FAQ and Pet Peeves:

You can call me Judge or Ms. Adint.

I have about 2 years of judging experience thanks to my child having been into speech and debate just like you.

Please don’t shake my hand. "Hello, judge", will do to greet me.

On the big question of framework, I vote either way often.

All arguments are winnable, just provide me ample evidences with logical countering.

politeness is a plus.

Speed is good.

Overview:

I value reliable evidences and authenticity of each debater’s argument. I am open to any kind of strategy that will help you win, but round voice will not change my vote. Countering is the beauty of debate, so please counter your opponent with evidences and critical thinking skills. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the argument in the round. I want debaters speak their mind the way they see fit.

Parent lay judge

I debated parli for 2.5 years at Irvine Valley and had intermittent experience in BP and IPDA during that time. 

As of this semester I coach Campolindo HS's parli team and am a member of UC Berkeley's parli team, although my schedule rarely allows me to compete for Cal. 

I have judged policy, parli, ld, public forum, congress, BP, and a plethora of IE's, and privately tutored speech students.

Overall:

I will not protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless it is clear--after a few pts of order--that the speaker is trying to be sneaky. I expect that if your opponent asks for a text of the plan/cp/alt/perm(s), it will be provided. I can flow speed to a reasonable extent, but will dock speaks/not be able to evaluate your arguments if you are so fast that you're unclear. Please answer at least one question per speech if asked. Tag-teaming is fine.

Case debate:

AFF--Please make warranted and impacted arguments. I don't like voting on any remotely slippery scenarios and very much enjoy interrogative link debate. I am not keen on intrinsic permutations, otherwise perms are fine as tests of competition. I am also fine with unconventional affs so long as I am given a clear way to evaluate your performance and the other team is given a clear way to engage the aff/compete for the ballot. I will not vote on an RVI.

NEG--I believe theory precedes all other arguments in the round and will vote on it with a proven violation. I do not need articualated abuse to vote on theory. I am fine with DAs and CPs (including PICs). I do not like politics DAs because the links are usually awful. 

Trichot:

Please always debate policy. 

K:

I am fine with k affs and neg k's. I am not a k debater myself but will vote on one. However, I have a very high threshold for buying the efficacy of the alternative, and I view k debates as a comparison between the alternative and the plan. Please try to include specific links

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round! Best of luck! 

I am a lay judge, and have been judging for over three years. Although I am aware and cognizant of the framework debate, the technicalities of it are not as important to me as the clarity of your argument and speaking. Please make sure to be polite to your opponent (being rude or abusive does affect your speaker points), signpost clearly, and speak at a reasonable pace (NO spreading or circuit debate please!).

I have been judging LD for 3 years. Not many rules:

1. I appreciate a good clash but don't be rude. I will deduct points for rudeness to your opponents.

2. Don't spread. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

3. Signpost & Crystallize. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention and try and crystallize.

4. Don't make up spurious facts. If your opponent catches you and points that out ~ that is automatic deductions.

Apart from that, enjoy yourself.

No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

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

Speed.

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

debbanerjee@gmail.com

Judging Style.

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

Good luck and have fun debating!

I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.

Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.

If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.

In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).

I am a parent judge. According to my son, I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and explain arguments clearly. I am not a "technical" judge; I will vote for whatever is convincing, not whatever is technically "won" in the debate round.

I will try my best to take notes, but crystallization, clarity, and elaboration will win you my vote.

Parent Judge - 2nd year of experience

Important Information

1. Professional Behavior (Eye contact, don’t smoke or chew gum)

2. Clear and Slow speaking

3. Evidence Quality and Comparison

4. Stick to policy/Larp. I probably won’t understand extremely obscure arguments.

I am a lay parent judge.

I prefer debaters who speak clearly and are confident in their arguments.

Avoid speaking too fast.

Be courteous to your opponent.

Please try not to run theory, Ks, Phil, or any other circuit arguments. I will not be able to understand them.

I am an experienced judge who has been judging on and off since 2015.

1. What is my preferred rate of delivery?

   Rapid Conversational Speed

2. How important is the criterion in making my decision?

   It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

3. Rebuttals and Crystallization

   I prefer voting issues being given as the student moves down the flow.

4. How do I decide the winner of the round?

   I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

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

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.

This is my fourth year as a parent judge for debate at Notre Dame High School. I value simple and unique evidence, charismatic and not overly aggressive speaking, and thoroughly explained points. The debater who explains and defends two contentions is stronger than one who lets one of their five contentions drop.

I will rarely judge in favor of fast debaters, and never to those who spread. If you go way over my threshold for speed, I might point it out to you right after your speech.

Debate jargon must be explained unless it’s the usual contention/flow/rebuttal/cross-ex lingo.

I do take notes during cross-ex time, but make sure you reference those points in your next rebuttal.

As for speaker points, I award highly to speakers who are confident, but deduct for overly aggressive. An easy way to lose speaker points is to yell at your opponent.

Good luck!

I prefer slow and clear speaking in debate -- If I can't understand what you're saying, I might miss a key point in your argument, so please enunciate and emphasize the points you want me to take away! I believe that all of the techniques related to speech (vocal inflection, facial expression, and emotion) are a fundamental part of debate and should be utilized. Be assertive but still respectful of your opponents! And have fun!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I am a LAY JUDGE. I have been judging Public Forum and Lincoln - Douglas for the past two years. You will need to speak slowly for me to understand your arguments. Signpost and weigh your arguments clearly. I expect you to know your speech times and keep track of them yourself. Please do not use unnecessary jargon, this means no Kritiks, Theory, or Topicality. If you believe there has been a rule violation, please bring it up after the round while your opponent is still present. Do not be aggressive or rude, otherwise it will hurt your speaks. No shouting or raising your voice, emphasizing words and phrases is fine. Please be civil.

kuhukg@gmail.com

I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.

I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:

I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.

I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.

My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.

I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.

Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.

That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

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 judge and I like clear and well constructed arguments. I have not judged circuit debates which include theory and kritiks so do not run these. Extend your arguments and explain why you win the debate under the framework. I’m looking for coherent arguments with strong warrants and stronger impacts. Sources for evidence need to be credible for an argument to have value. For presentation, make me feel interested in what you have to say. Use vocal variation, pauses, and eye contact to show that you are talking about your most valuable points. Lastly, it is important to show respect for your opponent and use assertive ways to prove your point.

Abhijain1175@gmail.com

My paradigm as a public forum debate judge is based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity: I value debaters who are able to articulate their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I expect debaters to explain their arguments thoroughly and avoid overly complex language or jargon.

2. Evidence: I value debaters who use relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented and consider how well it supports the argument being made.

3. Clash: I value debaters who engage in substantive back-and-forth argumentation with their opponents. I will evaluate the quality and depth of the debaters' responses to the arguments presented by the other team.

4. Persuasiveness: Ultimately, I will decide which team has persuaded me that their arguments are the most compelling. I will evaluate how well debaters have made their case and used evidence to support their position.

5. Rules: I expect debaters to comply with the rules of the debate, including time limits, cross-examination rules, and other procedures. I may deduct points or disqualify a team for violations of the rules.

6. Decorum: I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the debate. I may deduct points for disrespectful or uncivil behavior.

I will use these criteria to evaluate the arguments presented by each team and make a decision on which team has won the debate. I encourage debaters to ask questions before or after the debate if they have any concerns about my paradigm or the criteria I will be using to judge the debate.

Traditional flow judge. No spreading. Keep it slow please. I like substantive debates.

I have judged Lincoln Douglas Debate for a few years now. I am a lay judge, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:

1. Please don't say or do anything that is offensive

2. I like a great Cross-Examination

3. Having good evidence comparison is really good

4. dont cross examine for the sake of examination, have some depth to it

5. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

6. Most importantly, I cant process your arguments at the speed of light, so please please speak slowly

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

no spreading

be polite to one another

have fun and make solid arguments

I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.

Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,

I've debated before (LD, policy, Public Forum) so dont worry about holding back. I do care if you are disrespectful to your opponent. I am quite familiar with the topic. I graduated from UC Davis with a medical microbiology degree and have done clinical research. All contentions and CX questions that are answered with valid evidence and reasoning are encouraged and  should be an easy round to win. 

kevinli35@berkeley.edu

Hi I’m Kevin! I debated LD for Stuyvesant High School from 2014-2018. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I was coached by Paul Zhou, Ananth Panchanadam, and Dino De La O.

Conflicts: Stuyvesant, Mission San Jose, William Enloe AC, Poly Prep DB, Bergen County Academies MS, Westlake AL

*pleaseplease try not to have a full out larp debate in front of me-- I'm not gonna be great at judging it. If that's what you do it's fine, but I don't feel super confident at resolving those debates when they are close.

*Note for more traditional debaters: do your thing, just wanna make a note that I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better, and will vote for them if you win them.

To give a little context, as a debater I read a lot of nonT/K/Performance Asian American affs, Wilderson, Weheliye, Barber, and T/theory. I was probably least familiar with phil debate.

Tech > Truth. I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.) The most important thing is impacting and explicit implication work. Especially if the content is something I'm less familiar with, I will be pretty dependent on you doing the work to tell me what I should do with what argument.

If you need me to make note of something that was said or conceded in CX please explicitly get my attention even if it looks like I'm listening because I space out a lot.

If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

Defaults (these 100% change when arguments are made in the round):

Truth Testing

C/I

DTA

No RVIs

If I need to presume and no argument has been made either way I will do a fancy coin flip

Literally anything is fine as long as whatever you extend has a claim warrant and impact

Have fun and read arguments that are important and interesting to you!

Speaks Boosts:

Creative Strategy

Making debate fun and enjoyable

Being really knowledgeable about your content

High Uber Ratings

30s are for pleasant and wholesome surprises

These are my views on debate as of now. If you wholly disagree with my paradigm I am open to criticism and I'd be willing to have a conversation about how I should change it.

I have enjoyed serving as a judge for middle school/high school debates. On one side, I am looking for a presentation with clear contention, consistent logic and concrete supporting materials. On the other hand, debate is full of dynamical interactions between players, I pay a lot of attention to approaches of responding and countering the other side.

I only have judged novice round and lay rounds before so I prefer you to talk slower and construct and explain your arguments well. 

Please don't run any extremely complicated arguments or any arguments that are too "out there"

During your last speech, give clear reasons why you won and why I should vote for you.

Judge based on facts, logic reasoning, protocol compliance, presentation, professionalism, etiquette but not on preconception.

I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.

Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com

I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.

Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.

Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.

Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!

I am a college student that has judged 11 rounds of Policy Debate.

I like well-researched affs, that can show they have some link to the resolution.

I tend to vote against negs that have nothing to do with the aff.

I have a few years of judging debate, mostly congress however. I am most familiar with Congress and Parlimentary debate, and have no experience in CX,PF, or LD. I am unfamiliar with theory arguments, kritiks, and other non-traditional debating, so either explain it extremely well or don’t run them at all. I do not understanding spreading so I will lower your speaker points if it is unclear to me. I consider myself as a half-flow judge and more lay than flow. I will try to get down your arguments and taglines but I can’t always write down everything you say such as all evidence and impacts/warrants. Make sure to explain clearly the warrant link chains and the impacts. I enjoy someone that speaks well and clearly which helps me try to make the best descision.

I am looking for clear and concise arguments, including sign-posting. Please tell me where you are on the flow when attacking your opponent's case or for defending your case. I will judge based on the organizations of your speeches, voter issues, and I will vote for the better speaker.

Creative Construction (Start / End )

Stay within Context even while Cross Ex.

Exhibit Confidence

Logical Flow

Right Intentions

Content over Speed

Quality over Quantity

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging PF tournaments after a break.

Speak clearly and please try not to spread.

Good luck

I am a parent judge. I donot perfer spreading.

I will be looking for the critical, relevant arguments more than a lot of content or several less relevant arguments or evidence.

Please share your case with yamini.polisetty@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

I listen with attention to detail, but I prefer to vote off of a stronger analysis of multiple points than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions in the backdrop of good debating skills, presentation skills and respectful arguments.

Having done judging LD in multiple tournaments, I appreciate great presentations skills and not introducing new arguments in the last round of Aff. Good presentation skills mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Thoughtful analysis of core issues and good debate is more important. Stay core to the topic and appreciate good debating is my philosophy.

I am a lay judge. - Judged only a few tournament

please dont spread I like to follow the flow

Keep your own timer

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Analytics with logical reasoning - flow of links

Behavioral - opposing reasoning with decent representation

Uniqueness - comparison to others

I am a lay/parent judge. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability. I am not comfortable with spreading. I prefer you speak at a moderate speed and clearly so that I can understand your argument. Please do not run any K's, theories, or topicalities. Structure your arguments practically and logically. I judge rounds based on the logic of the argument and the evidence used to support it. I focus mostly on the cross ex between the two debaters when it comes to judging, so make sure to ask good questions and clash well.

Good Luck!

-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD

-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy

-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred

-I love literature as I am an author myself

-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along

-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others

-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents

-I try my best to flow speeches

-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/

-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.

Happy Debating !

-

I have judged 3 or 4 tournaments during the past couple of years, but I am what might be described as a lay Judge.

I really appreciate contestants who speak clearly and articulate their positions well. Speaking overly fast will make it difficult to follow your point, a steady pace is best. I am okay with either short sentences or long contentions, as long as there is a broad consistency to your case - aff or neg.

I actively wipe my slate clean after each session and I enjoy seeing how good debaters can bring out the best points of both sides of contentious issues.

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Do's:

Speak at a moderate pace. Use a tight, strategic case delivered with elocution.

Listen carefully to your opponent.

Be very mindful of impact, including cost v. benefit.

Offer a framework that is narrow enough to be defensible, broad enough to have impact.

Use contentions that connect your philosophical framework to real examples and statistics.

Don'ts:

Don't sneer or shake your head at your opponent--stay poised and professional.

Don't make logical leaps, especially ones that distort your opponent's case or lead to ridiculous outcomes.

Don't debate "circuit" style: my opinion is that a firehose of words is both unnecessary and clutters up most cases.

Do NOT use the strawman technique, or misquote your opponent to present a distorted or weakened version of their case.

Don't spend too much time on weak or overly vague frameworks, such as "justice" or "morality." Whose justice? Whose morality?

My vote is guided by the ballot rules.

Maintain good decorum, always.

Don't forget to have fun!!

Lay judge, new to debate but know the basics of LD. I like off time road maps and prefer a moderate-to-slow speaking speed. I will award speaking points for logical and easily followable arguments. Also be nice to each other and do your part to make the experience enjoyable for both sides. I will take notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

I am a parent judge. Please go slow and be respectful.

Alfred Tadros:

Email Chain: al.tadros@sslmda.com

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Any speed far above average conversation is too fast and I'm sorry but I won't follow. Keep everything in simple terms. Signpost everything (and I mean everything), and don't just say "a card applies" in your second speeches, actually say what the card proves. No ghost arguments, bring up everything in every speech otherwise I'll lose it and it wont be weighed. If you don't weigh in your last speech, chances are I'll have no idea what to do and I'll just pick the better speaker. I like logic and substantiated claims. I expect you to know the speech times and to record prep for each other. No theory, no kritik, Some Framework is okay but make sure it is resolved in your last speech otherwise I'll have no idea which one to vote off of and probably just pick the one that sounds better. If you do theory or kritik, I'll likely not be able to follow.

I believe most of the value you derive from debate is just from competing. Thanks for showing up and best of luck!

Al

Don't spread. I'd prefer if you spoke slowly and clearly with logical arguments. 

I am a lay parent judge and have judged debates for two years. I prefer to see no spreading, civility in arguments, and clear and confident delivery.

I am a lay parent judge and have judged at multiple local tournaments. I prefer understandable argumentation, with clear crystallization, weighing, and connected logic. I also prefer clear speaking over spreading, as I do not have much experience in judging circuit debate. Please be polite to your opponent during your round, and don't forget that debate is a learning experience!

EXPERIENCE

- Judged for PF one year and ongoing LD judge for 4 years

- Yes, I flow and yes, I'm okay with speed but not so much spreading

PERFORMANCE

- Signpost for rebuttals otherwise I won't track it on my flow

- Substantiate your claims with logic and reasoning, not just throw a card at me with no explanation or analysis

- Do not spread or attempt to talk really fast if you cannot because I will flow what I hear, not what I think I hear

- Have clear links to impact and uniqueness is good

NOTES

- All feedback will go into the RFD not given after round unless elims

- Don't be rude or condescending to your opponents

I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.

Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!

Hi, I’m a lay parent judge.

Please explain yourself clearly and I won’t consider anything that I cannot understand.

Please be nice to each other for higher speaks and don’t speak too quickly (refer to above).

I like when you have enough evidence to support your argument.

I also like when debaters speak clearly and confidently.