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

"Persuasion is all about the tools and techniques of changing people’s minds, with or without facts and reason." -Scott Adams, "Dilbert" cartoonist.

Just keep me entertained, don't bore me with the details (just kidding). (But actually, keep it simple and straight forward. I don't like debate jargon.)

Speak slowly, clearly, and emphatically, but don't SHOUT. I don't flow cross, but I like speakers who bring up arguments from the cross. To me that says you are listening to your opponent and thinking.

Thank you, and good luck. May the coin flip be with you.

I have judged Public Forum, extemporaneous speaking, interpretation, and original oratory for 3 years, associated with Dougherty Valley.

I may not flow like you but I do take copious notes. I will only vote off of arguments I can understand(so explain your warrants and link your impacts well).

You may use an appropriate number of cards in your case but be sure to explain them well in order them to count. I won't call out unsubstantiated or analytical arguments unless your opponents do.

Medium speed is ok, I won't vote off arguments that I can't follow.

I will not vote off of theory, I like clean, clear debates about the resolution.

I will only vote off of arguments that are extended through both summary and final focus.

I like impact calculus, contentions that are impacted will be voted off of.

Tech before truth, if your opponents don't call for the card, I won't call for it.

I will give speaker points based on comprehensibility and poise, so don't stutter or speak excessively fast and look somewhat presentable in round.

Good luck!

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

I have judged PF for more than 2 years and 4-5 times per year. I value clear speaking. Please be polite and respectful to each other during rounds.

Please weigh your arguments and spell out my ballot.

E

I'm a lay judge. I have kids who debates, so I've judged some local circuit tournaments, but that's it. Please do not speak too quickly. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.

Please don't use too much debate jargon.

Otherwise, have fun in the round, make me laugh, and let's debate!

My kids wrote this for me: I'm an experienced parent judge who has been judging for 5 years. I like turns (sometimes I'm even ok with impact turns), weighing and impacts. I hate bad evidence, and will call for cards if I think evidence is suspicious.

I'm familiar with some jargon, but not all of it. I don't really know how to evaluate theory or K's. Please be civil during cross. I do understand the flow, I just don't use jargon to describe it. I will know if you dropped something. FF matters a lot to me.

My name is Narender Enduri. I prefer candidates speaking slowly, clearly. They should respect each other during cross examination and don't take anything personal. I would like everyone to present proper evidence to back up any of their arguments, and the arguments should be logical and explained thoroughly. If you have any doubts before the round begins, feel free to ask me any questions.

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

ABOUT ME: 

I’m a Computer Science major at UCLA, and debated LD at Milpitas High School for 3 years. Two of those years were on the circuit. My senior year, I cleared at most of the bid tournaments I attended and ended up bidding once. I can 100% guarantee you that I’m not going to be able to cover every single question you have in this paradigm, so feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at raks.garg@gmail.com for any questions you might have. 

SCU SPECIFIC:

It's been 3 years since I've done any kind of judging or competing. Don't expect me to know new tricks and don't assume a baseline understanding of the resolution. It's also been a while since I've flowed, so feel free to spread but PLEASE start slow and be organized for the sake of my flow and your speaker points. I'll probably ask to borrow paper, just FYI. 

The rest of this paradigm is specific to how I judge LD, but can be extended to all forms of debate. 

DEFAULTS:

Drop the arg on theory/T 

No RVI’s on theory/T

Presumption flows aff

Remember that these are just defaults and I can be persuaded for or against them. 

STYLISTIC THINGS: 

Tech > truth

Flash whatever you read! If flashing isn’t an option, pass pages or let your opponent read over your shoulder. (As a general rule, good disclosure practices are good.) 

Extensions need claim, warrants, and implications

2AR Extensions don’t have to be perfect

I don’t see the point in extending the interpretation or plan/CP text

Big picture analysis is good. Very good. 

Pls crystallize by the end of your last speech.

CX is binding

I like when debates are about the topic

SPEAKS:

Speaker points are a reflection of your strat choices, not how well you speak. I will yell clear, slow, loud, etc. as needed. I give pretty inflated speaks. I love watching funny debaters, so if you make me smile or laugh, expect a slight raise. Good strategies are always fun to watch. If I think you deserve to clear, you're easily looking at 28.5+

SPREAD:

Haven’t spread/flowed spread in a while -- start slow and build up. Slow down on the important stuff—theory interps, plan texts, some 1 sentence a-priori that you think is going to be hot stuff in the 2AR, basically anything you think i should pay extra attention to. It wouldn’t hurt to even say, “Rak, pay attention, this is important” 

THEORY:

I’ll vote on any shell, any interp, no matter how unconventional it is, but expect your speaker points to be inversely proportional to the frivolousness of your interp. If its “A: Interpretation: Must wear blue ties,” I’m going H.A.M. on your speaks and not in the good way. I presume aff on theory, and I’m not afraid to presume if the flow gets messy, so be smart about how y’all handle yourselves. 

TOPICALITY: 

I love T debate. I will vote on T debate. I will boost speaks for good T debate. I presume neg on T. 

RVI:

I think the RVI is illogical but I can see that it does have a place in competitive debate. I can be persuaded for either RVIs good or bad as long as its well handled (on both T and Theory). 

KRITIKS: 

If they’re simple enough that you can explain them to me without me giving you a “help me I’m lost” face, go for it. If not, it might be in your best interests to avoid it. I don’t have anything against K’s, its just that I’m probably not the best person to read them in front of, especially if you’re spreading. I’ll do my best to keep a tidy flow and keep everything organized, but I might be a better judge to read traditional plans/disads/t/theory in front of. 

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS/PLANS

Go for it.

FRAMEWORKS:

I found myself running a lot of util + a dash of determinism my senior year. Feel free to read whatever you want as long as its well warranted. Just make sure you keep your list of 14 reasons why your ethic is true organized (ESPECIALLY if you’re gonna extend a random justification in the 2AR/2NR and expect me to vote off it). 

MORALLY ATROCIOUS ARGUMENTS:

As much as I believe that debate should be an unrestricted space for free speech, I’m going to have a very hard time voting on your arguments if they create a hostile atmosphere for me or anyone else in the room. I know this sounds really arbitrary, but just ask me before the round if I’d be down for an argument you think you might end up reading. You probably know who you are if this applies to you.

DISCLAIMER: I’m perfectly okay with Extinction Good/Overpopulation turns/disads.

My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.

If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:

-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.

-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.

-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.

I am a parent judge. The speed of talking is not an issue. You can speak as fast as you want. Your choice...but make sure it is clear and you are not mumbling, spreading. I like to see how you refute the other team's arguments effectively and professionally with respect. I like to see strong crossfires. Comments during crossfire needs to be logical and backed with data when necessary. Most of the time, I am aware of the political situations and I am a teacher as well.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

I am a parent judge, and my recent judging experience is limited to Lincoln Douglas last year. Prior to that, many years ago, I judged strictly policy debate. My personal debate experience consists of policy debate throughout high school and parliamentary debate in college. Likely many former debaters, I honestly believe that I learned more in debate than in any other aspect of my formal education.

If I am judging you, you should know the following about my preferences:

-You can speak fast, but you do need to speak clearly and with sufficient volume. Ultimately, debate is about communicating an argument. If I can't hear you or understand you, then that really isn't communication.

-Don't drop arguments. If an argument is patently illogical, please simply point that out.

-If an argument is specious, and if logic is sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument, then a coherent counter argument without evidence is superior to presenting evidence without logic.

-Quality of your arguments will almost always trump quantity.

-Since this is my first year judging PF, and I have no personal experience doing PF, I am fairly open minded about technical aspects of debate.

-I do have a pet peeve. This should go without saying, if you are using someone else's case or briefs, please make sure you know how to correctly pronounce the words that you are saying and please make sure that you do understand what you are saying.

Please realize that I value debate, and I truly enjoy judging debate rounds. I am not judging because I need to fulfill a judging obligation, and when I will am judging you, I will be having fun listening to you debate regardless of what my face says. I also respect that you are spending your weekends debating, because I know that there are plenty of other things you could be doing instead.

I am a scientist in the field of molecular biology. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum and parli for 3 years, with a mix of novice, jv, and varsity. Speaker points are awarded based on persuasion and clarity of speech, and my ability to understand arguments. Because of this, the team that receives my ballot is more likely to have higher speaks, but not always. I flow arguments that I can understand, meaning I can not flow arguments that are spread at me or that are blatantly untrue.

Clothing and appearance: 3/10. I took time getting ready coming here and I would hope that you show some semblance of doing the same.

Use of evidence: 6/10. Cards are an important part of any debate, but I do not want to have to write down the same thing in 15 different pieces of evidence or have to deal with card dumps. I prefer cards coupled with logical analyses that flow, and prefer that the logic behind the card is explained rather than the card itself.

Real World Impacts: 9/10 I will vote on any argument with some truth to it if it is explained to me logically. Impact weighing is the deciding factor in most rounds, so tell me why the argument matters and why I should vote off of it and have a coherent link chain.

Crossfire:5/10 I will take notes in crossfire, but if you want me to remember a response, repeat it in a speech.

Truth/Tech: 8/10 Truth>Tech in every round. If the argument is untrue, the opponent not responding to it does not mean I will weigh the argument on your side.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging : None

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

Talk clearly and slow. Make eye contact. No stalling. No Public Forum jargon.

What sort of things help you make decision at the end of the debate?

Who most effectively argued their position. How they handle counter and interactions

Do you take lot of notes or flow the debate?

Flow the debate

Clothing / Appearance - Somewhat (5)

Use of Evidence - Weighed Heavily (10)

Real World Impacts - Heavily (8)

Cross Examination - Somewhat (5)

Debate Skill over truthful arguments - Weighed Heavily (10)

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit for the Blake School from 2014-2018. I also coached for the Nueva School my first year in college. I'm currently a senior at UC Berkeley studying Political Economy. I haven't been involved in debate for a few years now, so please don't go super fast, but other than that I still remember how the activity works.

Here's my background:

Occupation: CS and engineering

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Judging Experience: I have judged public forum for 4 years.

Speaker points: 27.5 is an average debater. I award 29s and up for very good speakers.

I evaluate rounds based on the clarity of the argument and your extension throughout the debate. I won't vote on arguments that don't make logical sense or are simply untrue. You need to explain your arguments in simple words in the summary and final focus so I can follow the clash of the debate and accurately understand the debate.

I do flow debates to an extent although it might not be like a coach or debater. However I will be taking notes throughout the debate to see what has been extended by the end.

Other things - ranked from 1-5 on how important they are for me:

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 5

Real World Impacts: 5

Cross examination: 3

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 4

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

I am a lay judge. I have been judging (lay) PF, LD, and Policy for 3 years (since my daughter entered high school). Some things to keep in mind:

1. Please do not speak fast. If I do not catch your argument, I cannot vote on it.

2. Please do not assume I know everything about the topic. Define any relevant terms and don't use acronyms without telling me what they mean first.

3. Please be polite during round, especially during cross fire. I will drop you if you are excessively rude.

4. I will vote on clear impacts and a convincing narrative. Historical precedent and logical, simple arguments are effective.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging PF for 4 years (since my daughter entered high school). Some things to keep in mind:

1. Please do not speak fast. If I do not catch your argument, I cannot vote on it.

2. Please do not assume I know everything about the topic. Define any relevant terms and don't use acronyms without telling me what they mean first.

3. Please be polite during round, especially during cross fire. I will drop you if you are excessively rude.

4. I will vote on clear impacts and a convincing narrative. Historical precedent and logical, simple arguments are effective.

Good luck!

I just graduated college, and did debate for about a year in high school. I would prefer if debaters could:

- speak clearly at a normal pace

- back up their claims with good evidence

- weigh their arguments in final focus

- be respectful

Though I am a parent judge, I have judged several tournaments of Public Forum before this. However, I would suggest to speak at a slower pace.

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

I am a parent judge so don't use technical arguments like theory or kritiks. Stick with case debate only. Good luck:)

I am a lay judge

I am a Software programmer who is well educated on technology and politics

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

I have judged 4 years of Public forum

I will award speaker points from 29 and will go down based off performance in round. It will be based on clarity and cross-examination. I factor clear contentions with lots of evidence as well as cross-examination in my decision. If you do not have evidence when your opponents ask for it, I will have a hard time voting for you.

I will take detailed notes on the round. If you speak too fast or are unclear I will not catch it.

My preferences on a scale of 1-10

1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Appearance:1- I do not have any preferences for clothing or appearance. All I care about is skillful and respectful debating.

Use of Evidence: 7-I will occasionally fact-check. When extending cards explain warrants not just tags. I do not care for tags unless I find the evidence suspicious.

Real World Impacts:10- I look for weighing. If your impact is bigger I will vote off that. You must show me why timeframe and probability matter against magnitude.

Cross Examination:3- I like respectful questioning. I will give you higher speaks if you allow your opponent to speak without interrupting them excessively. Do not waste time.

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 1- I PREFER TRUTH OVER TECH as I believe debate is an educational activity and making false arguments is a waste of time.

Speed: 8- DO NOT spread I value clarity over speed any day as debate is an educational activity meant to be inclusive to everyone.

Jargon: I DO NOT KNOW ANY JARGON. Explain uniqueness to me in lay terms. Same thing for turns, nonunuq, squo, overview

Extra notes:

Do not disrespect your partner in round. I like to see partners working together not against each other.

If this is a Pufo DO NOT explain the structure to me. I already know this and I will view it as stealing prep time.

Stick to a clean narrative. I will not be following you if you jump around on the flow.

Please be within the time limit for speeches.

Be within the limits for prep time.

I like offtime roadmaps but keep them clear.

Please provide evidence in a timely manner

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

Round Preference: Public Forum should be respected as Public Forum. Do not run a complicated Policy or Parliamentary round simulating a lawyer-judge scenario when you should be running a simple round simulating a lawyer-jury scenario.

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

I am a real estate agent. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum debate for 2 years, mostly in the novice and JV divisions.

I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasive ability, and how easy your arguments are to understand. I’d prefer if you speak at a normal speed, or only slightly fast. Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents, and your partner.

I will only vote on arguments that are extended throughout the debate, and that make sense to me. When making any point you would like me to vote on, clearly explain what it is and why it matters.

I will not be taking many notes during the round, so please point out any concessions, drops, etc. that the opponents make. Keep the debate jargon to a minimum.

How much I weigh the following (1 - not at all, 10 - heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 2/10 I do not judge based on appearance but put some effort into looking professional.

Use of Evidence: 9/10 I will not be calling for cards but make sure your evidence states what you are claiming. When extending cards, explain the warrants instead of just giving the tags.

Real world Impacts: 10/10 Clearly explain why your impact matters more than your opponents, and do the weighing for me.

Cross Examination: 4/10 I will not pay much attention during cross, so if there are any important concessions made, point them out in your next speech.

Tech over truth: 6/10 I will care more about the manner in which the argument is presented, but I will not vote on anything that is blatantly untrue. It is your job to convince me why your opponents’ arguments are invalid.

Additionally, don’t run theory, as I do not have experience with it, and cannot evaluate what I don’t understand.

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

Be nice to each other. Don't go fast. Make extensions and weighing clear. If your argument doesn't flow through cleanly, I'm not going to do work for you. Quality of arguments > quantity. Frontline in second rebuttal.

Blueface references are +1 speaks. If you can fit an entire verse in one of your speeches, I'll probably give you a 30. Don't be abusive. I don't evaluate Theory or Kritiks.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.

Speaking skills/communications

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 have judged before. Please speak clearly and elaborate your main points.

I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.

I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )

On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.

P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.

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 parent judge

speak slowly

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.

I am a lay parent judge.

Please slow down and make you sure enunciate, and explain all your points thoroughly. English is not my first language so if you speak too quickly or use jargon, I will not be able to follow you clearly. In addition, please make your speeches as organized as possible to make it easier to judge.

I award speaker points based off of how well you speak, but I vote according to how well I think the arguments are made and responded to. Evidence is important, but I often also prefer logic.

I am not by any means a flow judge. I don't even really know what a paradigm is (my daughter wrote this for me).

Best of luck to both teams!

I am a parent lay judge. I will try my best to understand and analyze specifics of the arguments that you make, but at the end of the day, I am not a super experienced flow judge that can follow each and every nuance, warrant, card, etc. When debating, please talk slowly and clearly and make logical, BIG-PICTURE arguments that are easily followable. If you are running an argument that doesn't logically make much sense and probably isn't true in the real world, I am much less inclined to vote for you.

The case and rebuttal are very important for me, as these lay the groundwork for the entire round and good rebuttals/cases allow me to follow your argumentation much more easily. In each of your speeches, do not get too bogged down in responding to small specifics – again, BIG PICTURE analysis/reasoning convinces me a lot more than repeating unwarranted statistics and cards.

In crossfire, be assertive, not rude. If you are obnoxious and overly aggressive, it will hurt your chances at my ballot.

I don't time; it's up to you to check your opponents' time.

Besides for this, please have a good time while debating; debate is supposed to be a good-spirited educational activity where both sides learn, please treat it as such.