parent judge. I like signposting and logical arguments. Speak slow please.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging mainly PF for 4+ years. I appreciate clear communication and respect for time. I prepare for the topic and like to be involved. I will accommodate any challenges due to online nature of the debate, but would appreciate if the participants have tested their connectivity etc.

Former PF debater with ~6 years of experience, went to TOC & states

Some general things:

• weigh! tell me exactly how and where you want me to vote
• ill be flowing
• dont spread, clarity is key
• logical warranting should be clear
• might ask to see cards if needed/ if a team requests
• signpost and give me an overview in your latter speeches
• no theory
• if something important comes up in cx i wont be flowing so bring it up in a speech

Good luck!

I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

I like debates where the arguments are well-organized, connected, and backed up with evidence. Rebuttals are important, so I expect competitors to listen carefully to their opponents and find gaps in their reasoning. Overall, tell me why you think you have a stronger argument based on facts.

I appreciate articulation of your points using logic and common sense. I also pay attention to courtesy during the debate, so yelling during crossfire will result in lower speaker points. Please be e respectful to your opponents and your teammates during the debate. I do not disclose (in prelims) unless required.

About me : I am parent volunteer judge, This is my second season jugdging.

Comments:

-Please be nice, and please be clear

-Explain speech/debate topic and Format

-Speech and Debate should be logical and engaging, I like value argument over style.

-Keep medium speaking pace

-I take notes in contructive, rebuttal and crossfire(pf)

- Please add me to email chain with both cases

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types: Public Forum

How many years have you been judging? 2 years

Speaker Points: 27.5 points for an average debater, 29 and up for great debaters!

I evaluate rounds based on the clarity, truthfulness, and explanations of the important arguments throughout the round. I vote for arguments I understand and are fully explained correctly in every speech.

Notes: I don’t know how to flow so I take notes the best that I can, meaning I can’t understand arguments if they are too fast.

Evidence: Evidence should be logical and used correctly in supporting your arguments.

Real World Impacts: I vote for impacts that relate to the world, are believable, snd logically supported.

Cross Examination: I enjoy listening to clash as long as both sides stay respectful to each other.

Debate Skill: I am a lay judge, so I do not know how to judge debate skill very correctly so I believe in truthful arguments more.

I am a mom of a kid who debates in Public Forum, so I mostly end up judging Public Forum. My paradigm is for that.

1. Please be respectful to your opponents, especially during CrossEx. This might affect your speaker points.

2. On top of that, please take turns asking questions in CrossEx. You are not talking to me, you are having a conversation with your opponent. Let your opponents finish their thoughts before interrupting but do not spend too much time on the same issue. Please bring important points made in CrossEx in a speech.

3. Please speaker slowly and clearly (conversation speed). If I can not comprehend you, I will not be able to give you the argument.

4. Please don't use any technical debate words and try to stick to simple words.

5. Please do offtime roadmaps. Helps me be organized.

6. Please do the weighing for me. If you leave the weighing to me, I might not be able to do it "the correct way."

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

Hi- I am Raghav. I am a lay judge but I have been judging for the last three years.

I want to see you having fun. Don't be rude or speak over each other. Please make sure you enunciate and speak slowly. I really can't flow or score your argument if I can't understand what you are saying. Instead of long rants I value more you make a concise argument that is valid, relevant and useful.

Please start an email chain BEFORE the debate starts. Include me. My email is: raghav01@yahoo.com

Best of luck and have fun!!

For debate, I am not a big fan of spreading. If I put my pen down, that means I am missing your points. Speak clearly. I base my decision on which team is able to clearly articulate their arguments, with reasoning, evidence and impacts. If you use inappropriate language in the debate, consider that you lost the round.

For speech tournaments, I look forward to seeing a clear and passionate delivery. I look for expressions, tone, inflection and most importantly delivery of the message of the speech. It is a put off for me if you are overdramatic (except for DI) with your speech. Present it appropriately based on the type and content of your speech.

Good luck to you all.

Hello,

Please see my responses inline.

>> ..The paradigm should include your background of judging experience..

I am a parent judge and I am used to judging Public Forum only.

>>.. any specifics you look for when deciding who wins a debate round...

1. I try to take notes as much as I can on the content, facts, rebuttal and reasoning. However, if the speaker presents too fast, then I may not be able to comprehend. So, try to pace it at a medium to fast speed.

2. Unfortunately, I may not have read as much on the topic as the participants, hence I may not be able to understand complex contentions

3. I typically judge on how clear and effective the speaker is and the facts that are presented to prove their content

4. I like when facts are juxtaposed compared to the opponent, not only numbers but reasoning as well

5. I like to hear cross examination to see how you question the argument in an effective way

6. Please avoid jargons if possible

Thanks,

Samrat

Speech (Original Oratory):

1. Please speak slowly (not too slow obviously), so I can understand you. After all, you are talking for 10 whole minutes on something that I didn't know you were talking about.

2. I should be able to see that you are passionate about your topic. You get to craft your own, 10 minute speech on whatever speaks to you. Take advantage of that, and make it reflect in your performance!

3. If you forget some words, just use some of those impromptu skills to come up with something that flows (and is on topic, obviously). Nothing's worse than a long pause. . .

4. Normal speech aspects apply: vary your voice (please do not sound like a robot), use hand gestures, inflection, etc.

Debate (Public Form):

I have been judging debate for a couple years now, so below is what I've constructed based on my judging experience:

1. I never accept "What is your evidence" or "My opponents have not provided any evidence" as an only rebuttal to your opponents' case. Please continue to refute it even if they don't provide evidence. Explain how even if they do provide valid evidence, you win on the argument.

2. I am not an opinionated judge. I look for thoroughness in explanation and supporting your side. Explain impacts and tie them to framework! If at times an argument is clashing, such as both sides have opposite evidence, the impacts are where you should focus, if you want to win that argument.

3. Please explain your points too and provide links. Simply reading evidence and saying "I have evidence that negates my opponents' claim" does not make me buy the argument. Aka, provide analysis.

4. Do not speak too fast just to get in more information. Remember, I am the one who is judging. If I can't understand what you're saying, this puts you at a lower chance of winning the round. Also, enunciate and stress important points if you want me to write them down.

5. I do not flow cross-fire unless you want me to. Please do not speak over your opponents during cross-fire. Respect. It is pretty common to get heated in this type of debate, given the restricted time and "unlimited" prep. Ultimately, if your rude, it will be reflected in your speaks for sure.

6. It is OKAY to drop arguments, but with REASON. If you do drop something in the round, you must explain, or else, it will harm you.

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

I have judged quite a few PF rounds and prefer contestants to speak at a medium pace.

Prefer strong evidence but don’t want a lot facts just thrown in at a rapid pace.

More points will be awarded if I get the feeling that the contestant has

done thorough research and is open minded.

A good summary will go a long way!

I am a Lay Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly during the round. My speaker point range is from 27.5-30. Be respectful in the round and have fun.

Background

I run the quality department in a tech company in silicon valley. I judge for Dougherty Valley High School and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Public Forum. I am knowledgeable on the topics for the tournament and take notes during the debate.

Speaker Points

a) Be polite and respectful to your opponents. I will not allow any behavior considered rude or unfair.

b) Speak clearly so that I can process your arguments.

c) Construct a good flow of your arguments (please do off-time road maps) and make sure that your arguments are consistent with your partner's.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and make my decision based on the above criterion. I care about which team is able to persuade me with their arguments. Be confident and make eye contact when you speak. If you read off from your script, then you will not get my vote.

Other

a) Clothing/Appearance: I don't care much as long as you do respect the tournament dress code.

b) Use of evidence: Very important. Make sure that your arguments have reliable evidence to back up your claims.

c) Real-world impacts: You need to convince me why I should care.

d) Cross-examination: Don't fail to show respect to your opponent and ask relevant questions.

e) Debate skill over truthful arguments: Truthful arguments are prioritized; however, they will be highly valued when combined with the skill.

I am a lay judge.

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please be respectful to your opponents.

Prefer Crossfire to be question and answer rather than arguing.

I have been judging since 2018 in tournaments from the rookie to varsity levels. I have been a lawyer in the past and like to view both viewpoints with good supporting evidence. Support for your contentions have to hold solid ground.

I also love clarity over ambiguity. I do not prefer spreading/speaking fast.

Please speak slow and clear.

Not a big fan of lying so that would not be appreciated.

If you do clash make it clear.

And lastly, before reading cases and etc. please state which case you will be reading.

:)

Background

I am a software engineer. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I do take notes during debate so i can refer back to understand a debater's logic and the points he made.

Speaker Points

Following are my criteria for scoring speaker points:

a) Speak loudly and clearly instead of speaking too fast. I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Good behavior and treating everyone around with respect.

c) It would be nice to explain it to me as if i am unfamiliar with the topic. I will not influence myself with what i already know about the topic.

Decisions

Based on the criteria mentioned above, I will make my best attempt to be fair. I base my decision on clarity and logic. Also, I pay attention to how well one performs in one's responses in the crossfire.

Parent judge, go slow, truth over tech

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Fourth year judging.

Please be up to the point and logical. I'd like to take notes and as well as observe so please do not spread and try your best to signpost.

Will look for how you articulate your contentions and the backing evidences..

Please be respectful to the opponents and the judge.

Looking for a fair debate.

Background Info

I work in Visa in product management, and am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged many tournaments over the course of five years. Earlier on I judged Policy, I’ve judged some Parliamentary, but most commonly I judge Public Forum. I care greatly about selecting the right outcome of the debate, so I pay close attention to the debate. I also always take note if there is something someone did exceptionally well or poorly to help me decide on the outcome.

Voting

I give out speaker points based on the persuasion, preparedness, and presentation skills of the debaters. The better you fulfil these characteristics, the higher the speaker points you will be given are. I will give lower speaker points for rude behavior and/or language as well.

Besides case and refutations, there are other points that may make me lean towards a specific side. These points are the debaters’ general understanding of the topic, following the rules of debate, and the confidence level of the debaters.

Other

The number from 1-10 is the impact the point has on how I vote.

Clothing/Appearance - 4: Clothing doesn’t really have an impact on the debating abilities of the debaters, so it doesn’t influence my decision very much

Use of Evidence - 8: Arguments can’t be supported without solid evidence to back it up. It has a major influence on how I weigh the validity of a contention.

Real World Impacts - 7: Impacts are necessary to show what the contention will ultimately lead to. It is necessary to weigh contentions against each other.

Cross Examination - 8: The way the debaters interact during the cross-examination displays the analytical abilities of the debaters and their presence of mind.

Debate Skill vs Truthful Arguments: Although both are very important I ultimately weigh truthful arguments over debate skill. It is more important that the substance of the contentions are factual rather than someone who is well-spoken, but arguing completely made-up contentions. But it is important to know that it is very rare that the two sides will be on the extremes of these two characteristics. This means that it is still critical to have both traits.

I am a lay judge for the first time. Please don't talk too fast and present fair arguments.

I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.

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 parent judge and have been judging for last 3 years. I like to judge on how effectively team has put forward their arguments and address specific points highlighted by opposing team. Delivery should be slow and clear so that it is easy to understand and follow.

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

Who is this judge?

I am an Economics and Government Classroom Teacher. I have also taught World History and United States History. My background is in Anthropology. I have co-coached debate for three years and predominately judged Policy Debate. I go by he/him pronouns.

What does this judge care about?

The debate for me is about civil discourse and should be honored in that respect. I emphasize equity of voice and time management. Debaters should not seek to dominate the air time, but find balance in the discussion. Debaters should track their own time carefully as well as that of their opponents. Before starting speeches or taking preparation time you should check with judge and opposition in order to ensure and equal and fair competition as possible. Debaters should ensure that judge, opposition and partner are ready before launching into their arguments/rebuttals.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. Do not spread, speak quickly. If you must spread, make sure the tag and author/date are very clear. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, you should be able to tell if I can keep up by watching me. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me.

Hi,

I am not an experienced PF judge. I am mostly a lay judge meaning that eloquence and speaking skill will have as much of an effect as your evidence, though if it comes down to it, evidence will have a bigger impact.

Decision making:

I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (based on who has provided one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below

First Speaker Speech

- Pretty Standard, I'd rather you not spread.

- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up

All Crossfires

- Ask actual questions

- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.

Summary

- 3 minutes long

- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!

- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.

Final Focus

- 2 minutes long

- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here

- Like summary, Weigh!!!

- This will be the most important speech for me.

Prep time

- 3 minutes

- You can ask for cards here

Sources

- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them

- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round

- Don't search anything up during the debate

- Don't make things up during the debate

Speaker Points / Cheating

- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points

- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points

- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying

- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.

- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.

- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!

*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.

This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.

I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.

Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

I'm a parent judge, and have judged PF for a few tournaments, and LD for one.

I take notes during discussion, and refer to them for my final summary. I'm OK with above-average speed, though I'd prefer it not be too fast. I keep time also, and am OK with a few seconds over, but might have to cut you off if you go way over.

I look for the three main aspects in a discussion: Ethos (Ethics), Pathos (relatability) & Logos (logic).

I like to see the following in a debate:

- clear statement of your contention and a summary of the sub-contentions before you dive into the details
- engaging cross-examinatino
- offline roadmap
- crystallizations in Summary and Final-Focus

Most importantly, be respectful of your opponents; we all are here to learn from each other.

I employ a simple rubric when judging: (a) logical reasoning (b) strong evidence (c) effective rebuttal/refuting of opponent's claims (d) strong clash (e) clear articulation of argument and (e) respect. I'm a relatively inexperienced judge, so I'll ask debaters to inform me if I'm missing something regarding technicalities/protocol or could be doing something to enable a better debate.

I am a parent lay judge. I look for clarity of thought, concise and well-articulated presentation of ideas and your contention points rather than speeding through your material at breakneck speed. Of course I appreciate a civil and courteous behavior and respect for your opponents across the entire debate.

Also, be prepared to show your cards quickly rather than wasting time looking for them during the debate.

My preferences are:

- Don't go too fast.

- Convincing arguments backed by research help quite a bit.

- Please take fair share of time during cross fire between you and opposing team.

- Providing road map and sign posts help me understand better.

I employ a simple rubric when judging: (a) logical reasoning (b) strong evidence (c) effective rebuttal/refuting of opponent's claims (d) strong clash (e) clear articulation of argument and (e) respect. I'm a relatively inexperienced judge, so I'll ask debaters to inform me if I'm missing something regarding technicalities/protocol or could be doing something to enable a better debate.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

I mainly have a preference for speaking speed. I prefer speeches to be within the realm of a reasonable conversational speed.

I am an intermediate-level judge. I have judged PF a handful of times. I understand the content well but am unfamiliar with some debate jargon. I respond well to logical arguments and appreciate respect between competitors.

I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.

Present your story clearly.  My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.

I don't mind if you speak fast.

I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.

I am a parent judge. I will try to take notes on key parts or your speeches so please sign post and speak clearly/at a normal pace. I will judge based on 2 key factors:

1. Logic: whichever team has the most logical links between claims and provide reasoning (warranting) behind their claims

2. Weighing: proving which impacts have the most political, health-wise, etc. impact in different ways

Thanks and good luck!

I'm a parent judge. This is my second year judging.

Please don't go too fast. I have lived in the US for almost 30 years now and am very familiar and interested in all kinds of political topics.

I will try my best to take some notes, so please signpost.

Thanks! Good luck!

Due to the coronavirus.... please don't shake my hand.

I'm a junior student at Cal studying engineering and don't really do much debate in college - was very active in high school though. This doesn't mean I'm a lay judge (I'm not) or anything like that just that I'm a bit rusty so don't assume I know everything. The winner of the debate will be judged solely on the arguments made that got on my flow. The speaker points are awarded according to the speech and presentation in addition to the arguments made. I believe tha good cross examination leads to good speaker points in general.

- Past competitor in debate for 4 years, debated all types (PF, Policy, Parli, LD) but focused on PF.

- A little bit of spreading is okay. I will let you know if it is too much. My ideal pace is slightly faster than the average debater, but not nearly spreading level.

- Good debaters are often good speakers. Getting high speaks from me isn't only about presentation but (more importantly) good refutation. 27.5 is average, 28 is good, 29 is wow, 30 is you made me laugh. 27 is slightly below average, 26 is bad, 25 will be for people who are rude. Though I tend to give around 28 I feel, even though I tell myself 27.5 is average.

- Big on framework, links, and impact calc. I also really really really really really really like turns - that are actually relevant and good of course.

- Questioning cards is definately important, but do not get stuck in a card war. Cards must have tag, author, and year.

- If requested for a card, you must provide it quickly.

- SIGNPOST! SIGNPOST! SIGNPOST! WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! please

- When it comes to the final focus, please do not go for everything. It really only takes 1 good argument to win.

- I will listen to crossfires but will not flow them. Please bring up all important arguements again in regular speeches.

- Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts. =)

Speak clearly, get to the point, logic, organize