Update: If you do everything you can to make the round go as quick as possible, I will increase your speaks (joining early if pairings go up early, not frivolously calling for cards or taking forever to produce them, etc.)

I'm Tejas, I debated a couple years at Del Norte

I STRONGLY prefer it if you frontline offense and whatever you're going for in second rebuttal

Defense is sticky for the first speaking team for whatever the second rebuttal doesn't frontline. However, if the second speaking team DOES frontline, defense is NOT sticky. However, even if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline turns, they need to be extended in the summary for them to generate offense.

If they are extended from rebuttal to final by the first speaking team, given that the second rebuttal did not frontline them, they will be evaluated as terminal defense.

I need full extensions in summary and final

Weigh as early in the round as possible, preferably starting in rebuttal

I'm fine with speed, but send a doc if you're spreading or if your opponents aren't comfortable with speed

Collapse in the back half please

For theory, K's, tricks, etc. I'll evaluate it, but I'm not the best judge for it, as I haven't debated it much myself, so tread with caution

I usually default competing interps and always yes RVIs unless told to do so otherwise

I default con for policy resolutions and first speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm tab

Be aggressive and interrupt as much as you want during cross I literally don't care at all

You can also do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

You don't need to add me to the email chain, I'll call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so

I'm pretty nice with speaks, I'll usually average at least a 29

I don’t call for evidence unless told to do so

If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s

Have fun

I've done Public Forum for two years, if that counts for anything.

I don't like spreading. No... not that I don't like it. I won't understand you and then I won't have anything to write on my flow. I would like you to speak in a way that is understandable, and that also involves explaining things. I believe (You don't have to. You can believe whatever you want, but if I can't understand you, then you're probably not going to win) Public Forum was made for debaters to explain concepts to lay judges (thus a Public Forum) and I'm not going to pretend I'm super knowledgeable about anything, so if all you're saying is overly complex and specific data, I may not know what to do with it. I'd rather you impact further and show just what that data details. You should be able to explain things to a lay judge that they need not do all the explaining for themselves.

(I do hope you win)

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

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose unless informed otherwise but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

Type of Judge

I am a type 8 judge (For any of you who recognize Doug Miller's list of judge types)

Flow Judge, so use all the debate rhetoric you want

I'm also really familiar with this topic so you don't have to explain your argument link chains as much in the back half of the round (YOU STILL HAVE TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENTS)

- I am fine with moderate speed, but not extreme spreading. If you spread to fast, I will stop flowing and just stare at you. Spreading too fast will be reflected in speaker points. Please look up at me from time to time to make sure I am ok with your speed and I understand.

- I will flow literally anything as long as it is topical, but I need to 'understand at least part of you link chain/warrants. I will vote off any of you/your opponents points, no matter how absurd, unless the points are clearly refuted and addressed.

- I will notice if you extend through ink, especially in final focus, and I certainly will not vote off of whatever you are saying. Don't think I won't notice.

- Cross doesn't really matter that much and I won't flow it. I will pay some attention to what you are saying though, so don't throw it away. If you/your opponents concede something critical in cross, mention it in your speech or it doesn't mean anything except speaker points. Please do not get out of hand, especially during grand cross, as it will be reflected in speaker points.

- Speaker points will be based off how clearly you speak, how well I can understand what you are saying, if it makes sense, your composure, eye contact and passion, and how you conduct yourself during cross. Make sure to stay calm and don't interrupt your opponent. I am ok with hand gestures, but don't go overboard.

- I will most likely vote off the standing impacts at the end of the round, so don't have secure but weak cases/responses.

- Absolutely NO mentioning any new points/cards after second summary. I will not consider these even if your opponent fails to point this time-skew out. I am fine with minimal new responses in second summary, but keep it short. You don't need to extend cards of specific impacts as long as you extend the general argument. If it isn't in summary, it doesn't exist.

- If both sides fail to gain any offense, and you have thoroughly destroyed each other's case, I will most likely vote neg on presumption, as the affirmation has failed to point out any flaws in the stat. quo. If you notice both teams have no offense, expect a neg ballot unless I am told otherwise.

- Please time yourself. If your opponents go overtime, don't make a big deal, just hold your timer up and I will notice. You have a 10 second grace period before I stop flowing and deduct speaker points.

- Please have your cards prepared. If you take longer than 30-40 seconds to get your card, I will consider it non existent. I will call for cards if you tell me too, or if I noticed there is a lot of controversy over a card. You can use wifi to use your links to cards, but nothing else

- I will not consider any theory, unless it is warranted in great detail, try to keep arguments topical

- Please stand during crossfire and sit during grand-cross.

- I am ok with off time roadmaps

- General guidelines:

If your opponent asks to see cards, do so after cross fire. At the end of the round, I may ask to see cards so be prepared.

I'm more of a flow judge, but please make sure to be clear and assertive during round. I am fine with fast speaking but clarity is more important to me.

Make sure you extend arguments throughout the round or I will not take them into account.

Make sure you signpost your arguments and extend your link chain.

Terminalize your impacts!!

Arguments need to be extended throughout both the summary and final focus or I will not evaluate them in the round -- this means no new arguments in the late speeches.

Weigh!! This needs to happen in the late speeches or else it makes it hard for me to vote on a team.

The main thing I like to see in rounds is structure. Use roadmapping (off-time is fine; don't go over 15 seconds though). When you address the other team's contentions, try to hit them in order, and tell me which points of theirs you're addressing (ex: 'In my opponent's first contention they said...') . If you would like to reiterate a point you have made, make sure to tell me where it came from (ex: 'In my partner's constructive speech under contention 1 we addressed the idea that...'). Try not to bounce back and forth between your arguments and your opponents'.

I do flow rounds, but I don't take notes during crossfire. If you make a point you want me to consider during crossfire, make sure to bring it up in your next speech (ex: 'During crossfire we responded to our opponents' second contention by saying...').

I've only ever done Public Forum and a bit of Parliamentary, so I don't have experience with spreading. Try to talk slowly so I can understand you and take everything you say into consideration. If I can't understand you, I won't be able to flow, so I might not get your point.

I like when teams bring up impacts in the Final Focus speeches and use their framework to weigh them. Impacts are generally more effective if they have something concrete attached ('we're saving lots of lives' versus 'we save 10 million lives'). Impacts are mainly how I decide who wins the round, so don't forget to mention them.

Good luck ;)

I participate in Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Impromptu speaking--so basically, a lot of speech-ing.

judging for speech is pretty standard; unlike debate, there's a rather clear universal criteria for everything when it comes to critiquing.

The one thing to be sure of is that when it does come to content, if you think your content is sensitive, please do give a trigger warning for the safety of others. Additionally, any racist, homophobic, xenophobic, discriminating content will work against you (unless you are quoting someone in history or interp), I don't tolerate that. If your speech is based around pushing for discrimination against any person, race, nationality, religion, gender or sexuality, I won't hesitate to put you last, even if you personally think otherwise.

Other than that, there's not much to really controversy in judging speech.

Happy speaking!

I'm a varsity debater and I've competed in Public Forum for a few years.

I'm looking for three things: structure, terminated impacts and an effective weighing mechanism.

Structure: Please don't jump all over the place in your other speeches. It's important to create a little clarity than a lot of confusion.

Terminated impacts: Quantify your impacts but make sure not to commit a slippery slope.

Effective weighing mechanism: At the end of the round, you want to weigh your impacts against the other team's. It's okay to leave some impacts for the other team, but make sure to take more for yourselves.

Please don't spread. Public Forum isn't about how much evidence you have but about linking it to the rest of your case with warrants and explanations.

I wish you all the best of luck.

"i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is"

- saikumar gantla

Carmel Valley/Canyon Crest '21; UCLA '25

Add me to the chain - syon.mansur@gmail.com

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

be nice to each other!

Tech > Truth

I'll vote on anything as long as its warranted (no racist/sexist/etc. args)

Any offense you go for should have a link and impact extended in both summary and final

Second rebuttal needs to answer all offense

Defense is sticky

You can kick out of turns by conceding defense in the speech after

Weigh/meta weigh

Speed is chill

I appreciate it when you send docs

Not super experienced with progressive argumentation but I'm comfortable voting on everything. Make sure to explain stuff well and flesh out your extensions.

i really hate when ppl make casual conversation like "how was ur day" during cross, especially grand cross. id rather you j take prep or skip it. also when people count "3 2 1" before giving their speech.

feel free to ask me about my own debate history! i love talking about myself :)

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

Specific to MSTOC '22

I have not been super involved in debate this year, meaning I've watched very few rounds and judged even fewer. I won't know much about the topic, especially early in the tournament-- make sure to explain well and explain acronyms/jargon. I also probably can't handle speed to the same level as before (though I doubt this will be an issue). Good luck and remember you're here to have fun!!

Conflicts: Carmel Valley, Canyon Crest, Pacific Trails, Del Mar Montessori

Hi! I'm currently a high school debater. I compete in both PF and LD, but I'm relatively familiar with all debate formats (yes, including big questions and world schools because who could forget those). Tbh I'm fine with anything, you can spread if you want but in my opinion it's better to speak clear with better word economy than fast and rambling. (especially if it's PF, just don't spread in PF there's no point).

If you wanna run a K, as long as it's not dumb then you'll probably be fine (also dumb alts will turn me off)

Here's some of my preferences

- if you don't sign-post, I might not write down what you say

- please please please tell me how many responses you have before you say them so my flow can stay pretty and organized

- also on organization just go line by line, starting on framework and going through the contentions in order. give me an offtime roadmap if you want but dont make it obnoxiously long

- don't underestimate the power of impact calculus. As a judge, it's super hard to make a decision if multiple arguments are still standing, and you don't know which is more important. Save weighing for the summary and final focus (for PF)

- if your question is longer than 10 seconds, it's probably too long

- while we're on the point of questioning, I'm not going to flow cross-ex so if you get a concession, reference it in a speech or I'm not gonna vote off it

- terminalize your impacts please! if you don't tell me what improving the economy will actually do then why would i vote for you?

- heres an important one. PLEASE DONT SAY YOUR OPPONENT'S DROPPED SOMETHING THEY DIDNT DROP. I WILL CATCH YOU. This is something that is super annoying to me as a debater, and tbh it won't help you much. you can say their responses were inadequate, but if they didn't drop it, dont try to make it seem like they did

- I am ONLY going to vote off things extended into the final focus, or whatever the last speech is in whatever event you're competing in. so extend things pls. If you're doing PF, then I understand if some arguments are dropped. also if you don't extend every single response in the final focus that's fine because it's 2 minutes, I understand

- have some fun! don't get overly aggressive because that's annoying and we debate because it's fun! (right?) everyone stutters, not every round will be your best. just chill a little bit ok?

please make the round entertaining, don’t be overly annoying or rude, explain everything thoroughly, I refuse to read a case doc, paraphrase good, disclosure bad, have fun.

dont let me get bored and make sure to smile :)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

TLDR: Extend and Weigh! Rounds that end in a timely manner will result in higher speaks for everyone.

Paradigm:

Please flip before the round and let me know what topic, side, and order right before the round starts. Preflow too. Don't take too long to find a card/evidence.

Tech > Truth

here is how I evaluate rounds:

- prefiat > framework > weighing > link/impact

- frameworks should have clear warranting as to why I should reject an alternative framework and the default CBA/util framing. Don't just assert it.

- Extend full arguments and weigh. If there is no extension, then I can't vote for the argument. I love extensions. please extend. extend please. extensions are important. Reexplain the argument like I am a close friend who does not do debate trying to understand what your argument is on a topic they have vague information on. Be decisive with your language. But make sure to be concise! (if you can’t tell extensions are really important)

- Don't extend through ink and warrant as much as you can + arguments extended in FF should have been in summary.

- In 2nd Rebuttal: just please frontline the argument you are collapsing on and respond to any relevant offense, including turns, DAs, case. no reason to reread your own case. i care more about extensions in summary and final so no need to reexplain anything other than responses to their responses in this speech. Extensions in 2nd rebuttal make no sense!

- Please do not be abusive with disads in 2nd rebuttal. I will be reluctant to vote on it if it is not well warranted or weighed or if it feels wonky. (tip: try to phrase it as a turn so I don't think about it too much). I'm not a fan of DAs in read in rebuttal in general so just make sure its fleshed out like a contention from case is.

- Concede arguments in the speech right after

- Summary needs to extend defense (make sure you respond to what they say against it)

- I would appreciate if you would skip grand cross and go straight to final (That being said I'd rather watch GCX than sit in silence so if you need prep, just do GCX, I won't give flex prep) (if in a panel, check with other judges)

- Please weigh.

- I won't evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF, unless no one else does weighing at all or the weighing debate just becomes confusing. I would recommend starting weighing early.

- Respond to your opponent's weighing in the speech right after they bring it up.

- When there are two competing claims/pieces of evidence that cannot be true at the same time brought up by two teams, do comparative weighing for me to evaluate which argument I should prefer.

- I like reasonably paced debates where debaters make use of rhetorical persuasion rather than fast debates. I prefer not using a speechdoc to flow. This means speak slower.

- I will only call for evidence if I believe it will impact my decision/not cleared up in the round (or if I am just interested).

- Important stuff in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it flowed.

- I don't flow cross so make your crossfires funny and entertaining to watch (be nice/respectful) or have a good in round strategy for 30 speaks.

- I don't really know much about Ks or theory (and other pre-fiat arguments), but I have had experience debating and judging those types of rounds. If you choose to run these arguments make sure to make it super simple for me to understand how I am supposed to vote. Make sure to read it because you believe in the actual argument, not because you want to win a debate round. I reserve the right to vote however I want when it comes to prefiat (and usually I am biased against most progressive arguments, so keep that in mind). I might just become a lay judge if I want to. I will say that im fine with teams reading theory in a paragraph form so you dont have to waste an entire speech on a full shell. just make sure that you still have the same parts that a shell may have.

- If there are no lines of offense for your opponents to win off of, feel free to call TKO. If there is no path to the ballot for your opponents left, I'll give you the win and 30 speaks. If there is, then you will lose the round.

- If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s.

- i'll become a lay judge if the round becomes boring.

- Give me food and magical things will happen.

I am a flow judge

you dont need to extend defense though summary as first speaking team unless it is responded to

everything that you want to extend has to be in summary

I'm not a parent

extend and weigh impacts or I will not vote for you

Kelly Wang
I'm a senior at Torrey Pines High School and I have debated varsity public forum for 4 years. Here are some of my judging preferences:

- No theory, please!

- I will not flow arguments in Final Focus that weren't brought up in Summary

- Make sure to extend all your arguments and link chains clearly and thoroughly throughout the round

- Please sign-post clearly

- Tech > Truth

- Please be sure to weigh, weigh, weigh!

- You can use debate jargon, but please don't overuse it

- I know nothing about this topic so treat me as a flay judge

- I'm fine with a little speed, but no spreading please

- I'm okay with off-time roadmaps

- I would prefer it if the Aff sits to my left and the Neg sits to my right (you can also ask me before the round starts)

- No new arguments or evidence after the second summary

- Please stand during crossfire and sit for grand crossfire

- I will not flow crossfire

- I don't mind a little aggro, but make sure to be respectful and polite :)

Make eye contact or I'll cry.

Weigh your impacts. Tell me why I should care.

I'll pretend I have no previous knowledge of the topic so any falsified evidence that is not contested will be weighed.

+0.5 speaker points every time you make a pun. (legit)

Speaker points will be rewarded to the people who roast their opps during cross (it makes judging fun)

If there's no impact to weigh on both sides I'll flip a coin. Heads for AFF tails for NEG.