Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

About me: I am an executive in high technology who often presents to large audiences. I am very keen on the speaker skills of the participants. I am a parent judge experienced in PF. I will flow the debate to the best of my abilities.

Speed: Please do not spread. If you speak too fast, I won't understand you and will not be able to credit you with the point being made.

What is important to me:

Support your arguments with evidence and be clear with your reasoning.

Emphasize your most important points and impacts in summary and final focus. This will be the largest factor in my decision.

I prefer clear signposting.

If something important is discovered in cross x make sure you say it in your next speech and I will add it to my flow

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

I will be tracking that arguments in final focus were in the summary speech.

Please weigh your impacts so I don't have to do it for you.

Most importantly, please show respect to your fellow competitors and all judges.

I have been a judge for both league and invitational tournaments in PuFo, IE and LD. I prefer to have fairly normally paced speech - I don't want to miss your key points.

I am a lay judge and not a technical judge, though I will flow arguments. The more clear you can make the organization of your responses, the better. I prefer you round numbers and state your sources. Please make your weighing clear and specific - it is possible to lose many of the arguments but still win on weighing.

This is pretty standard for judges but if you are rude to me or your opponent or anyone in the round I will tank your speaker scores and while I might not make you flat out lose, it definitely won't help your side. There is no excuse for racism, homophobia or hate.

I have a small amount of experience judging Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas Debate and a basic understanding of these three structures. That being said, I am a lay judge and will have an easier time following and evaluating arguments that are presented in an organized and well-articulated manner.

Please do not spread, especially in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I will try my best to flow the debate, but if I cannot keep up with what you are saying, I cannot look back at those arguments to evaluate them at the end of the round. I will assign speaker points on the basis of organization, time management, politeness, and overall quality of your content. Unless you tell me to call for a card or the content of a card is contested, I will not ask for evidence.

Please avoid progressive arguments, especially in Public Forum. If you do run a Kritik or theory, I may set aside and not evaluate those points. Of course, if your opponent says or does something truly offensive, I would consider a Kritik, but I would prefer to see standard arguments. Overall, I am looking for an amicable and productive debate.

I’m a lay judge, I mostly prioritize persuasiveness and delivery. Respectfulness is very important, I don’t like aggression in rounds. Just try to have fun and learn.

I am a parent and have recently started judging(only since this year).

I want contestants to be courteous and respectable. Its ok to be aggressive but not rude.

I want both sides to present with clear arguments with valid supporting evidence. Keep it simple. If I don't understand the argument, it will become hard to me to vote for it. Explain everything thoroughly and focus more on content and evidence.

i dont usually disclose the results immediately
Have fun at your rounds!

Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Occupation: Technical Product Management, Telecommunications

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 4

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? - Yes

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Examination: 6

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 10

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year; Ld/Policy

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? I would award points not based off of content as much as based off of confidence and presentation of ideas. I will be looking for confidence in speaking and logical idea flow.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Presentation of ideas, speaking clearly and confidently, showing understanding of the topic and use of evidence plus a logical and clear construction of ideas.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? More so flowing the debate but I utilize notes as well.

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

Use of Evidence: 7

Real World Impacts: 7

Cross Examination: 8

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 8

--- K affs/Performance
I am not used to Kritikal arguments but I will do my best to evaluate any argument presented. However, please WEIGH and explain the significance of your Aff and please affirm something topic related. If there is no framework and roll of the ballot, I will not weigh your offense. That said, I would rather prefer a regular Aff and advantages with impact calc.

--- Ks on the neg

Please weigh and have specific links. As said above I am not familiar with Ks and so please go the extra step to explain the critique or else I will have no way to flow and weigh

--Theory/T

In round offense and impacts please.

--- DA CP and Case debate

This would be the best in my opinion. Please weigh and explain your arguments.

Speed is ok in moderation. I do not like debates where one side is abusive of spreading and is doing it to skirt clash.

Add me to the email chain: m_channa@hotmail.com

I'm a parent judge with over four years of experiencing judging speech and debate. For debate, I value argumentation more than delivery, but please signpost and make your arguments relatively easy to understand. I don't understand theory, Ks, topicality, or any of that, so please don't run that. Above all, be respectful and have fun!

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.

Parent judge. I take notes during round - the most logical and most clearly explained arguments win. The accuracy of your arguments is highly important. Do not speak fast or yell: your speaking style will affect my decision. Quality of arguments/responses is more important than quantity. Truth>Tech.

- Written by my son

Don't drop anything, treat each other with respect, use a road map, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun.

Don't be afraid to employ humor, pathos, or any other tool that creates a connection to your audience.

I'm not a fan of speeches delivered at ultrahigh speed.

If I'm looking down and not at the speaker, it's only because I'm flowing.

Retired journalist, Cal and LSE grad, some public speaking.

Helped coach the Benicia High team, mostly as a resource on issues.

Email: jgainesy@yahoo.com

Former LD/PF coach @ James Logan (2018-2020)

Update 1/16/21 for MLK: No longer actively involved in debate, haven't judged since NSDA 2020. Paradigm below was written in late 2019. Likely that not much has changed but my pen and ears are rusty and I haven't followed current topics or meta developments, so do with that information what you will.

~~~~~

My experience: Debated on the LD circuit from 2008-2012, returned to debate as a coach in 2018. Debate has changed a lot in the years I've been gone, and I rarely get the chance to judge progressive rounds, so I may have a higher than average expectation of explanation for common positions/interpretations.

As a debater I generally ran stock, wholerez arguments and tended towards simple FW/case debate. I ran my fair share of off-case positions as well, but I've never been especially well-read so don't expect me to know your lit.

Most of my experience was from a meta shifting from truth-testing to comparative worlds paradigms. While I'm fine adopting another paradigm (e.g. LARPing) if you want me to, I may not handle some nuanced situations perfectly and may be a bit out of touch on current conventions.

Generally tech > truth. I'll vote on pretty much anything if you tell me how I'm supposed to. I see the role and function of my ballot as open to debate. In the absence of an explicit statement or obvious agreement (e.g. everyone's LARPing, competing K's with implied precedence, etc.), I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Some miscellaneous things:

- Most speed is fine, but I don't judge fast rounds often anymore so clear signposting is very important to me. If your speed is elite you may need to cut back a bit. I will only call "clear" 1-2 times.

- I'm particularly bad at flowing theory, so definitely slow down a bit and make your interp and standards clear.

- I base speaks primarily on strategy and clarity. Issue selection, efficiency, weighing and crystallization = 28.5+

- I may not accept extensions without re-articulation of warrants, even on drops.

- I expect PF summary speakers to extend both case and refutations. I won't extend arguments into FF that weren't in summary.

Occupation: I am a IT strategy professional working with one of the Big 4 consulting firms.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: This is my first year judging but I have a child in Debate right now.

Truth>Tech, Please don't try to spread and out-tech someone in front of me, make true arguments.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Speaks will be given based on clarity, performance and speaking ability. I appreciate a good, clear concise speech that makes logical arguments backed with recent evidence and smart analytics.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? I look primarily toward HOW arguments are made(Are they clear? Logical? Do you seem like you know what you are doing?). I do place heavy emphasis on cards but I very much appreciate a well said logical argument. I enjoy and reward quality, i would rather have one very good thought out response then 5 bad, non explained arguments.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I flow the debate the best that I can. Please don't spread or go too fast, I wont understand and will probably tank your speaks.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily. Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 8 Cross Examination: 6. I think cross x is a fantastic opportunity and should not be wasted on simple clarification, use it to set up arguments for speeches.

Other stuff, Util is probably the best framework to go for in front of me, go slower on theory and explain the violation and why its bad, tell me why it breaks the rules, and why that matters but to be honest please try to stay away from theory,especially friv theory. Don't run any sketchy Ks in front of me, (Cap is probably fine, but to be honest, cap good is a persuasive argument in front of me)

Hello Everyone

My name is Kamesh Gottumukkala. I have been judging Speech and Debate events including several IE's, LD, Congress, PF, Varsity Policy for over 4 years.

I look for respect from the competitors for each other and to the judges. I am a parent and a lay judge. Lets make the competition interesting and don't lose your temper!

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

I consider myself a myself a flay judge (flow/lay). I prefer that you don't spread too fast, as then I won’t be able to understand your points. Make sure to talk slowly, and please do not yell or be overly aggressive. Whatever you say should have merit and whatever you say should add value to the debate. For Speaker points, I’m looking for good overall decorum and calm collected speakers. Other than that good luck!

I will like if you go slow . Rest I am fine with anything else.

I am a parent judge. I don't care about technicalities just do your best to be clear and try to convince me. I do take notes, but please don't run kritikal arguments.

No spreading otherwise you will lose.

I love judge instruction and giving me a clear path for the ballot.

I am a parent judge with a few years of judge experience.

This is a debate, so feel free to run what you like as long as you can defend your arguments. Please remember that I can only assess what I understand so focus on clarity in your speech and arguments. Make clear transitions, point out flaws and tell me how to weigh impacts. Tell me how and why you are winning.

Be respectful and have fun. Happy debating!

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Former Policy debator

Frequently judge in both speech and debate events (judging as of 2017).

In events involving cross-x, fine with rapid fire style of questioning so long as it's civil and not rude.

For Debate events, particularly PoFo and Policy, tend to vote based on Topicality. Flow judge, ok with spreading (though can be problematic with virtual tournaments if bandwidth/audio gets choppy).

For I.E. Speech events, determine rankings based on overall cohesiveness of supporting arguments, clear layout and roadmap, body language, facial expressions, pacing of speech, vocal tonal variation, and delivery. For OO/Duo Interp, clear transitions and being able to follow performer(s) interpretation of piece, along with all other criteria listed above for I.E.

Occupation: Works at home.

School Affilations: Parent volunteer

Years of Judging/Event types: I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate for 1 year and have experience with Policy debate and Public-Forum debate.

Q:How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

A: Clarity of speaking and the manner in which arguments are presented.

Q: What sort of things help youth make a decision at the end of a debate?

A: Giving me voters at the end of the debate and tell me why you believe you won, Quality of arguments, and weigh the impacts of the round.

Q: Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

A: I will be taking notes on the arguments presented in the debate.

Rank the following on a scale from 1-10:

Clothing Appearance: 7

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 9

Cross examination: 7

Debate Skill over truthful arguments: 7

Online Debate: In the event, you get cut out, I will ask that you resume your speech from whatever your opponent or I last flowed.

Etiquette:

- Do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments.

- If you are rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, etc I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you if it's a big enough issue. Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you can be mean.

If there is a problem or you think something is wrong (like shady evidence), tell me ASAP so we can pause the debate if needed and solve the issue. If there is a disagreement about the content of a card, I will call for the card at the end of the debate.


Debate:

- LD!! Framework: I want to see strong justifications (please have a card, don't just run framework without having a card, it seems like you haven't researched the topic or don't care about the debate at all) during the framework portion and strong links to the framework throughout the debate.

- When you extend, don't just extend tags, extend cards + impacts or just impact in case time is low.

- When you are making refutations use blocks and evidence! If you don't have blocks, please make some blocks. I like evidence, but I will settle for analytical arguments if both sides don't have warrants.

- Signpost during your speeches and cite the year & author (the last name is fine if you want to give credentials to weigh the evidence that's great!) of your cards. It's ridiculous how many people don't, I'm literally just hearing the resolution and I have no clue what the common arguments so if you start refuting things without specifying what it is, I'm not gonna try to play connect the dots to figure out what you're doing. It's not hard, I'm sure most of you can do it.

- Once you drop something, you cannot come back to it. *If your impacts are better, I might disregard. If you're good on the flow, you have good impact calc, but you drop one non-crucial argument, I might disregard.

- If you bring up an argument in cx but don't later in the round, then it's useless.

Policy!!

- Tech > Truth

- Slow down on analytics and tags!

DA

- specify on link stories

- Do the impact comparison so I don't have to do all the work thx

CP

- tell me what the NB is and how it solves!

- do the line by line well

Speaks/Drop:

- debate skills > talking pretty, you can be a polished speaker AND a flow debater

- If you bring up new evidence or new arguments in a later speech where the opponent does not have a chance to respond, I will tank your speaks (you won't walk out with anything higher than 24) same thing for new evidence, don't bring new evidence when the other team will not get to respond. That's bad faith and I will drop your speaks and potentially even your side if it becomes a key argument.

- I really really hate when you tell me how I should be voting, I am pretty sure I can vote for myself, so use that time to build your arguments, your links, etc.

- I am fine with speed, be like Eminem if that's what ya want, but I do not want to watch spit fly and just hear heaving. If you are going too fast for me to understand, I'll just say clear. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow so when you extend or cross-apply, your side will be missing pieces

- If you make me laugh, it will boost your speaks :))

Occupation: Heart Surgeon

I debated in High School and College and MUN

Have Judged for 8 years, including at Nationals.

For Pufo: I do flow. If you speak too fast and I can not understand you, I can not credit you with the point being made.

I want you to have fun.

I expect you to be respectful to each other.

I am a scientist in the field of molecular biology. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum and parli for 3 years, with a mix of novice, jv, and varsity. Speaker points are awarded based on persuasion and clarity of speech, and my ability to understand arguments. Because of this, the team that receives my ballot is more likely to have higher speaks, but not always. I flow arguments that I can understand, meaning I can not flow arguments that are spread at me or that are blatantly untrue.

Clothing and appearance: 3/10. I took time getting ready coming here and I would hope that you show some semblance of doing the same.

Use of evidence: 6/10. Cards are an important part of any debate, but I do not want to have to write down the same thing in 15 different pieces of evidence or have to deal with card dumps. I prefer cards coupled with logical analyses that flow, and prefer that the logic behind the card is explained rather than the card itself.

Real World Impacts: 9/10 I will vote on any argument with some truth to it if it is explained to me logically. Impact weighing is the deciding factor in most rounds, so tell me why the argument matters and why I should vote off of it and have a coherent link chain.

Crossfire:5/10 I will take notes in crossfire, but if you want me to remember a response, repeat it in a speech.

Truth/Tech: 8/10 Truth>Tech in every round. If the argument is untrue, the opponent not responding to it does not mean I will weigh the argument on your side.

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 would be interested to assess understanding of topic/s supported by evidence and facts. Reference to points presented by other participants would be great.

I would also be looking for overall confidence, delivery and clarity of topics, body gesture, eye contacts, and voice modulation.

It would be great to contribute in every capacity to make this event an enriching and fulfilling experience for all participants!

My name is Ritesh Kumar, I am a lay judge from Dougherty Valley Speech and Debate. 
I like clarity, structure and logic. I will remember things if you emphasize them, things like slowing down and extending work well. If you are consistent with that expect good speaks. I cannot tolerate profanity, racism and other such inappropriate comments. 
I have judged in a couple of novice tournaments last season. I'm not too tolerant of jargon, and only weigh what I understand. If you tell me to consider something more than others,then I will.
I might take notes, I can't flow, 
Good luck!  

Fluent expression, logical structure, good rebuttal (if applicable) are important elements of a good debate/speech in my view.

I am a parent judge and I prefer competitors keeping a slow pace while speaking. I also prefer well-articulated arguments where candidates are getting across their point. The complexity of the arguments is not an issue, as I have a daughter that debates as well. However, I would prefer if they are easier to understand.

I end up weighing the rounds largely based upon the refutations. To get my ballot, refutations should be logical, well-reasoned, and well-presented.

Candidates should also be nice to each other. Not respecting your opponent is a big no-no for me.

Overall, just have fun when you debate!

Parent Judge.

Parent judge. Argument should be precise and clean. Try not to repeat yourself too much. No spreading. Being passionate is great in cross examination but not too aggressive.

My name is Sridevi Madaraju and I am a software professional. This is my third year judging LD and Policy Debate for Dougherty Valley High School. I have also occasionally judged parliamentary debate and public forum debate. I am a parent judge.

IMPORTANT FOR STANFORD 2021 LD--

I will not be able to keep up with high speeds, please go slow. I am unaccustomed to judging philosophical debates and have a strong bias toward voting for utilitarianism. AFFs must be topical, which means they must affirm the resolution or a subset of it, so I do not understand and will not vote for K AFFs.

GENERAL--

Things that I evaluate when making my decision -- quality/comparison of arguments, effective refutation, impact calculus and judge instruction. Please do not say "they conceded this" or "they dropped this" when the other team didn't.

Things that matter for speaker points -- quality of impact calculus and judge instruction in rebuttals, truth of arguments, argument quality and having good warrants/evidence, cross ex, clarity

I flow/take notes during the debate.

Debaters should read cards and use email chains to send speech docs. I will provide my email address for the email chain during the round. Evidence needs to be extended in the debates, but solely author name extensions are insufficient, you need to extend the actual warrants in the card.

Cross examination is something I listen to and take into account for speaker points, but it does not affect my decision.

I value debate skill over truthful arguments, but I will hold the line when it comes to voting on egregiously untruthful arguments.

Parent judge. Fifth year judging; Fourth year judging PuFo. I take judging seriously and try to include detailed notes in my ballots and to issue RFD based on what I'm able to flow. I do not consider anything not raised in the debate. I appreciate a roadmap & solid organization. Typical PuFo speed of speech is fine, but if you talk too fast, then I may be unable to follow your arguments--please no spreading or very fast speech. Thank you!

About me:

I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

General:

Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.

This is my third year as parent judge mainly in LD and Policy debates

I am open to all arguments.

Remember It is your responsibility to present your case in the most thorough and understanding way possible. I prefer a slower pace, which I think allow for a more involved and persuasive debating. No offensive language or argument please. I also give attention to your organization of the thoughts, points and evidences.

I have judged debate for three years with a preference to Policy and Public Forum. My primary exposure has been to lay debate.

I consider myself well read and up to date on current issues. I enjoy a debate where both sides demonstrate an understanding of the arguments they are presenting. My judgements are based solely on what is presented with no bias. If I hear something stated that is incorrect, it is up to the other team to challenge it. Failure to do so may result in a point for the team that used it.

For lay debates, I weigh the rebuttal rounds more heavily than the constructive rounds. It is one thing to present a lot of arguments, it is another to be able to connect them in a narrative that is both logically sound and persuasive. If you use your rebuttal time to just rehash your constructive arguments, it may lose my interest.

Above all, be courteous and respectful to your opponents and to the judge. Spreading is ok as long as you have practiced it.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

I'm not a big fan of speed as I believe debate should be a listening activity. I'm not very familiar with theory but if you break it down for me as a regular argument that would be great. K's should be explained thoroughly. I have Four years of experience judging Lincoln Douglas but it has been in the JV , PF division. Be respectful with your opponent when you raise your point.The bottom line is if I don't understand it, I'm not voting off it. Your job as the debater is to explain the arguments you make.

I have been judging policy debate for 2 years.

I am familiar with this year's resolution. I understand advantages, disadvantages, counter-plans, and topicality (but explain it clearly).

I am not familiar with Kritiks, K-affs, and other theory arguments (unless you explain it well)

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly

Make compelling arguments and convince me that your argument is better.

I've been a lay judge since 2014, primarily for Policy, and also have experience in LD and PoFo. (Lots of IE experience, too.)

I'm pretty easy going, and if both teams agree on something (timing prep, sharing podium), I'm fine with it. If you spread, I can keep up, but my comments/ suggestions for you will be fewer. I'm a big fan of politeness and kindness between partners and between teams. We're all just here to do our best, and while intellectual sparring is great, there's no need to try to eviscerate each other. Let's have a debate, not a bloodbath!

Email: vnguyen@headroyce.org

Experience:

-MS S & D coaching sporadically since 2000, HS S & D coaching since 2018. I have no direct debate experience but do have a fairly substantive understanding of argumentation and speech and debate as a secondary English educator for three decades.

-Most experienced with MSPDP and HS Parli. Have a working knowledge of Congress, Novice Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, IEs like Impromptu, Extemp, Informative, Interpretations, and Original Oratory.

-My main interest in various debate spaces is to collaborate with others, especially in leadership positions, to improve critical thinking and make the debate space less transactional and more accessible and transformational. I believe debate is just a fun and challenging HOW. For us to get something of lasting value from this educational activity, we need to be clear about our WHY to this HOW. My contributions to the debate community has focused primarily on event-specific curriculum and judging training/feedback.

-Have judged at tournaments as need be. NPDI JV Semis. GGSA Semis for Varsity Student Congress, JV & Varsity Parli and Lincoln-Douglas Prelims. ASU Novice Policy Semis. I have also judged many mock rounds for Head-Royce and some scrimmages between my school and others. However, I usually prefer not to judge at competitions because I am often busy helping to run Parli tournaments or coaching my teams.

Philosophy/Pedagogy:

-Paramount for me as a longstanding English literature teacher/debate and former volleyball coach since 1999 years are sportsmanship and discourse that deepen understanding of debate and connect general school knowledge to current issues of the day. My hope is that we (kids and adults alike) can become more informed critical thinkers and contribute to our representative republic, to our overall humanity. If all that sounds very kumbaya uptopian, it is and worth pushing for.

-I am more of a truth over tech judge, but do value tech. I flow extensively by case and by speech on one or multiple sheets as appropriate to levels and events like Parli, PF and traditional LD. My main interest is to be attentive and not interventionist and to capture as best as I can, the balance between the trees and forest of the clash as teams make their cases and collapse toward 1-2 convincing voters.

-You will most likely earn my ballot if you are courteous, organized, and nuanced. Signpost consistently; focus on depth over breadth; prioritize arguments; make explicit your syllogistic logic chain; impact out using PMT(CR)S (probability, magnitude, time frame, cyclicality,reversibility, scope) calculus; clearly tie it all arguments back to the weighing mechanism; and ultimately tell a compelling story with a thematic thread featuring your 1-2 voters.

It might be helpful for you to know that I can handle speed but only to a certain extent, I am frankly averse to spreading—speed at the cost of cogency and clash is simply neither strategic nor compelling for non-policy events.

Lastly, please focus on topic content. I do believe, however, that debate is a game (akin to chess), and I enjoy clever use of theory, especially in the form of double binds. I am also open to K args., notably if they are resolutional. Don't run a K, esp. a K Aff in Parli, unless you really can explain it well and ideally link it to the round topic.

I have been judging mostly LD and Policy events and have been judging for 4 years

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important.

I would consider the following when I award speaker points

-how you speak

- if you are courteous and would let opponent complete their thought

- how you conduct during cross-ex

I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.

The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.

6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.

7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.

Policy

1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.

2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.

3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.

4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.

5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.

6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.

7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.

I am a parent judge with no previous judging experience. Go for straight up arguments and the biggest thing I will use to weigh the round is strength of links and impact calculus. Give clear reasons for arguments and why these arguments matter in the round. Read evidence but also analytically extend why the warrants of the evidence matters in the round/proves another arg wrong: I'm not going to do that work for you. On impact calc: give me 1) how you impact outweighs and 2) why weighing impacts your weigh is good/better. Speak clearly_ no spreading. Global overviews+ overviews of args will significantly help you. Racism, sexism, etc. is an automatic rejection of the team.

Email:

ravipotnuru@gmail.com

I am a lay judge so make sure you don't speak too fast but I still deeply value good argumentation and logical reasoning. As long as the teams can make arguments that make sense and respond to their opponents case while defending their position is what I am mainly looking for and how confidently they present their case.

First, I do not believe in spreading.  Please do not spread in a round with me.  If  you want to have better contentions, please choose better evidence, not pack more evidence in.  

I am fine with topicality/theory, but do slow down for the interpretation and standards for me to have sufficient time to write it down. 

I understand basic kritiks, but please nothing with too high theory.  Keep it simple though and make sure to slow down for role of the ballot args and the alt.  

The best arguments are the regular plan/CP args.  I would prefer these, but feel free to use whatever you want.

If I do not understand the argument or if it is not extended, I will not vote for it.  Explain everything thoroughly and focus on content, not amount.

Hello everyone,

Background:

I am an electrical engineer in Silicon Valley. I judge for Dougherty Valley, this is my second year judging PF so I have a little experience. I take notes throughout the debate.

Speaker Points:

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". Don't speak too fast if you want me to catch all you're arguments.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly; remember I have no background in debate and don't have super extensive knowledge of the topic. This means if you use debate terminology you should probably explain the terms too.

Decisions:

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that is winning their arguments, while also explaining their warrants and why their impacts matter.

Other:

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not materialize in the real world, then I will be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Have fun and good luck!

i am a parent but i have been judging for a long time (over 6 years) now. i want to see everyone in the round signposting.

for public forum, i want to see you guys weighing impacts in the last 2 speeches. i will do my best to flow and keep track of the debate. mild to moderate speaking speed is ok.

above all, be respectful and polite to each other and have fun. you will get higher speaker points for making me laugh. there is a fine line between being aggressive and rude, and if i feel that you are being disrespectful, i will not hesitate to drop you.

I am a parent judge. Explain all arguments clearly to me, please no spreading. I will determine the winner based on strong argumentation, presentation of each side's points, etc. I'm a lay judge, but I will be taking notes during the debate and weighing both sides according to how much arguments are introduced & responded to. Please be respectful and polite to each other during cross-examination, and remember to have fun! :)

I’ve been judging for a while. My decisions are based of persuasive arguments backed up by evidence. Please, speak slowly and clearly. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. Please explain all arguments clearly and do not spread. I will be taking notes throughout the round. Good luck!

I've been judging for over 8 years, primarily in Congressional debate. Here are some things I watch out for:

- Delivery: Body language, eye contact, voice modulation, confidence

- Clarity: Are your arguments and impacts broken down in an easy to understand and logical manner

- Content: Are you bringing unique insights to the table and furthering the debate, or simply rehashing what has already been discussed.

- Creativity: Give me a reason to rank you higher by using beautiful rhetoric or witty humor

I am a real estate agent. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum debate for 2 years, mostly in the novice and JV divisions.

I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasive ability, and how easy your arguments are to understand. I’d prefer if you speak at a normal speed, or only slightly fast. Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents, and your partner.

I will only vote on arguments that are extended throughout the debate, and that make sense to me. When making any point you would like me to vote on, clearly explain what it is and why it matters.

I will not be taking many notes during the round, so please point out any concessions, drops, etc. that the opponents make. Keep the debate jargon to a minimum.

How much I weigh the following (1 - not at all, 10 - heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 2/10 I do not judge based on appearance but put some effort into looking professional.

Use of Evidence: 9/10 I will not be calling for cards but make sure your evidence states what you are claiming. When extending cards, explain the warrants instead of just giving the tags.

Real world Impacts: 10/10 Clearly explain why your impact matters more than your opponents, and do the weighing for me.

Cross Examination: 4/10 I will not pay much attention during cross, so if there are any important concessions made, point them out in your next speech.

Tech over truth: 6/10 I will care more about the manner in which the argument is presented, but I will not vote on anything that is blatantly untrue. It is your job to convince me why your opponents’ arguments are invalid.

Additionally, don’t run theory, as I do not have experience with it, and cannot evaluate what I don’t understand.

I am a parent judge. Please be sure to make logical arguments and extensions as well as make clear impacts and voters. (I take extremely detailed notes). Also, speaking ability/lay appeal is a very important factor in my decision.

Things that I dislike:

-Poor enunciation and/or a monotone voice

-Any form of discriminatory or hurtful language/argument/action

-Debaters who speak too quietly or spread too quickly

-Any form of circuit debate arguments

Speaker Points:

25 or lower: (Reserved for bad or unprofessional conduct)

26: Below Average

27: Average

28: Above Average

29: Great

30: WOW(not many given)

NOTE: Please smile and have fun! Debate is a fun activity, so please treat it as such.

I like logic based arguments with a strong link chain to the impacts.

Most impacts are fine with me, but your cards and link chain needs to sell me on your argument for me to vote you up.

I will be voting on the side that have provided the most evidence and have proved to me that they should win the round.

Make sure to impact weigh and sign post. Also I would prefer if there was no spreading, please.

I love it when there is a voters section at the end of the last speech and specific judge instruction.

Tell me why you deserve to win the round at the end of your last speech, it will help me contextualize the whole round.

I am a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School and have had about 2 years of judging through various speech and debate event. I look for strong and valid evidence that supports your claims. I need to see refutations and interaction with each other in round. When it comes to speeches, I look for passion as well as your ability to convince me why you are right. I look for unique impacts that show your knowledge about the topic, as well as the way you contribute to the round.

Hello, my name is Wenzhou.

Background

I am a software engineer who works in the Bay Area. This is my first year judging so Public Forum, as well as all other speech and debate events, are very new. As a heads-up, "flowing" is a foreign concept for me so if I take notes throughout the debate it may not be in the format you are used to seeing.

Speaker Points

I will give speaker points from 27-29 if you:

a) Speak clearly and slowly. Please no "spreading". 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) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I have no background in debate nor in the topic so make sure that you put things in terms that I can understand. This means if you use debate terminology you will probably need to explain what it means for me to actually consider it.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. Additionally, because I'm not familiar with the topic, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this is also important to me. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Good luck

I'm a parent who's never judged before. Please speak slowly and clearly explain how I should write my ballot.

Email chain: epg.wong@gmail.com

Debated policy 2009-2012 for James Logan High School.

Speed is fine, but I don't judge frequently anymore, so clearly signpost and you'll probably need to slow down a bit and number arguments when reading theory shells or making several analytics in a row.

I probably won't be familiar with most of the literature on this year's topic, but feel free to read/run whatever types of arguments you want. Role of the ballot type arguments should be clearly explained if you want me to evaluate a round a certain way. Explaining warrants is necessary when extending cards/arguments.

I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.

Preferences:

- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.

- Speak clearly. Don't spread.

- Take the time to explain complex arguments.

Good luck!