I'm a parent, but have judged approximately 20+ debates and speeches. Please speak slowly and clearly. Most importantly, be nice and professional. I will take off points for unnecessary rudeness during a debate.

I prefer teams to time themselves but will follow with my phone.

Not necessary to shake hands before or after, let's keep germs to a limit :)

In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.

I am a parent judge with little/no experience.

Most important: No spreading. Be respectful to your opponents.

I am not a former debater or a technical judge. As such, if you use technical terms of debate, please briefly define them. I have two years experience judging high school debate.

Regarding my background, I am a marriage and family therapist. Before that I worked as an editor at a legal magazine. Prior to that I got my doctorate in English literature. All of this is to say I have spent my life listening to and analyzing language and argument/story structure. I will base my decision on how coherent your argument is, how well you support it, and how well counter your opponent's arguments. I take careful notes during each speaker's speech and pay attention to flow and dropped arguments.

Hey there,

I am a parent judge for the Nueva School. I have judged for a couple of years now (both PF and Parli) but I am still solidly a lay judge. I am a trial lawyer. How you present yourself really matters to me; be respectful to your opponents and respect the medium. I work hard to judge what happens in the room and to not let my personal opinions impact my judging. Please stay on topic; if you stray too far from the topic and the other side raises the issue, it is persuasive to me. I am more likely to vote for persuasive logical arguments than to be impressed by sources. Have fun and do your best!

Denise

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. Please try to avoid technical terms and complicated technical arguments, as they will likely be lost on me.

Please signpost clearly so that I know where you are in the flow.

I strive to maintain an inclusive and safe space, so if you say something that I believe to be harmful or problematic, I will pause your time and address the issue to give you a chance to repair it.

Please be courteous, kind, and respectful to each other.

I am relatively new to parliamentary debate though I have judged 2 previous debates days. Please talk clearly and slowly (just not for my benefit but for the other debaters) define your terms and make clear link for policy to impact. Don't use complicated jargon as the team who can simply and eloquently explain their argument and why will get my ballot.

This was written by my son Andrew Fahey, so while it contains my ideas, it uses more debate terms than I actually know.

I enjoy debate about the actual topic rather than a debate about the rules. As my son puts it, I'm a "lay" judge, not a "flow" judge, but I can handle basic flow debate. I can handle some speed, but I can't take notes if you choose to go fast, so I'll be relying on memory if you choose to go at a faster pace. I have judged several tournaments over the past 4 years, but don't expect me to know all the finer details of the rules. With that being said, I do know the standard rules about POO's, POI's, and a few other things. If you want to be more flow in the round, I will not do any weighing or intervening -- this means that everything must be impacted out and I'd strongly prefer some basic impact calculus. If you want to make it that type of debate, I expect you to make it easy for me to judge that type of debate.

Just a preference: Unless the topic cannot be debated without doing this, I don't like counterplans that try to steal most of the Aff's ground and change only a small portion of the policy (according to my son, the technical term for these is "PICs"). That being said, if the only way any actual debate can happen is with a "PIC", I'll be fine with it - but be careful, because I feel they ruin the debate and avoid the actual topic.

For NPDI, my son has given me a run down of how theory works, the structure it is presented in, and general responses. Please don't spread theory or assume I know everything, but if you want to run an argument like "conditional counterplans are bad" or general topicality in a shell format, I will be able to follow it.

Experience:

I am a current debater for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. This is my first year debating.

General:

I judge on which plan resolves the consequences of the situation being debated about. Whatever side is most beneficial in terms of impacts is what I vote for. Make sure to structure your argument clearly to make it easier for me to follow. There must be clash in the debate and not both sides talking about two different worlds. If you want to win you must address the other sides argument.

I prefer case debate because it stays to the topic. Make sure to have warrants to claims and clearly explain them. Make sure to weigh how your impacts are most important to the debate.

I do not like Kritiks, especially in the affirmative, but if you can relate it to the topic and provide a quality argument I can vote for it. Other than Kritiks I do not mind anything else you choose to run in your arguments as long as you explain them and it relates to the topic.

Speaker Points:

I do not like speed, but I tolerate it if you are clear. As long as you are clear and have a good argument then you will get high speaker points.

As a judge, to the extent I can, I attempt to be tabula rasa. I’m willing to let the debaters convince me of what grounds I should use to make my decision.

Nevertheless my biases probably should be noted. I was a highly competitive college debater and coach, but in a bygone era when the policy format was completely dominant. So, I’m likely more responsive to policy arguments than kritiks and obscure theory arguments, unless these are very well explained and defended. Plans, counterplans, perms, topicality challenges, turns are all fine and expected. I’m not accustomed to topical counterplans but will listen to arguments pro and con on their validity. I try to flow carefully.

I like evidence, when it can be brought to bear – historical examples, statistics, anything that can be used to ground the round in fact and not assertion. (Having said that, I understand that having just a few minutes to prepare drastically limits your research capability.)

Speaking speed is not an issue, if the points are well articulated. I dislike jargon and acronyms. I’m also not particularly comfortable with the mangled versions of philosophies by Derrida, Foucault et al. that have crept into debate. If you want me to vote on these, you’ll have to assume that I start from zero, be convincing, and don’t bandy about words that sound like they came out of a PoMo generator.

I dislike profanity, unnecessarily pejorative or repetitive points of order, and boorish behavior. I appreciate good organization and signposting, and crystallization of key issues in the rebuttals. Try to give me a lens with which to view the round.

Good luck!

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument.

Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates!

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

I'm a parent judge with about 1 year of judging experience. I'm a lay judge, but I have knowledge about most topic areas and will probably know if you're outright lying. I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I don't believe that anyone can be fully Tabula Rasa. Don't shake my hand.

Case: I'm skeptical of link chains that sketchily lead to huge, improbable impacts. I understand, though, that this can be strategic for many debators. I will probably use some degree of reasonability in deciding if you access your impacts. This is the biggest frustration for me in judging: have better links. Do not lie to me, it's a bad norm for Parli and it's against CHSSA rules anyway. Strong uniqueness is very important to me, and you should cite an organization if you're reading quantitative data warrants. Be topical.

Speed: I can handle a clippier debate, but be reasonable. Think fast conversational speed at a max. If you go faster, I won't be able to take notes as effectively. If you're talking fast but aren't saying much substantive, I'll get annoyed.

Impact Weighing and Framing: Just tell me where to vote, make it easy. Also, COLLAPSE!

Perms: An immensely powerful tool for the Aff. I default to the perm as an advocacy, but I'd be open to a well-explained competition perm.

Counterplans: Do not run Plan Inclusive Counterplans, unless there's obviously no ground for you.

Theory: My daughter explained theory to me, and I could see it as a viable response to abuse. That said, I've never encountered theory before when judging. If it's presented to me, it would need to be well explained. Even then, I may not vote on it as an a priori issue. I'd probably weigh it against case, unless given a strong reason otherwise (as in, not a blippy a priori claim on voters).

Kritiks: I've never seen one run, and probably wouldn't vote on it if presented. Disads and Advantages using Kritikal lit would probably be more effective, if you really want to run it (change mindsets in the post-fiat world).

Speaks: I will try my best to rank your speaking fairly and without bias. I think that speaking convincingly is important for real-world applications, as much as I'd like presentation to not matter.

POO: I know what this is, no need to explain. One response from each team, I don't want to a hear a back-and forth. I don't protect the flow, so POO new arguments. Don't use POOs to try and throw the other team off, I'll get annoyed.

POI: These are pretty consistently abused. Unless it's an important clarification point that will further the education/clash of the debate, I don't really care if you don't take them. It's your choice.

I am a first time parent judge. Please explain terms and walk me through impacts, I would much rather hear you go slowly and clearly than quickly. I will try not to judge based on delivery.

From the origin of my debate career, I have been a parent judge. Therefore, I really like it when you stand up straight, look me in the eye, and pay attention to the other speakers and your partner. If you think those things don't matter, you may be surprised in the future. I absolutely believe that debate, and especially Parliamentary Debate, is a fantastic endeavor. I will honor that and I will expect you to as well.

My experience spans about 13 years as I squired my two youths to as many tournaments as we all could attend and judged many rounds. Those two are coaches now and I have remained active because I believe in what the community is doing. So show me what you, and they, have gotten from this activity, such as:

· Critical thinking about the arguments you propose from great use of prep time

· The ability to cogently rebut your opponents case

· Eloquent communication of those arguments

· Tactical elements of argumentation

Speed: It’s fine if you can continue to enunciate appropriately so your opponents and I can hear your arguments. If a case is made but we don't hear it, then it doesn’t exist. If this judge doesn’t hear it it's a sure bet the case does not exist.

Pet peeve: Most plans cost money. It will be beneficial if you have a relatively good idea of how much is needed and where you intend to get it.

Tactics: K’s, Perms and Theory arguments are clever when done well and lose when done badly. Plan Inclusive Counterplans almost always work against you. If an opponent makes an argument that is unfair, you still have to call them out for it. Otherwise, like unchallenged contentions, it will flow through.

There has been quite a bit of change in the debate community and improvement in tournament activity. You should be proud of your participation. Everyone is in the room because they respect the activity of debate. We can demonstrate that and show our respect for each other. I will listen intently and try to deliver a lucid decision. Sometimes RFD’s delivered quickly can sound abrupt. Please don’t be offended. You are great competitors and often significant academic achievers. Getting better requires understanding why votes go against you, not how wonderful you are. I want to walk away better for hearing your arguments. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counter plans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

The main part of debating being convincing, I believe in strong contentions and evidence, along with sufficient refutes. I prefer slow speaking so that every point is conveyed clearly and fully. Staying focused and relevant to the resolution always helps a case.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

In terms of speaking, please be slow, loud, and clear. Do not run attrocious Kritiks, and explain any topicality arguments. Please explain any debate jargon if used. I would like signposting and clear arguments that I can flow.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

I am a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, with degrees in Economics and Political Science. I have overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level. My primary event, however, was Impromptu.

DEBATE:

Things I look for:

1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.

2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.

3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.

SPEECH:

Things I look for:

I'm a little bit more flexible on IE events because by nature, they are supposed to represent and express who you are as a person. Unless excessive (greater than 10 seconds or whatever guidelines I receive by tournament), I don't penalize for going over time unless you and another competitor are equal in every other deliverable. Just make sure you address your chosen topic (for spontaneous/extemporaneous events like Extemp, IE, etc.) or clearly state why the topic you're speaking about matters (especially for prepared pieces). Sometimes, I have watched five consecutive pieces about death and suicide, but not a one told me/expressed to me why their piece was unique.

DEBATE:

Things I discourage:

1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.

2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.

Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.

SPEECH:

Things I discourage:

Again, there will be less things here for speech because of the flexibility of it. I think the only thing I'll say about this is don't do something super extreme or way out of the ordinary (e.g., asking for audience participation). Obviously, doing something like opting to use notes will heavily penalize you. Otherwise, speech is all about trial and error -- so don't be afraid to take risks and get feedback.

(B.A.N.)

I am a parent judge with little/no judging experience.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

I am a lay judge. This is my first year judging debate.

I am a relatively new judge, so please explain everything clearly and thoroughly. If you want to run Theories or Ks, you can, but explain it to me as a parent judge, and not as a flow judge. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time. Please do not spread, and talk in a loud, clear tone which is easy to understand.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

I am a first time parent judge, no theory and no kritiks please.

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

I'm a CS student at UC Davis. I currently coach.

I did Public Forum and LD in high school.

Please don't post-round me. If you have questions, I would prefer if you messaged me via messenger or email (accounts below)

MAIN PREFS

1. I did a lot of LARP in high school. This doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate theory/Ks(in fact I love hearing it), but please explain them as best as you can and how they interact with your opponents. Especially do this if you're running unique Ks and theory. If I don’t understand it, chances are I will not vote for it.

2. I am fine with spread, unless the other team clearly says they have a low speed threshold and you spread. That is exclusionary. I will tank your speaks. Word economy>>>>speed.

3. I am generally tech>truth. I care a lot about evidence ethics (don't lie about your evidence please)

4. Impacts are literally the most important thing in debate in my eyes. If you do not weigh an impact, I won’t evaluate it.

5. NO RVIs, NO TRIX. I really HATE this stuff.

6. I reward smart strategy with higher speaker points. Speaking nicely is cool too, but I believe having substance is of higher priority than speaking pretty. Average is 28. 30 means you’ve impressed me.

7. I weigh offense and defense equally in most cases.

8. If you are in PF, LD or CX, I would like if you gave me a hard copy or emailed your case and speeches to me. It’s fine if you’re not comfortable with that, but it helps me out because it makes it easier for me to flow and it’s harder to mishear things when you’re reading it.

9. In Parli, ask questions and answer questions. Saying "I'll take questions at the end" is a cop-out.

10. What even is disclosure theory in parli?

11. I come from events where tag-teaming isn't a thing, so I will only evaluate what the main speaker says unless they repeat it.

12. I don't shake hands.

13. If you have questions related to a certain aspect of my paradigm, ask me before the round starts.

14. Yes, you can use your phones to time. No, I do not care who watches.

15. Do whatever you need to do to make the round interesting for you and me. Make me laugh, make jokes, and use anecdotes.

Email: vvennelakanti@ucdavis.edu

You can also message me on Facebook (Vishnu Vennelakanti)

I am a parent or lay judge with a few years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, oratory skills, and respect for your team mate and opponents. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. I look forward to an educational experience.

I am a parent judge; this is my second year of judging high school debate and I previously judged two years of middle school debate. I am a financial economist and have provided expert testimony in federal, state, bankruptcy, and tax court over the last twenty years. I also worked for several years for an international law firm as an in-house expert. I have taught economics, finance, and law and economics at SUNY Stonybrook, University of Southern California, and the NY Institute of Finance.

I do not have particular knowledge of technical debate. I am analytically minded and, given my background, very familiar with the back and forth of rebuttal and response. Please be organized and speak clearly. I will judge based on what I can follow in your arguments. Logical argument, credible and relevant evidence, and meaningfulness (why should I care?) are most important to me. A couple of well-developed and articulated points is better than many relatively incoherent points.

I prefer the speed of speech to be slow. I would like the speeches to have structure and points to be clear.

I am a relatively new (i.e. lay) judge and parent of a high school debater. I have judged both parli and PF formats.

Here's my approach to judging. First and foremost I assess each team on the merit of its core arguments as well as their use of supportive evidence. I also look for how a team rebuts their opposing team's arguments. Finally I am looking for each team's overall organization, clarity and presentations style. I try to keep my personal opinions out of my judgment and base my decision on how a team presents its case. I am not well versed with theory or kritiks

Other suggestions:

a) Don't speak too fast; I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand you.

b) Don't abuse POIs or POOs

c) Do show passion and conviction

d) And remember to have fun

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous .Look forward to a fun learning experience! :)

Please speak at a reasonable rate, define terms and make clear links from policy to impacts.Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don't abuse POIs or POOs. Neg Counter-plans are acceptable . The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I have experience as a policy/CX debater in high school and I have been judging parli for just over three years. I have experience as a public speaker from many conferences, as well as corporate events and meetings.

I'll flow your arguments, but I need to be able to hear and understand them enough to write notes.

Don't expect me to know any theory that you don't explain clearly. Make sure that any theory (or any arguments at all) clearly relate to the debate you're in and the topic at hand.

Your speaking style and ability are important, but its not uncommon for me to award low-point wins. If you dont signpost well, not only can I not follow you, but you aren't delivering well.

Your summations should clearly tell me how to decide my vote.

I am a first-time parent judge.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I am a parent judge with little/no experience judging.

Please don't speak too fast as I am still a newish judge. Make sure to tie your evidence to the points you are making. Do not abuse POO / POI to throw your opponents off balance.

• “I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.”

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary Debate for three years. During the round, make sure to clarify any terminologies or debate jargon that is utilized, and I generally enjoy arguments that are well supported with reasoning and logic alongside evidence to back it up. Make sure to also address all arguments made by your opponents during the round, and don't forget to weigh in the last speech. I am also not a fan of spreading as that often causes the debate to become messy and inaccessible.

Case debates are strongly preferred, but if technical arguments must be made, please explain them clearly. Only utilize Theory if it is against a problematic or abusive argument (I will not vote for frivolous theory), and I am also unfamiliar with kritiks.

Remember to respect one another and have fun!

I judge based on quality and clarity rather than quantity of information

This is my first time judging high school debates.