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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLHF everybody! :)

I've been out of the game for some time, but I'm not an idiot.

LD:

Do what you do. I prefer arguments tied to the resolution though I'm not against listening to whatever. I think the 1AR ought to be treated as a 2AC. I give the 1AR leeway on extensions though I do believe you need to make what will be in the 2AR known in the 1AR. You need to bridge competing frameworks in the debate if they exist. On theory, I don't vote on potential abuse, you'd be smart to engage in strategy that proves actual in-round abuse. If you presume I can understand high level philosophy at ridiculous rates of speech, you might be faulty in your presumption. LD is a short debate. I'd prefer to hear fewer well developed arguments than several underdeveloped ones. Have a strategy on the neg beyond vomit on the wall and see what sticks.

PF:

Be nice to each other. You do need to extend arguments to be able to win them. Framework debate without warrants is a waste of your time. Collapse and weigh, but be sure you extend arguments (claim, warrant, impact) in the process. When you aren't speaking during your speech times, or asking questions in cross, you are prepping. If you don't have your evidence readily available for the opposing team to see and vice versa, you are prepping. All offense, strategy, and weighing you want me to consider in the final focus should be in the summary speech. I don't care what you do otherwise. If the first speaking team is aff and the neg simply wants to read offense against the aff in their first speech, have at it if the resolution suggests that's all you need to do. I don't necessarily believe that the 2nd speaking team has to answer all arguments against their case in the rebuttal, but I do think there are good reasons that can be made in the debate for why they should have to and good arguments to be made in the debate why that might be an unfair burden. Engage in those discussions if you feel that's important. Above all else...collapse and weigh. This event isn't about saying as much as possible. The best debaters in my eyes can say as little as possible, say it well, and win.

Evidence Standards - Paraphrasing is, by definition, expressing the same and complete meaning/ideas using different words. What it is not, is representing a whole range of meanings/ideas using less words. You simply cannot capture an entire article or section of an article in a sentence or two. A 4 minute case with 30+ citations is impossible without academic integrity issues. It means that a debater is not fully representing the evidence that it is claiming to. I've witnessed debaters say a sentence about an article and then hand the entire article to the opposing team (or to me when I call for evidence) and suggest "that" is what they read in the debate. I will not consider paraphrased evidence unless I am sure (and my flow is still decent, despite being old) that the entirety of what is being represented in the evidence is what was paraphrased in the round. The beauty of debate is that this type of paraphrasing simply isn't necessary. Just read the evidence. I can't judge a debate about arguments that aren't arguments using a flow. I highly suggest debaters reflect on this practice, and do better. If you are reading this paradigm and recognize that your opponents are engaging in the practices above, I would suggest you make this an issue in the debate. This does not have to happen via theory arguments as in other events. To me, its about evidence comparison. The same as weighing, comparative argumentation helps distinguish why some arguments are more important/better than others. In addition, numbers aren't arguments, they represent empirical claims. You should be able to substantiate those empirical claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---Other stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would prefer the debaters to talk at an appropriate speed.

Another thing I would appreciate asking for cards only when actually its needed, unnecessary demands about cards consume time and also breaks the debate rhythm.

Background Info

I work at VMware in R&D, and am a judge from Dougherty Valley. I have judged at a couple of tournaments with only 1 year of experience. I have only judged Public Forum rounds in the past, so Theory and K's are a foreign concept to me. I am still a parent judge, and have no debate experience in the past. I take the RFD and the ballots very seriously so I do follow along the entire debate. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes throughout on each side's arguments.

Speaker Points

I award speaker points based on confidence and clarity when speaking; teams that aren't loud enough or aren't confident about their arguments don't get awarded as many. I usually award 27's to the average speakers, 28 to the good, 29's to the speakers that were excellent, and 30's to the extraordinary. I will award lower speaker points for rude behavior/rude language(i.e. shouting).

Voting

At the end of the debate, I look to see which teams has defended their case better and also which team has refuted their opponents' case better. If I cannot hear you in the debate, I will signal to you to be clear, and if after a couple of times it doesn't seem to be working, I will just not be able to flow your speech. I do take notes throughout the debate, but again, I am not a flow judge.

Other

Clothing/Appearance: doesn't matter too much to me; it somewhat matters, but isn't a must and won't exactly influence my decision in the round.

Use of Evidence: Very important to me; if evidence isn't used, I will not consider the arguments stated.

Real World Impacts: Without stating impacts or giving me any, you aren't telling me what the effects of your side is. Weigh the affirmation world vs. negation world, and tell me what your side is providing that the other side isn't. Sometimes debates can boil down to impacts, so if I don't receive impacts, I will not be able to weigh your side. Stating impacts is extremely important for the debate.

Cross Examination: I find crossfires in the debate one of the most impactful periods of time in the debate. If I find that one team is dominating the crossfire, that will be heavily considered when looking at who to vote for in the round.

Arguments: I prefer truthful arguments as well as debating skills. Having weak arguments will be negative in the round as will not having good cross-examination skills and refutations. Please don't speak too fast in your speeches as I will not be able to take note of your arguments.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

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

I've beeen the Debate Director for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years. I competed in debate for all 4 years of high school, where I mostly participated in Lincoln-Douglas. I also debated Parli in college on the NPDA circuit.

I'm okay with basically every form of progressive argumentation provided it is run well. While I prefer topical interpretations, I really enjoy it when those interpretations branch out into the critical and theory levels of the debate. My threshold for theory debate in relatively high; in that there needs to be an actual tangible impact on the round, not just whining about hypothetical potentials for abuse. I'm unlikely to vote on Parli RVIs unless they go completely dropped.  Be creative, have fun, run good analysis, but don't assume that I make connections for you. 

Finally, I have a form of progressive hearing loss which means that, while I generally don't have a problem with the volume debate rounds are conducted at, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to prosses debate when the pace is much faster than conversational. I don't like to force debaters hands in terms of presentation or strategy, but it is crucial for me to be able to understand what you are saying. 

PARADIGM WRITTEN BY SON:

I am a (f)lay judge and have been judging for 4 years, please go slow and articulate well but that doesn't mean ignore the flow. No theory or K's. I am truth>tech. I approach the round without my biases but won't vote off very farfetched/squirrely args even if they are conceded. I probably won't vote for you because of a turn/DA either. UNLESS THEY ARE VERY EXPLICITLY WON AND WEIGHED AND COLLAPSED ON. I vote off impacts, weighing doesn't matter to me if you don't win the link. Be respectful in cross, speaking style dictates speaker points.

Debated VPF for 4 years (but haven't been involved in debate since 2015). Will vote off the flow but don't spread or get too fancy- If I can't follow/understand odds are you will lose. I'm only writing this because I was told to, if you want more detailed paradigm ask before round.

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

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

I debated at the high school level, most of the time in open policy events. They ranged from circuit to league. I have judged before but I am rusty because it has been a while since I have been at it.

Therefore, in regards to spreading and flow, I will do my best to hear what you are saying. Try to slow down at the tag lines and watch for reactions or if I do not write anything down. Basically, slow down if you want me to flow your evidence. For analytical, I will not write it down unless I think its an important part of the case or if I need it to help piece things together.

I tend to not like theory arguments and the same goes for K's. Most of my debate career was traditional.

I like off time roadmaps as they help organize, as well as clearly stating when you are moving onto a different point.

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

LIVE LIFE!

Be concise.

hello! i am a first-year at uc berkeley and i debated for mitty high school. throughout high school, i was most competitive in public forum debate, but i also did congressional debate as well as speech events like original advocacy and duo interp.

public forum debate:

- tech over truth (i try my best)!

- i vote for the team with the most offense at the end of the round by granting each team some (if any) offense for each offensive argument presented and taking into account the efficacy of the defense put on each. ez pz!

rebuttal:

- i expect frontlining all key pieces of offense in second rebuttal.

- if you want to add offensive overviews, please make them very thorough and well-warranted.

summary:

- even with three-minute summaries, please collapse.

- i expect full extensions of links, warrants, and impacts, when you are extending case.

- in terms of whether or not defense should be in first summary, i think it is strategic to do so if you want to blow up on it, but i will extend it anyway even if you don't.

final focus:

- this should be *and i cannot emphasize this enough* a carbon copy of the summary.

- i recommend more weighing in final focus than summary.

weighing:

- comparative weighing is super important! weigh as early as possible!

- link-weighing is even better than impact weighing! do both!

cross-fire:

- i will probably be on facebook so put it in a speech if you want it on the flow!

- be nice! that is all.

speaker points:

- this is an activity where we should all genuinely care about the words we are saying, so sound like it! for high speaks, sound passionate and genuine when you speak. also, be polite!

- make me cheese for more speaks!

speed:

- i can handle a good deal of speed, but not spreading. if you really want to go ham on the speed, start off slow then speed up.

- if your opponents do not feel comfortable with speed, you should be respectful and accessible and refrain from going too fast for them.

theory & kritiks:

- i do not have much experience with these arguments so explain them very well.

- for k's, read specific links since i want tangible proof that voting for you will contribute to the larger scale impacts you will probably talk about.

evidence:

- please do not miscut evidence! i will only call for evidence if one team tells me to do so or if i am really sussed out by it, so if you genuinely think it is miscut, tell me to call for it in one of your speeches. otherwise, i default to what the team tells me it says to minimalize intervention!

- i also want sources and dates.

- have evidence files on everything you read ready to go please!

stuff that is more important than the round you are about to debate:

- as a former debater on a girl-girl team comprised of two womxn of color, i have been on the receiving end of sexist comments during cross-fire. if you are explicitly degrading, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., i do not care about your arguments. i will drop you and/or tank your speaks. this is an activity where we are meant to be speaking up for the sake of progress, so we should all be courteous and respectful.

- please eat food at tournaments lmao.

please feel free to email me if you would like me to elaborate on my decision or if you need advice or anything (daryakavi@gmail.com).

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2 years (PF, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, Expository)

I award speaker points based on fluency, cohesiveness, and presentation style.

How I will choose the winner:

-Narrow down your points by the end of the round.

-Support your arguments with evidence, but reasoning is important too.

-My decision will mostly come from what is presented in summary and final focus.

-Signpost, don't go fast, and don't use debate terms.

-I mostly understand the concept of offense and defense, but if you decide not to go for an argument with only defensive responses, please tell me so I know.

-Explain your responses and how they refute your opponent’s arguments.

-Make sure if an argument is in final focus, it was in the summary speech.

-Weigh your impacts over your opponent's.

I try to take a lot of notes but I usually can’t entirely keep up with the pace of the debate. If something is important, make it very clear.

How heavily I weigh different aspects of the debate: (1 is not at all, 10 is heavily)

Clothing/Appearance: 1, Use of Evidence: 8, Real world impacts: 7, Cross Examination: 6, Debate skill over truthful arguments: 6

I am a Parent Judge and been doing this since 2017, I mostly judge debates. I am convinced with the team/person who were able to convince me regarding the resolution. I would like the debater's not speak too fast, but clearly. I am of the opinion of being respectful of others opinion and wait for their turn to speak. I am mostly swayed who is able articulate with cool head. I am interested most of the topics and does some research.

I'm a former Parli debater 2009-2013

Parli:

-I've been out of the loop since graduating and will do my best to catch up as the rounds progress.

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

Congress: I'm looking for a deep understanding of the topic, regardless of the event and its understanding "requirement." I appreciate well-structured arguments which tie into the debate and topic well. Uniqueness of claim(s) is important, rehash is looked down upon. Being able to articulate/defend the claim is just as important as the evidence itself. There should be a strong willingness to refute/provide substantial arguments in opposition of the other side.

PF: I’m a parent judge so if you could speak slow, I’d appreciate it. Really break down the topic for me, don’t depend on debate jargon to win my ballot. I need to be able to understand your arguments

I prefer speak clearly with a clear logic frame, state your opinion with evidence and data.

I prefer very well structured argument and convincing argument.

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

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

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

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

Here's my background:

Occupation: CS and engineering

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

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

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

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

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

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

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 5

Real World Impacts: 5

Cross examination: 3

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 4

Debate Voting:

I judge based on flow with weightage in rebuttals and how you protect your arguments against opponent rebuttals. I judge unbiased and according to the debate rules.

Speaker Points:

Presentation of constructive pro and con arguments is prepared speech and it establishes base for speaker points. Good presentation of Rebuttal and summary speeches which are not prepared ahead will push speaker points higher.

Judging History:

SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 2019 Varsity Public Forum

Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational at Milpitas 2019 Varsity Public Forum

Georgiana Hays Invitational 2019 Varsity Public Forum

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2019 Varsity Public Forum

33rd Annual Stanford Invitational 2019 Varsity Public Forum

SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 2018 JV Public Forum

32nd Annual Stanford Invitational 2018 JV Public Forum

Middle School Speech and Debate Fall Classic 2017 Public Forum

Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational at Milpitas 2017 Public Forum

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

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

I have judged Varsity PF for 2 years. I don't have many pet peeves but do make sure to be respectful of each other. I focus on presentation and arguments made. Make sure to explain all arguments thoroughly with evidence as that is what I vote off of. Speed is fine as long as you talk clearly.

Hello Debaters!

I am volunteer/parent judge and have little background knowledge on the topic, so please do not rush through your arguments. Though I will, of course, be listening to your arguments, my assessment of the winning team will also be based on your delivery, poise, presentation of research, etc. I would like to see definitions of unfamiliar terms and explanations of the topics presented.

I am a lay (parent) judge.

I want each team to collapse to only 1-2 arguments by the summary speech. All speeches should be slow and coherent to understand. Public Forum debate should be about good warranting, not whoever has the best card. I generally give between 27-28 speaks.

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

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

I have judged 4 years of Public forum

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

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

My preferences on a scale of 1-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extra notes:

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

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

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

Please be within the time limit for speeches.

Be within the limits for prep time.

I like offtime roadmaps but keep them clear.

Please provide evidence in a timely manner

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

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

Make logical arguments that are clear and easy to understand. Please speak slowly - I can't handle speed. Be respectful to your opponents and do your best!

hi, lay judge, speak slow, make sure to impact out, make sure to do voter issues

No spreading. Speak clearly and succinctly

I am a lay parent judge and have judged very few PF rounds before.

I prefer a normal speaking pace during speeches and crossfire.

I would also like speakers to provide an off-time roadmap before speeches and signpost during speeches.

I do not know much debate jargon.

Be courteous to each other throughout the round.

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

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

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

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

sanjim@berkeley.edu

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

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

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

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

My paradigm is pretty similar to this one: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35843

*EXCEPTION* I will accept what the evidence says unless the other team asks enough questions that make it sound stupid. I will not vote for anything that sounds incredible or just completely dumb.

General:

1. Assume I'm bad at debate. I hate doing work.

2. If you read two cards correctly and they make sense, I will buy them instantly. (these are not specific for a reason)

• Guardian card that says 420.
• A card that says chance of civil war jumps to ~77.6%.

3. I don't know how to evaluate theory. Shoutout to Kyle Chong.

Speaks:

1. I don't often give 30s but if you make me laugh or make me cringe, I’ll give you a 30. Also, if you make a half decent pun with the topic, I’ll give you a 30.

2. If you go more than 5 seconds over time I’ll take off 0.5 speaks per second after.

3. I’ll take off a point every time a terrible analogy is used. (selling an apple for $5 is not comparable to international trade)

Evidence:

1. Make me call for it. I also hate reading a lot, so don't tell me to read it unless you think it’s critical.

2. If you read a card I know, you should hope you're not misrepresenting it.

Case read:

Speed is not an issue.

Cross-x:

1. You get first question if you speak first.

2. Don't be mean.

3. Refer to point 2.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Point 2 is really important.

Summary/FF:

1. Anything works.

2. No new evidence in FF.

Argument stuff:

1. If you read a link turn and say "if you don't buy that", then proceed with an impact turn, you better explain why I can't evaluate your impact turn under your link turn. Otherwise, it's a double turn.

2. If you read anything diabetes or sugar related, I will not like the arg. Although it is important to recognize that whether I like the argument does not matter. If it’s well developed, I'll vote for it.

I am a parent judge. Please don't talk too fast or use debate jargon. Make sure to explain your arguments clearly. Be polite in crossfire. I won't disclose in preliminary rounds unless the tournament asks me to.

New with speech/debate.

Preference: I decide which points are valid. No rapid-fire points, clear roadmap.

Do not talk over each other. be civil. Do not speak too quickly. I will not hear your arguments. points will be deducted if you peak too fast.

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.

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

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