

I think debate is a game so do whatever it takes to win. I got my bids reading primarily non-T, Ks, T, and theory. I will listen to anything and everything, but that doesn't mean I'll be good at evaluating it.

I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.

Policy:

I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.

I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.

Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.

I am improving from "Lay" judge status to the "Circuit" judge status , but not there yet . Please do not spread for now and articulate your arguments very clearly for me.

Please also explain jargon. Again, I'm still learning this stuff, so instead of using LD jargon, please use simpler things that I would understand. Deliberate as you will.

I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.  

Name: Timothy Knox School

Affiliation: Fremont

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 2

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum

What is your current occupation? Canvasser

Speed of Delivery: A fast pace is fine, but don't spread. If there are any further questions both teams may read part of an old speech before the round and I'll say so if you're going too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Whatever you believe is the best tactic for the particular debate. I suppose I lean towards big picture.

Role of the Final Focus: Distilling the debate down to the few questions that I should consider in my decision.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: As they say about voting: early and often. Don’t just say “Extend our Johnson 18 evidence” without then clearly articulating what it is in response to or simply the fact that it hasn’t been responded to.

Topicality: I loved debating topicality when I competed in Parli. However, I don't expect nor wish to see it in Public Forum. Unless of course, the other team does do something significantly abusive to warrant it. Please deliver in Interp-Violation-Standards-Voter format.

Plans: This is PF so no. You all should know that.

Kritiks: Same as topicality. F

lowing/note-taking: I flow on paper.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style. However, in close rounds style is what will prevail even for flow judges.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The more speeches it's extended in the more likely I'm going to weigh it in my final decision. If an argument isn't extended in summary, I likely won't vote on it. I don’t find rebuttal to FF extensions to be convincing.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? I don't require but recommend it when reasonable.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Unbelievably unlikely. Arguments that are extended throughout the debate even if won only marginally will be preferred. There’s an exception if both teams then run it as a voter.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. "Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - Dr. Mungin my professor.

I did 4 years of LD in high school. My style is definitely lay debate (think: the style of LD that’s in NSDA nationals finals), but I’m still open to any style of argument as long as it’s well-explained. I flow the entire debate. I’ve never been a big fan of spreading and non-topical arguments, but as long as I can understand you and you enunciate and speak clearly, I’m fine with it.

Your job as a debater is to persuade me that your side is right, so if you can persuade me that you won the key arguments in the round, I’ll give you the win. 

BACKGROUND:
I’m a first year student at UC Berkeley studying Business Administration and Psychology. In high school, I competed primarily in LD and oratory at the state and national level, as well as doing a bit of congress and extemp at the state level. Persuasion and presentation is very important in debate, but the technical parts of debate (ex: Value/VC debate) are equally important to me.

SPEAKING PREFERENCES:

• I prefer debaters that speak clearly at a moderate pace anyone can understand. 
  
• I don’t like spreading much, but you can spread as long as I can understand you. Slow down for taglines and important things and repeat them throughout the debate (ie don’t bring up an argument in passing in your 1AC, then never bring it up until your 2AC when you say it’s the reason you won your debate). 
  
• If I can’t understand you, I’ll stop flowing and it’s your job as the debater to be receptive to your judge and slow down when you see me stop flowing. 
  

I’m relatively generous with speaking points, and do give wins to the debater with lower speaking points, but do remember that it never hurts to be more persuasive presentation-wise than your opponent. 

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES:

• I like a lot of structure in the debate (eg road maps, taglines, etc.). In your refutation speeches, I like when I can clearly see where in the flow I’m supposed to put your argument -- I shouldn’t have to guess which argument you’re refuting. 
  
• Give voting issues in your final speeches. Tell me why you won. 
  
• I like line by line rebuttals in refutation speeches that can impact arguments in the context of the entire round. Tell me why the argument matters! It isn’t enough to prove that you won an argument because that argument might be a very insignificant one, so IMPACT! 
  
• I give the win to the winner of the key arguments in the round, but you have to show me why the arguments (or argument) you won are the key arguments.
  
• Establish the framework in your 1AC/1NC and show me why it’s the preferred framework throughout the debate if relevant.
  
• Don’t slime in the 2AC.
  
• I believe that LD is a philosophical form of debate, but that being said, evidence is still very important depending on the resolution, so use your best judgement.
  
• I’m not a big fan of non topical/circuit debate (theory shells, K’s, CP’s, etc.) but as long as it’s well explained and makes sense, I’m open to it. As long as an argument isn’t absolutely ridiculous, I can buy it, it just depends on how you as a debater present it.
  

Basically, as a past debater, I’m open to most if not all arguments, just be sure to explain everything well and impact it.

I am a parent judge and have been judging LD and Public Forum for the last few years. I listen carefully and take notes. I give weight to claims and warrants to support your contentions. Please make sure to show the Impact to make it clear what your prioritized arguments are. In my mind, a well thought through Framework with the ideas tying back to the it make a very big impact. I don't flow during cross-examinations, so please make sure to make all your arguments explicitly during your speeches.

I do not support spreading. I really need to hear all the arguments. If I didn't hear your argument, you didn't make it. If you speak fast that's ok, but its your responsibility to make sure that you are clear and your speech can be fully understood.

Also, politeness and civility is an integral part of the debate. We are all in it because we love debating, so don't be rude to your fellow participants.

Above all, have fun debating!

I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.



LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.



Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.




Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli


Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.

LD

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Being rude is not OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least.

Speed: Slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, and texts. Pause after cites. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, super-double breadths.

Cross: Be polite If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: Plans are good since they provide a clear sense of your advocacy. Note that you will be held to that plan.

Palo Alto ’18, Berkeley ’22

I debated at Palo Alto locally for 3 years in LD, so I am most comfortable with the traditional value-value criterion debate. I also have some circuit experience (I think I went to like one circuit tournament) so I have a rudimentary understanding of things.

Not a huge fan of theory but I will listen and evaluate if explained very clearly. Basically, I’m ok with most arguments as long as they are well explained and not outlandish. Make it clear what you are arguing; if your main argument isn’t clear, I won’t understand. Help me by collapsing and crystallizing in the 2ar/2nr

Don’t spread. Its ok to talk at a fast-ish conversational pace but if you spread I (1) will not catch much of what you say, (2) won’t be happy and (3) will dock speaks

Speaks: Be nice, clear, funny (without being rude) +.1 if I hear “go bears” in your speech and another +.1 if you give me a small snack/drink before the round

I believe that debate is a game. Play to win. Run your theory shells, specs, whatever you need to. Be strategic. Literally everything is up for debate, including the in-round rules. Keep that in mind when you decide what your voters are.

Speed is fine to a point. If it becomes too much I will make it obvious.

If you're going to run any critical arguments, clarity becomes paramount, since I likely won't be as well read on the subject as you.

Write my ballot for me. Make my job easy.

I have never competed in Speech or debate. I have judged public forum for three years and Lincoln - Douglas for one. But according to my child, I am still a lay judge. I do take notes in the debate however. I need you all to evaluate the impacts for me. Please make the round clear for me. I want you to signpost everything, so I know where to take notes. Furthermore, don't be mean and rude in the round.

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.

I am a new parent judge for varsity LD debate. Please email me your case before the round starts in case I miss something during the round. Also please do not spread.

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

See here.

As a matter of principle, I only judge for tournaments that accept independent entries.

NPDI update 11/4/19:

LD paradigm still applies. Parli-specific:

1. Clarification on defaults: my defaults do NOT mean I will backfill warrants for you. For example, if you go for theory but never warrant competing interps or drop the debater, I will eval the next layer.

2. Tech >>>> truth. This means there are no arguments I am categorically opposed to voting on, and I am willing to vote for the "worse" argument if it is won on the flow

3. Read whatever makes you happy, not what you think will make me happy :)

LD Paradigm:

I debated LD for Palo Alto Independent for 3 years, qualling in the last 2.

franceszhuang7@gmail.com for email chains and questions.

Debate is your game — you make the rules. I (like Fred Ditzian, who I generally agree with) will vote on on anything with a warrant.

Go as fast as you want, but pop your tags, numbers, and interps/plan/perm texts. I'll call clear.

Tell me which impacts and layers come first. One sentence is sufficient to overcome these, but I default: probability first, terminal defense exists, root causes exist, perms are tests of competition, epistemic confidence, truth testing, drop the debater, competing interps, fairness/education matter, education matters more, RVIs on theory, and no RVIs on T.

You'll get high speaks as long as the round is educational for everyone. Be nice to debaters with less experience, though I don't care if you throw shade once you're both qualled (stolen from Colin, who I also tend to agree with).