I am a brand, new judge. I have not judged a tournament before, but will likely judge IE. Delivery will be my main judging criterion.

I competed for four years in speech and debate (Congress) in high school and two years in Parliamentary debate in college.

I am a flow judge - I make my decisions based not only on who is best able to answer the opponent's points but also who is able to effectively weigh arguments. I can handle speed, but I believe spreading outside of Policy is not a good tactic. It is more important to me that you effectively crystalize arguments and address the big picture rather than getting lost in the weeds.

I really enjoy theory, but not for its own sake. You'll need to convince me it's relevant to the discussion.

Civility is extremely important to me - rudeness profoundly goes against the spirit of debate, so please be respectful to each other.

Other than that, have fun, and may the best debater win!

I am a new parent judge.

This is my first time judging Individual Events.

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

I am a parent judge. No preferences

2019-20 will be my third year judging LD. I debated policy debate in HS so I judge based on the flow and speed within reason is ok. Clash is important to me, so make sure to respond to an opponent's case as well as making and defending your own. Be polite and courteous to everyone at all times especially cross X. Rudeness will cause a drop in speaker points and possibly loss of the round in extreme cases.

I competed in LD for Brophy College Prep (AZ) for four years on both the local and national circuit and graduated in 2015. I now coach parli at Prospect High School and am on the parli team at Santa Clara.

Abridged version
I will view the round in terms of an offense/defense paradigm unless persuaded to do otherwise. Obviously, you need offense to win, but I think good defense can do a lot to mitigate mediocre or shoddy offense. Speed is fine as long as you’re not using it to exclude your opponent. I am open to almost any type of argument (although not all arguments are created equal). Please just provide some type of weighing mechanism. I won’t automatically vote on something that’s dropped if you can’t explain why it matters. I will try my best to be objective and not intervene, but I admit I am not a debate judging robot, and like all judges, I have opinions and biases. 

Debate is a game, but it also has great educational value, and I really dislike when debaters try to obfuscate the round/trick their opponents/avoid actual clash because I feel that this undermines the potential for interesting, intelligent discussion. I like it when debaters are courteous, logical and reasonable.

Also, please don’t shake my hand.

Here’s some more on my specific preferences/biases.

Extensions: Extensions should have a claim, warrant and impact. Please signpost clearly so I don’t miss your argument.

Theory/T: Both are fine, for strategy and for checking abuse. I’ll be sympathetic to reasonable responses against blatantly frivolous theory. I’d prefer theory be in shell form, but paragraph theory is okay as long as it’s clear. I default to reasonability and drop the argument, but can easily be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks: Are fine. However, I’ll hold you to a higher standard of proof on the link story if your K seems canned. It’s one thing to write a K before the tournament and use your prep time coming up with specific links to the topic, and it’s another to just run the same generic cap bad links every round. If your links are generic, I’ll be more accepting of generic responses to them.

Points of Order: Not a huge fan. If there’s an argument that’s actually new, fine, but I flow quite well and it’s highly unlikely that I will not notice a new argument, in which case I’ll disregard it anyway and your opponents will be wasting their time. More often than not points of order just sound like whining.

Presumption: I will vote on any offense I can or anything remotely resembling offense. If the round is actually irresolvable I will flip a coin.

Presentation: I’m kind of old school. This doesn’t mean I want you to act like you’re giving an oratory or thank everyone profusely at the beginning of every speech. I’m fine with speed but still project, be clear, and at least make occasional eye contact because debate is still about convincing actual people to vote for you. I won’t vote on presentation but it may affect your speaks, or at least my subconscious impression of you. FDR stood when he spoke.

Things I will not vote on: NFL/NSDA rules, arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, claustrophobic, arachnophobic, and/or objectively repugnant (e.g. impact turns to genocide, “Nickelback good”), opening quotes

Things that will hurt your speaks (and make me sad, and possibly make me look for ways to drop you)

1. Using speed to exclude your opponent
2. Being rude in CX (or at any point)
3. Calling your opponent’s arguments “stupid,” “dumb,” “terrible” etc.
4. Using a lot of complicated jargon that your opponent clearly doesn’t understand and refusing to clarify your arguments to them
5. Saying things that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
6. Using tricks to beat an inexperienced debater
7. Arguing with me after the round

Other random things I like that may help your speaks

1. Coming up with clever responses to surprising or confusing positions on your feet
2. An overview at the start of the PMR/LOR that clearly tells me how to evaluate the round
3. Good weighing
4. Effective, well-timed uses of humor and/or puns
5. Explaining complex philosophy in a way anyone could understand
6. Running Kant properly
7. Asking strategic POIs

Good luck, have fun. Please ask before the round if you have any more specific questions. And please don’t shake my hand.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

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

I judge on:

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

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

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

About Me::

-I have been in forensics for 6+ years

-I've debated in college, most of my experience is in NPDA Parli and IPDA (International Public Debate). I've probably done every speech event that's been available for me to do, competing in Interp and platforms all throughout high school (college too, though more platform at this level)

-I was a speech/interp coach for two and a half years at Mountain House High School.

-I'm currently a double major in Economics and International Relations at the University of California, Davis.

Overview::

-I'm familiar with jargon, theory, as well as "K's" in debate (I DO NOT LIKE KRITIQUES)

-I look for a story when it comes to interp, I can't stand it when I'm only getting glimpses of a scene that doesn't make sense.

-I'm fine with speed in debate, but keep it reasonable or I'm going to miss something.

-Make sure platforms have a cohesive pace, engagement is through your tone; if you're bored I'm bored.

-I try my best to flow the whole debate, that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. I protect the flow the best I can (call point of orders if you like just in case).

When Judging::

Speech~

-I see the story as everything, if there's no story there's no point (this goes for both interps and platforms)

-Character, blocking, and articulation is most important in any speech. If you're lacking in one of these three it'll be really hard for me to rank you high in the round.

-Please let there be a clear indication that you've switched into your intro. Otherwise, I get confused when the piece and the intro blend. Your intro should explain your message, if you're not giving me that, then you've wasted this one glimpse I get at the whole point of your piece.

-Please stay positive to your round mates, you're all there for the same reason. Don't stonewall and pay attention, I feel as if it's a lame tactic that does nothing but make you look like a jerk. I count this towards speaker points (if applicable).

Debate~

-I enjoy good clash in the round, go into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). This means link refutations and impact comparisons/weighing.

-Make your case, arguments need to have a point. Useless arguments that you just say and don't come back to, makes me question why it was said.

-Organization is key; please signpost, roadmap, whatever needs to be done to tell me where you are putting your arguments. Tell me where you want me to vote on the flow.

-Impact analysis is essential to all debates, impact statements without analysis are not impacting, it's reiterating the argument, if you are going to tell me why it matters, make it matter!

-Tell me why you are winning, give me voters in your rebuttal. At the end of the day, whatever is on my flow is what you have going for you. So you have to show me why you won. I will not do the work for you, if you don't carry the arguments over, I won't carry it over.

-Theory, if done well, is something I see as useful. It's your check against your opponents to prevent shifting or other unfair actions. That being said, I don't mind that you use it to collapse and win, or even for strategy (but don't be shady about it!). Theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interpretation level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (am I rejecting the argument or the team?) and why is it more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate).

* The framework I default to is Net Benefits...

-K's are not my thing. I never liked them, so doing one in front of me is probably not a good idea. The literature in them is often so individualized that I can't keep up a lot of the time with the point you're trying to make. I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard and for that reason, I don't see it as a smart argument to be made.

Overall::

-The point of forensics is to create experiences that could be used outside of rounds.

-Be courteous, respectful, and inclusive to everybody you interact with

-Go nuts and have fun doing it :)

An avid debater - both extempore and prepared during my younger days.

Winner of the Inter Collegiate debates during my engineering and business school day.

This is my first formal year of judging both speech and debate events and I love providing constructive feedback to all participants that can help them with their future rounds.

Interest in wide ranging topics including technology, psychology, politics and current affairs, sports, cinema and visual arts ... Avid sportsperson and an enthusiast, Coach and Mentor for Robotics and Odyssey of the Mind teams !!

Paradigm for Speech Events:

I value the following aspects during judging:

- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.

- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments

- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.

I do take notes, as detailed as possible.

Paradigm for Debate Events:

This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.

Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.

A few things:

- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)

- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)

- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg

- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)

As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)

Speak clearly, SLOWLY and to the point. Make sure to clearly explain your arguments and support them with credible evidence. In rebuttals, clearly reference the argument you are refuting, and be sure to give a quick overview, or off-time road map, before your speech for clarity.

I am a lay, parent judge.

For debate, do not do technical debate (Theory is only accepted if the opposition is being very abusive). I would like clear and coherent arguments, and I would like clash, as that is what debate is for. When you make your arguments, I want you to walk me through the argument and make sure I understand. Keep speed to an understandable level. You have a 10 second grace period to finish your speech, but do your best to stay within time.

For Speech judging, I judge simply and on the performance, and speaking ability. The Rule for timing is a 30 second grace period and I will enforce that. However, it is best to stay within the time, as the tournament needs to keep going, and many people tend to be double entered.

Been judging both debate (mainly Parli) and speeches (mainly IE) since 2013.

I look for clarity and choice of words. Try to speak slowly with pauses, I know you trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time.

I'm not big on fact-checking, I trust that you have done your research well.

Thanks for checking my paradigm if you happened to check.

Firstly and importantly disclosed, I am an immigrant (moving to US only after 30) and English is not my first language. Please consider it and set your tactic right for ESL (English as a Second Language) as a judge, if you're a debater.

Please listen carefully what opponent says and please construct your turn more relevant to what other says, rather than only speaking what you 've prepared or repeating what you've already told.

Please refrain from just insisting or repeating lots of evidences as to support your claim, as they won't mostly buy me, cause I can't verify them whether they are true or not while I am listening to your debate. Right ?

I hope you will use more common sense than sci-fi articles, researches, newspapers, which requires lots of pre-knowledge. I won't even remember what you said after the debate. Right ?

To me, the debate is not whose claim is right or wrong, but whose appeal is more compelling to vote for.

You will earn my vote by the way you speak, listen, or gestures, and how you invalidate others claim or support your points well ...etc
(balance of all) and your consideration to ESL as a judge.

This is my first year judging debate. I judged a couple times on debate but only for novice debaters.

You can run anything during your debate but you will have to have good analysis. If I do not understand the argument, then it means that the argument will not be taken into consideration.

I prefer that you speak at a understandable rate, but not too fast.

Hello my name is Dhruv Mandal, and I'm a senior at UC Berkeley. I have participated in Model United Nations both as a delegate and as a chair for the past eight years. I am familiar with the principles of speech and debate, and what I am looking for in good debater is effective argumentation, decorum and diplomacy with fellow competitors, and thought-provoking conclusions.

I am a lay judge with 1 year of debate and speech judging experience.

Personally, I have no speech or debate experience.

I am not skilled in the technicalities of the various speech/debate events. I judge based on my perception of overall performance.

I take notes during the event.

I prefer speech events.

I like to hear all arguments in the debate.

I usually take notes to provide feedback on performance.

Good luck!

I don't want you to judge me, so no paradigm. Sorry! :)

I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: hitesh_rastogi@hotmail.com These are my preferences:

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.

In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.

Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Enjoy yourself

I'm an assistant coach at The Harker School where I coach primarily Speech and Congress. I have been a head coach of a full service high school program, currently I'm a law student and mom. I did Policy in high school and college. If you've got specific questions for me that this paradigm doesn't cover, I'm happy to answer any and all of them before the round.

POLICY:

Counterplans- Do your thing with counterplans. So long as there's a net benefit they're all fine with me. I do prefer creative/specific counterplans to generic ones, but I would rather see a well-developed generic CP debate than a shallow but aff-specific CP debate.

Disads- Be up-to-date on your uniqueness. If you're going to go for just a disad in the 2nr, make sure you win at least some case defense as well. I will vote for that kind of a 2nr.

Kritiks- I love a good K (and by "good" I mean well-explained and well-debated). Explain your alternative. I am least familiar with postmodern criticisms, so those may require a little more explanation in front of me, that being said I am comfortable judging those debates.

K-Affs- I love these a lot. Please run them in front of me. I'm open to whatever you want to run here. As far as the plan text/advocacy statement issue goes, I have no opinion. You want to run an aff without a text, go for it, I'll vote for it.

Performance- Same as K affs. Just please run it well. Affirmative or Negative, perform your heart out. Please don't be abrasive in these debates, I've seen too many performance debates go bad, I don't care to see any more. There's nothing better than a good performance debate, and there's nothing worse than a bad performance debate.

Theory/T- I don't love to vote on these, but I'll vote the way you tell me to vote. That said, in order for me to vote for theory and T, you need to win in-round abuse or that potential abuse is the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to debate.

Framework

Negative - I really enjoy K affs and identity affs and I generally think that they belong in debate (or at the very least they have a positive impact on debate) so framework may be uphill battle in front of me. However feel free to read it in front of me because despite my love for weird affs, I definitely see the strategic benefit of framework and I do think that it is a key part of neg ground.

Affirmative - I am generally more persuaded by "weigh the aff" interps as opposed to "the squo or competitive policy option" interps. I think that the K belongs in debate. It will be very hard to get me to vote for framework against a K, but that's not to say that I won't vote for it if you win it. I think that your time is better spent substantively answering the K.

Speaker Points Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following, unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

Pet Peeves

1) starting off full speed. Unless I have judged you before, start off at around 70-80% then work your way up to however fast you want to go.

2) Being rude to your opponent. Be aggressive, be assertive, just don't be offensive or demeaning.

3) Don't argue with my decision, I'm not going to change my mind. That said, ask all the questions you want, I'm more than happy to answer them.

4) "Extinction" is not a tag.

Some other stuff

I'm fine with speed.

Impact comparison is important. "Two ships that passed in the dark" debates are extremely frustrating; good impact comparison is a way to avoid that.

I listen to cross-x, but I don't generally flow it as closely as I flow a speech, so if you want to bring up something from cross-x, reference it specifically.

I prefer excellent debating over excellent evidence; I think that cards should be used to back up an argument, not as a replacement for one. On a similar note, I'm not a fan of card-dumps, but I understand their utility.

I really dislike calling for cards, so I probably won't.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in person or email me at hannahsodekirk@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.

Arguments

Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.

I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.

I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.

Other

Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.

You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.

I am a parent judge and so I am not professionally trained. However, I have been judging since last few years (mainly judging LD these days).

I care about technical aspects of debate and expect you to follow those (such as, if there are specific tournament policies/expectations then you must be aware of and follow those). Beyond that I am very open minded and look for your passion when you present your case and do rebuttal.

I like debater who understands that there is line between "being assertive" and "being aggressive". Show sportsmanship.

Your speed - I would prefer if you present your case with normal speed as that will help me understand it better but I am fine if you prefer to go fast. That would not go against you. I normally read your case.

I assess overall proceedings but rebuttal is very critical to me - try to respond to all the objections/questions of your opponents but more important is how and what you respond with - in terms of data points, justification, impact and, through that, how you strengthen your case/argument. During CX, I like to see how to find loopholes in opponents case/argument and how you build trap.

To me - it's not that big point if you come across dominating (through your speaking style/tone/body language or speed etc). That's an advantage but not everything. I give more weightage to things such as, how structured and logical you are in handling conflicts, building traps, etc and strengthening your case.

Please email me your case and the documents at raj_may6@yahoo.com

I am a lay parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace. I have been judging for about 6 years.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for one year.

I have only judged for PF.

Please go slow, enunciate, and speak loudly.

I do not judge often so please keep debate jargon to the minimum.

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

No spreading. I do take notes and flow your arguments, please speak at a speed with which I can do so.

I do not support plan-plus-counterplan strategy.

Be very fastidious with your arguments when using PIC.

I pay attention to Point of Order in rebuttals.

I am familiar with Kritik, Theory, and Topicality.

Please be courteous with one another.

I expect the debaters to time themselves.

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging.

Roadmaps and signposting are very helpful so I can have an understanding of where you are going with the speech.

Speak at a moderate pace. Define important terms when it comes to the debate resolution; don't assume I will understand what something is. Clearly state your case and provide sufficient evidence and logic.

Be nice to each other during the debate; do not be rude. Do not interrupt when the opposing team is speaking unless it is for a valid reason.

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

Preference:

- no spreading

- logics

I am a new parent judge. I am not very experienced at judging policy debate and I would prefer that you speak slow enough for me to understand.