Speak slowly and be nice to one another. Make sure to cite meaningful evidence and refute opposing claims! :)

Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a clear articulation of the arguments. Clarity over speed. Respect each other.

49% flow, 51% lay.

The goal of a debate is to convince the judge(s) in person, not necessarily to look better on paper.

If you have amazing points, but stutter a lot or have breaks in your speech, it'll be hard for me to give you the W.

Similarly, if you are speaking fluently but what you say isn't making any sense, I do flow the debate so it probably won't look good either.

Though I prefer claims backed by evidence, analytical arguments will flow through as long as you can defend them and explain why they work.

A bit of humor never hurts.

Best of luck!

I am a parent judge judging for about one year . My golden rule is to just do your best and have fun with what you do . I want everyone in the round to be respectful while still making their point clear . Just have a good time :).

I competed in parli in college and I currently coach Public Forum Debate. I understand stock issues and I look for them to be used during the round. I am big on the structure of arguments and expect the entire round to follow NSDA rules. With that being said I pay close attention to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, so to me, it is more important to make good arguments than to make a lot. On the subject of arguments, while they are allowed, I do not prefer debates about evidence or debates about a debate. I would prefer that T arguments and evidence questioning be limited during the round. I think a debate is supposed to be educational and I prefer debates that are exactly that. So have fun, make good arguments and do not get caught up in the details. 

I am a parents judge. I will try to flow to the best of my ability.

Judging Criteria

Case Analysis: How well the debater develops a case in response to the resolution

Organization: How well the debater organizes both the constructive and rebuttal speeches

Value Clash: How clearly the debater emphasizes the value being supported by his side and how that value is being measured

Evidence: Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence should be used to supporting arguments.

Refutation: How thoroughly the debater refutes the opposing side and rebuilds his own case

Courtesy: How well the debater demonstrates respect to his opponent

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

I debated Public Forum for Los Altos for 4 years and Parli for one tournament.

For Septober 2020: I'm judging one round for this topic and know literally nothing about it, so please don't assume I have any background knowledge.

I'd say I'm a flow judge but I'm pretty bad at flowing so let's go with flay. I like to keep expectations low. Please don't spread my hearing sucks.

I really appreciate link debates and I won't vote off something unless I somewhat understand it. I always value solid warranting over card dumping.

I have a pretty high threshold for evaluating really squirrelly arguments/responses/turns and offensive second rebuttal overviews or other kinds of sus stuff.

I'm not super familiar with Theory/K's but if you explain it to me thoroughly I am willing to evaluate it. If you read it WITHOUT your opponent's consent/knowledge and are reading for an "easy win", you are making debate inaccessible and I will drop you.

*DO NOT straight up lie. I will tank your speaks and drop the argument. Please, PLEASE ask for evidence if you are suspicious of your opponent lying about evidence, and tell me to look at it.

I used to have a paradigm with a bunch of rules about extensions and frontlining but then I realized that they were just the rules of pf so I'm assuming you know those lmao.

If you have any specific questions, just ask! I don't appreciate salty post rounding but am happy to answer genuine questions. email me at ashley.lcai@gmail.com if you want more feedback!

GLHF everybody! :)

I'm a parent judge, so please go slow. Be sure to weigh arguments to make the decision clear.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

I am a lay judge, so I am a parent. Don't speak too fast! Speech skill counts for 50% of my judging, and the other 50% is the content and accuracy of the arguments.

Lay judge. No debate experience myself, other than judging PF the past two years.

Clear, normal paced speaking is appreciated. I take notes, and weigh evidence. I use a bar of whose arguments ultimately convince me Aff vs. Neg, and take into account how far-fetched the linking of evidence goes. (Try and not have everything end up linking to ISIS or Godwin's law for example.)

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

I am a lay judge. My son does debate currently I prefer slower speaking and clear points. Make sure to be confident in your speeches.

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

I am primarily a PF judge, and judge exclusively on information presented in the rounds and not any pre-existing beliefs. I will score using the following criteria :

- Speaker presentation

- Well supported arguments (arguments backed up with logic and evidence)

- Effective Rebuttal (if opponents arguments are not contested then it's counted against you)

No spreading!!!

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 and this is my 3rd year judging PF.

-I value each debater's preparation, commitment and passion in debate. In order for the judge to be fair and objecive to evaluate your arguments and performance, please talk with reasonable speed, fully explain your arguments with logic and clarity. Explain your jargons or acronyms and don't assume the judge is a professional debater.

-I give extra speaker points to the debater who is respectful and thoughtful to his/her opponents, especially during the crossfire. At the end the competition is a game. Winning is great, but being kind with each other will have better long-term impacts.

Be yourself and enjoy the game!

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

Hello, I am Sudhakar Jilla and I have judged for various schools over the last 5-6 years. I'm an average lay judge with no significant biases. nor am I ideologically opposed to voting for any argument. I think there's a side to be heard on everything - no hard and fast rules.

I am not a flow judge and I try to weigh arguments in terms of how convincing they are, do they back up with concrete evidence, defend their point of view and so on. Speed talking, being rude, condescending attitude, lack of clarity, not being respectful are definite turn-offs. If I can't hear or understand something important, it is your loss. I also don't appreciate misconstruing of evidence; if the card does not make sense to me, I will call for it and check to see if it states what you claim it says. I also expect opponents to call for evidence as well.

I don't understand all the debate jargon and would appreciate if you create clear link chains and explain them clearly. Interact with your opponents argument and tell me why I should prefer your argument over theirs.

Happy Debating !

Hi,

I am a flow judge and I judge purely based on participants arguments.

Here are few things that will get you winning points

- Clearly state the framework.

- I encourage creative cases. However, if someone is presenting an overreaching argument (or absurd), I expect the other side to call it out.

- Do not email your cases. This is a debate and we are not here to read documents.

- Do not spread. You need to articulate your case in a clear manner.

- Be courteous to your opponents. Argue the case and not the person. Any personal aggression will lead to loss of points.

- Present your arguments confidently and clearly. You need to believe in your arguments.

- Present multiple pieces of evidence to back up your arguments. If it is not provided, the opponent should call it out and I will drop your argument.

- Stick to the allotted time and do not run over time. However, you may finish your sentence that you started already without me dropping that argument. Arguments made after the clock will be ignored and will lower your score.

I will not disclose and all feedback will be provided in the ballot.

LIVE LIFE!

Be concise.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I care more for clarity of contentions rather than speed and how many you can fit in your allotted time. I value good speaking points, logic, evidence and professionalism. And I promise a neutral viewpoint in the beginning of each round.

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Flay Judge

Public Forum

I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

Overview:

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: prima1014@gmail.com

I will not be following along on the speech doc, but I will be checking periodically to make sure extensions of cards are consistent with the actual evidence.

I debated for Fresno State for three years. I started off in traditional policy debate, but then made my way into K debate. I do not have a preference; I am just as likely to vote for T as I am to vote for a performance K. It all comes down to how persuasive your arguments are, and I evaluate that based on three criteria:

1) Your ability to explain the thesis of your argument. Even if I am familiar with the literature, it is still your responsibility to thoroughly explain your methodology. Relying on buzz words is bad for education and hurts your growth as a debater. I will never make extrapolations of arguments for you. If I’m left wondering what your policy/advocacy/alternative does by the end of the round, then you are at a severe disadvantage.

2) Your explanation of why the argument you are making matters, and why it should be presented in this space. Having a good idea/theory is awesome, but why do it here? Why should I care about the discussion of policies, identity, power structures etc. that you decided to forefront?

3) Your overall ethos and presentation. This last point is supplemental to the two more substantive points listed above, but it is still extremely important. Whether you speak quickly or at a conversational pace, you should make sure that your speeches are engaging.

Respect:

1. Respect is mutual. I expect you to respect each other by not engaging in unnecessarily rude behavior. I understand that cross ex can get heated, but make sure you do not let this interfere with the fact that debate is an educational activity.

2. I will respect you by listening to you and devoting my attention to making a carefully thought out decision. When I am giving my RFD, it is your turn to reciprocate that respect by actively listening. I will not tolerate excessive post rounding and being rudely interrupted. Questions are highly encouraged but arguing with me will not change the outcome of the debate. If you are angry with my RFD, I recommend that you write down your concerns with the decision, talk with your coach, and if there is still an issue, take time to cool down before approaching me again to talk about the round.

Technicalities:

1. Prep ends when you send the doc. If you send the wrong doc or it is missing cards, you are responsible for taking prep to send it to the other team.

2. Stealing prep will lead to a deduction in speaker points.

3. Clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence are very serious issues and threaten the integrity of the activity. I take these two issues very seriously.

Specifics:

Framing:

1. I expect both teams to provide me with a way to frame the round. You do not get access to your arguments unless you win the framing question, or you prove that you are still ahead through the other team’s method of framing the round.

Topicality:

1. I think topicality arguments are very interesting. Make sure you give specific contextual examples of what ground was lost, as well as why that ground is uniquely valuable.

2. That being said, I think there are very valid justifications for not being topical. Do not assume that my preference for Ks as a debater will mean that you have a low threshold for proving that you do not need to be topical.

Framework:

1. I enjoy current and relevant example of why engaging in the state is essential or unproductive.

2. If you are arguing policy making/political engagement good, you must prove that it is net better for everyone, regardless of their identity.

3. Saying, “The USFG is racist” or “policy making is rooted in patriarchy” is not a sufficient response to framework. It is not that I don’t agree with you, but you need to elaborate more on these phrases that get tossed around. Your arguments will be much more persuasive if you go beyond reading cards and pre-made answers and contextualize and elaborate on these claims.

Performance:

1. Performance debate is great and very creative. However, you still need to explain what your method is and what you have accomplished at some point in the debate. It needs to be purposeful.

Theory:

1. You need to clearly highlight the abuse in the round and make a convincing argument about why this creates a bad model for debate beyond this round.

Background: 1yr of speech & debate at Leland High School; Speech&Debate Aide/Coach since February

Experience: Not a whole lot of professional experience in speech & debate

Judging: Since February, judged a few rounds in semi-finals to elims in a couple of tournaments

Standards:

RESOLUTION!!! All the topics you bring up during your speech & debate, make sure to tie it in to the resolution since that is what you need to convince our judgement on

DON'T RUSH! If you speak too fast you will lose your audience if your audience is not experienced in speech & debate like me

DON'T USE FILLER WORDS! It looks bad when you use too much of filler words. You should've practiced more and been more prepared to prevent using filler words during your debate

EXPLAIN! If you use abbreviations or not a common term than don't assume all judges will know what your talking about. It will help if you give at least one sentence to briefly explain what a word/term/group/etc. is

DON'T BE RUDE! Having some sass during cross is fun, but be mindful and respectful to everyone

EVIDENCE! Provide solid proof

I have been judging for close to 5 years at several local and state tournaments in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. I judged Public Forum, LD mostly, at Novice JV and Varisty levels.

I am open to any arguments, but the arguments where impacts are shown carry more weightage. Impacts should be significant: that affect big population, health impacts, economy impacts, impacts to human values, safety, etc. The more the evidences is better, extrapolating what happened in the past to the future is ok, as long as it is explained logically.

No offensive comments or remarks during the debates. I like the offline roadmaps before start of each speech. It is good to repeat/summarize what you think is your key point. Please feel free to remind judge what you think is most important to you.

I will be happy to answer any questions before the round starts about my preferences.

I am a parent judge. You can do the coin flip before the round to save time. For speaking, I don't have any preferences, just don't go too fast. Think lay speed.

I don't necessarily flow, but I take notes throughout the round. Make sure you are clear and logical.

All in all, have fun and don't stress out too much :)

Judging Recommendations: Don't be too loud. The clearer, the better.

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

I am a parent judge with little experience in this event. Please speak clearly. Respect other team members, especially during crossfire sessions. Debate style and showing that you listened to the other teams unique points are important over memorized content or reading from laptop. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

I am a Lay Judge who is new to judging. Expecting teams to speak clearly and slowly.

I am a parent judge, and am fairly well read on most world affairs.

I prefer clear communication, so please do not go too fast. I also would like decorum, so please be polite and do not speak over each other. I would also recommend that you respect your fellow debaters, and not whisper or talk when your opponents are speaking.

I must be able to understand and agree with your logic to vote for you. I expect you to back up your statements with evidence - any evidence that is not challenged may be viewed as "good" evidence - however, I may ask for evidence in certain cases. An exception to the above is well established, and well-known facts. I realize that this may appear to be a bit subjective, but if someone challenges an opponent on what could widely be recognized as well-known facts, that would not be helpful. Additionally, I also expect that you have a good understanding of the topic, and the arguments you are making - so good preparation will hold you in good stead.

Finally, establishing a greater impact, through a combination of your argument, debating skills and ability to effectively counter your opponents' argument will help you in securing my vote.

I've been judging for 3 years. I will be flowing your evidence and arguments. Speak at a reasonable pace and be respectful during crossfire. Arguments brought up during summary and after will be dropped. Clearly weigh the round and state why I should vote for your side.

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.

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.

I am a lay (parent) judge.

Please speak slowly and do not use any debate terminology if you want me to understand your arguments. I will vote on the argument which convinces me the most at the end of the round. If the entire debate is muddled, I will vote off of speaker points.

Policy
Be sure to add me to the email chain: beerud@gmail.com
Affirmative - Have a good impact calc but don't always have the same impact of nuclear war, nuclear war, extinction, nuclear war because when judging I'll probably have some skepticism around there. Make sure you clearly know your aff so you don't get stumped by "what does your ___ evidence say" it's one thing to ask bad questions, it's another thing to answer bad questions badly.
K Affs - Only go for it if you know what you're doing - I hate it when you poorly execute a K, so be sure to properly know the advocacy and what it entails. I'd be glad to judge performance affs but make sure you know what you're doing.
FW versus K Affs - If you go against a K aff be sure to do this, framework should be your go to argument against any K-affs. Some of the best policy debates were super contextualized framework args against kritikal teams with flushed out impact arguments.
Topicality - I wouldn't exactly advise you going for T in the 2nr but if that's your thing, go for it. Don't just spit out interns and counterinterps at each other without knowing what you're doing. Make it extremely clear why the plan is bad for debate.
Ks - I definitely like k args, so I'm down to vote for a k. This doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for a team that proposes to read a k in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are nearly dropped by the other team, I will reward you if your link is specific to the aff. Make your decisions at your own risk when it comes to the 2nr. It is also especially important to have multiple framing arguments and perm arguments (if necessary). In order to get my vote, I need to have a clear understanding of the alt and what it does for us.
DA/CP - The more specific they are to the aff the easier it is for me to vote for them. I'm not exactly a fan of a politics DA, but if that's your thing, go for it. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be important, so make sure you take that into consideration.

PF
Speed - When it comes to Pofo I'm not exactly a fan of speed. If you still choose to speak fast, make sure you are clear and not just blurting out arguments. If that's the case, I'm not inclined to vote for you.
Extension Args - Be clear as to what specific cards/arguments you want me to extend in the Summary/FF. Make sure you signpost before your speech so I know where you are at any given time in the speech. I prefer logical warrants over cards, so make sure you don't say "I have a card so it's true" because then you won't exactly get my vote.
Evidence - I might call for evidence after the round is over if necessary. Make sure you present evidence when asked to and not to refuse. DO NOT PARAPHRASE ANY NEW CARDS OR YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY D/Qed. Don't make me vote for the opposing team just because you want to save time.
Case Specifics - Don't pile card after card on me without any logical reason why to prefer that card. Don't have seven different contentions of thirty seconds each because it'll get all messy on the flow. Make sure to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs and do a decent impact calc. Don't drop impact.
Framework - Be sure to provide a framework for me and stick with it till the FF telling me why to vote for your framework and why you win on that framework. Don't argue each other's framework if you're using the same one. I once judged a round in which one team was proposing util and the other was proposing CBA and they KEPT ARGUING WHY TO PREFER THEIR FW. Don't do that. If neither teams propose a framework I'll go default to CBA.
Crossfire - Don't be too rude in cross - it's okay to a certain extent but don't be talking forever and ever to the extent where your opponent has to ask you to stop. I won't flow useless arguments in cross, but I will flow concessions or cross arguments brought up in later speeches.

Congress - Many of my rules for presentation and content still apply here. Keep your speeches within the alloted time and don't ignore the PO when they're gaveling you down. I reward debaters who advance debate rather than merely reiterating previously discussed points. If you speak late in cycle, either do the most to bring up unique points, respond to previous speakers, or do a summary/crystallization speech on the major voters in the round. Critiquing loopholes in a bill or the way a resolution is written will win extra points from me. Same goes for amendments, provided they're germaine and substantive. Keep your questions tactful and strategic- I know what softballs and gotchas look like. As in PF, don't be rude in cross-ex.

Otherwise, be sure to have fun and have a great time debating.

Parent judge - mom of VLD debater

Speak slowly and be courteous/respectful

Not familiar with progressive arguments, so please keep them logical and easy to understand

Keep track of time by yourself

Have fun and good luck!

Hello Debaters,

I am a parent judge. I am fairly new to judging; I enjoy it every time I judge.

I learn along the way, so I ask you to please keep these few things in mind:

Please be courteous, Talk swiftly but clearly, do not be in a rush to put your point forward. Keep in mind that I come with a blank slate and I will listen to everything you throw at me. Do not Spread!

Help me understand you. I love to hear your point of view and I will let you go a few seconds or even a minute over if I feel your argument is valid.

Please be respectful of your opponents, especially during cross. I will judge you during cross for sure, about how respectful you have been towards your opponent and what is it that you are arguing about. Please let them finish. Keep a healthy debate going.

Happy Debating!! Good luck and Have fun

I am a parent judge who has participated a few debate events previously. I prefer solid logic and clear presentation, and I believe the structure and quality of the arguments/evidence should be way more important than the quantity and density (i.e. talking speed) of the information conveyed.

I also like to see the debaters treat their opponents in a respectful manner. In my opinion, the debate process is a very good pathway to get the very best out of yourself and learn to think critically and efficiently, and from this perspective, the strong competition indeed benefits both sides greatly and they are actually helping each other, so why not feel grateful?

At the end of the day, I would enjoy seeing and listening to a passionate human with deep thinking on the debated issues, as well as open mind to recognize the balance of conflicting forces in almost everything. Choosing a side helps you think with focus , but is not meant to limit your thinking into a narrow bandwidth.

I am a lay judge and have barely judged. Don't spread.

Please do not just hand me 80 cards and say look we have evidence. Make sure you explain your evidence. Also I prefer logic over some cards.

Anything in summary must be in final focus.

It's fine if you are passionate in crossfire but yelling will result in lower speaker points. Also do not laugh at your opponents or I will lower your speaker points. Doing well in crossfire is important to me as well.

Also Theory and K cases are not appreciated.

I do not disclose (in prelims).

Hello, I am Vasanthi, I have judged Public Forum debate for five years now. I am a flay judge.

Speaking: Please don't spread and be respectful during cross-ex (I will tank speaker points for rude behavior).

Cards: Don't drop cards (I need warrants and impacts for all important/collapsed on impacts), I don't care if you don't extend author name all the way to Final Focus, I just need the impacts and warrants extended. I may call for cards if serious disputes arise during the round.

Weighing: Both sides should weigh in Summary and extend all impacts. Any impacts and/or points dropped will be dropped from my flow. The second speaking team must respond to the first speaking team’s weighing or it will go conceded and I will weigh the round on the first speaking team’s weighing.

In General: Second speaking team must frontline briefly at least in rebuttal. First speaking team should frontline during summary. I will flow during cross if something really important comes up, but otherwise, it should be extended to other speeches.

I'm a new judge, and English is not my first language. Please speak clearly and slowly, and enunciate your words so I can clearly understand what you're saying. When possible, please signpost (number the points you want to make) so that it's easier for me to follow along.

If you are rude, I will deduct your speaker points and I can't guarantee it won't affect the results of the round either. Please don't interrupt each other during crossfire unless absolutely necessary - I expect you to treat your opponents with respect.

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

Speaking skills/communications

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.

Everyone has to be clear. I do not take notes so I am a typical lay judge. be nice to eachother.

Teams must respectful of eachother.

Facts and evidence are the most important in a round.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

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

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.

*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!

---------------------------------------------

I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.

So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.

1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.

2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow

3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it

4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round

5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.

6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.

7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.

8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.

9) Read #1 again. :-)

I'm a non-interventional judge. Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge.

Debaters are evaluated based on the quality of the arguments, logic and reasoning, utilization of evidence, clear communication, and flow. Debaters should not blindly denied opponent's arguments. No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus, however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments.