I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

I am a former varsity PF debater and Impromptu speaker. I also won the Big Questions Tournament 2022 (as my teammates requested I put in here). I use she/her pronouns. I don't really care about formality (clothes, shoes, setup, whatever, although don't be ridiculous for both our sakes). If you have tech issues, let me know and we can figure it out. Call me dude if you want to, I'll find it fun.

I won't dispute unless you tell me to, be nice, don't make me intervene. I'm fairly flow but I'm also literally a high schooler. Speed is fine, but please organize and signpost well. Have good evidence. Don't be rude. Tech over truth. Theory/K is fine, but needs to be explained thoroughly. Make puns.

I don't have all that much experience in anything other than PF but I have a pretty good gist of the other events.

Email: joshanne.chiang@gmail.com

Hi! I debated public forum for four years in high school. Please explain thoroughly, signpost, and don't go too fast. Please, please weigh. If I'm not judging PF, I'm probably not as familiar with your event, so I'm sorry. Basically, if you run progressive debate arguments, I most likely won't get what you're doing, or at least not be able to evaluate your arguments as well. Plans/counterplans in non-PF are fine though.

Please be courteous to your opponents. You are definitely allowed to be assertive, but show your opponents the same respect that you want from them. This includes refraining from being condescending and being equitable/inclusive with your argumentation.

I don't flow cross. Please time yourselves.

Feel free to ask me anything. Above all, have fun and good luck!

Golden Rule: Be nice to your opponent. Not too aggressive, not mean, treat each other with respect. If I see you are not being nice, I will lower your speaker points.

Also, a quick preface to this paradigm. I know it seems scary that it's so long, and I'm not here to intimidate you, I just find it fun to have a long paradigm full of references and humour, in an effort to lighten the situation (and make me look more knowledgeable HAHA). If this is scaring you, I promise that is not my intent; I'm not a scary guy (or at least, I try not to be lol). Now, read on :)

A Brief TL;DR Of This Excessively Long Paradigm

Nah, no TLDR. It's your round, make sure you read and understand everything, and please ask me if you don't. I suggest listening to Writer in the Dark by Lorde while you read this.

A Tad About Me

Hey, I'm Vivek! I'm currently a college student, and previously served as PF Captain for Mountain View-Los Altos Speech and Debate (los altos >>). I'm a massive Taylor Swift fan (like my top played artist in 2020 AND 2021 oop), which makes me sound very basic, I'm aware. In my free time, I enjoy watching TV, going on car drives, eating, spending time with friends, etc. I'm excited to see y'all debate (I may scroll through Reddit if I'm bored, jkjk); below is a (very) comprehensive paradigm on what you should be doing to tailor to my preferences.

Also, my pronouns are he/him.

Lying

Look..... just don't lie. I used to have a whole paragraph here about not lying, but honestly, if you've made it this far, you know how bad lying is. If you're going to win, do so the right way.

Spreading

Do not.

Signposting

Do! I need to know where to flow.

Off-Time Roadmaps

Oh god yes please. So helpful.

Crossfire

Just answer your questions well and ask good questions. Don't give like super long answers, because that wastes the crossfire time for me and your opponents. If you want to elaborate, do so in your upcoming speech. At the same time, I don't flow crossfire, so even if you don't do so great, that will only be reflected in speaker points, not in my ballot.

Framework/Standard

If you do not list a framework, I will use your opponents'. Please list one, or you may end up regretting it.

Impacts

This is important, list your impacts, it helps me know who is helping the most people in the rounds. It doesn't necessarily need to be quantified, but it could be helpful for magnitude weighing.

Weighing

Taken from the paradigm of Daniel Fernandez.

Don't just make arguments and respond to your opponent's arguments; invest time to explain why the arguments you make the matter more than the arguments your opponent makes. The earlier you start and the more often you bring up your weighing, the better!

One note on weighing: I would advise teams against saying that their arguments are more likely than their opponent's arguments because the strength of weighing comes from the ability to accept your opponent's argument as true and still win the debate by demonstrating why your own argument matters more. When you argue that your argument is more probable than your opponent's, you put the added burden on yourself to win their case because you need to win a reason why their argument is not true or improbable. You should always seek win-win the debate by winning the fewest amount of arguments.

Extend

Extend your cases and refutations all the way through Final Focus so I know you didn't drop anything! If you drop something, I probably will not consider it in my final delegation. I once lost an eliminations round at Berkeley because I didn't extend one point in summary :( ......so, extend!

Speed/Pacing

I'm fine if you want to go fast, just don't go super-duper spready fast (spreading = bad. sry policy and LD!). Also, have a constant pace, don't speed up and slow down - time management!! Plus, speak clearly! If I can't understand you, then I might drop your point by mistake!

Arguments

Just don't be offensive, and also run creative arguments! Feel free to run squirrelly arguments. Plus if you make me laugh (yay!) I will probably raise your speaker points. :)

Evidence

Some may dislike me for this (myself included), but for evidence, I follow Charles Schletzbaum's preferred rule - NSDA Public Forum Rule #7.1B. In accordance with this rule, please have the author's name and date, along with their agency (ex. for Adrian Jones from the Mayo Clinic in 2013 should become "Jones 13"). I may call for cards, so be ready for that, and don't have any sketchy/shady evidence (debate math discussed below).

Debate Math

Eh. I used plenty of sketchy debate math myself throughout my debate career, so I can't really fault you for this one. Just make sure it makes sense in context of the actual world, and that you have the statistics to back it up.

Speaker Points

Taken from the paradigm from Christian Jochi Vasquez :) :

My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. I think speaker point inflation is pretty ridiculous these days. A 30 to me means that there is nothing I can critique about your speech and it was perfect [Vivek's edit – look for ways to improve speaker points below]. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:

A) Voting issues, not just blind extensions. Talked about this a bit up above. I want to hear real weighing in the round, and that means actually applying some form of calculus to the arguments. I think categorizing arguments into broader issues allows you to do this. Feel free to prove me wrong though, and I mean that sincerely.

B) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge

C) Jokes. I like to laugh and smile, but lately a lot of rounds have done the opposite for me.

Fun ways to get better speaks (for a maximum of 29.25 points - the rest must be from your actual speaking) :)

Firstly, I'd like to preface this section by saying that I want to make debating less stressful for you, and more entertaining for me. Therefore, I include this section, because it's so much fun to hear y'all's amazing references and stuff - please try to include like at least one reference to a show/movie listed below, because it's fun for everyone and makes the atmosphere just generally more comfortable. As a debater, I have never had a judge give me the option to reference entertainment I like (and believe me, there have been a lot of situations where I could have) - I want to be the judge that gives you a creative platform, so while the debating aspect is still pretty serious, you can also have a bit of fun with it :)). (note: obviously try to be tasteful where you say it, not in a random sentence about poverty and starvation in some part of the world or something lol)

- Puns in speeches (but NOT in contention titles): +0.25 speaker points

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense: +1 speaker point.

- Reference one of these (and it must be a clear reference, I suggest making analogies to situations. It cannot just "Aang said 'war' once and so did I," have something tangible. And feel free to ask me for a review on any of these, I will let you know if it's good or not): + 1 speaker point:

(*clears throat*)

ATLA; LOK (omg the ending, my heart <3); MCU (including Deadpool (1&2), AOS, Daredevil, MCU Disney+ shows; ps Daredevil is amazing); Breaking Bad/El Camino/BCS (but not s5 of bcs); DCEU (including The Flash, Arrow(s1), Doom Patrol, Gotham, Lucifer, Peacemaker); Michael Schur Universe (The Good Place, The Office, Parks & Rec, B99); Dan Harmon shows (Community, Rick and Morty); The Umbrella Academy; Star Wars (including Clone Wars, Rebels, Mandalorian, BOBF); most things Disney (ask for clarification); Disney Channel Shows! (GLC, DWAB, A&A, L&M, Jessie); Stranger Things; Kim's Convenience; NBA stuff in general; Any Harry Potter movie/books; Literally anything Rick Riordan; Crazy Rich Asians (one of my all-time fav movies, and the books are solid too); legit anything Taylor Swift (omg my fav, like....champagne problems? paper rings? illicit affairs?? we stan!! lmk if you want recs); also anything Ben Platt, he ruled my high school junior year (what is it with sad music and junior year? hmm); The Last Dance; Columbo; Once Upon a Time; New Amsterdam; Johnny English (any of the three films, but preferably #2 because that's my favorite oop); Die Hard (1,2,3,4); Feel Good (PG please); Bridgerton (I caved into the trend oop, and probably lost a few hundred braincells because of that); Rocky (1,2,3,4,5,6); Creed (1&2); The Karate Kid (I,II,III); Cobra Kai (ahh i love this show); The Queen's Gambit; You. Basically, you've got options here. It's an easy speaker point. Do it. Please. Make me laugh. I am starved for entertainment (and, yes, I see the irony).

- Rap your summary/final focus: 2 speaker points

Get 30 speaks 101

There are two ways to get a 30:

1. Roast your opponent's case. However, not just a simple, boring roast, it needs to be a really unique, brutal comment. Again, DO NOT attack your opponent personally in any way – I would never advocate for that. If you're going to attempt this, go for their arguments. Also, I decide whether your roast is 30 points-worthy.

Theory/Kritiks

Hmmm, theory and K's and similar stuff are very interesting, but I have no real idea on how to weigh them in context of the round lol. I completely understand Abigail Spencer's gender K, and do agree that is a problem in public forum; if such a situation (or other situations with similar severity) arises, definitely feel free to address it. However, don't run theory or a K just for the fun of it, as it will probably backfire on you. If there really is a legitimate reason to run the K or the theory, then of course I encourage it, but if not, then just don't.

Disclosure

Eh. As a competitor, I understand wanting a judge to disclose. Therefore, I will try my best to disclose; however, if I'm just not feeling it, I may not disclose, and that's no reflection on your abilities to debate, I'm probably just having my own personal reservations to doing so (which can and will be influenced by numerous external factors, not limited to the round).

Non-PF rounds

If I'm judging you in Parli, LD, or Policy, I probably have no clue how to judge your round lol. Parli, I can get by (preferably keep the theory to a minimum). For LD I can also sort of understand, but weighing the morality aspect of the round can be confusing, as PF doesn't have anything like that. Policy..... I have no clue mate. I just hope that nobody assigns me policy rounds (hint hint tab).

Extra! (Though probably also helpful to read)

Don't title your contentions with something punny, like "Big Bad BRI" (from the BRI topic in Septober 2019). As much as I like puns, preferably not in your contention titles, as I want to know what the contention is about. If you can find other places to incorporate puns/jokes, then feel free to do so!

Also, please don't start your speeches with "I'd like to thank the judge for this round, I'd like to thank my opponents yadda yadda yadda" because it's so, so, so infuriatingly pretentious.

For all intents and purposes, I am a flow judge, but definitely also go for lay appeal lol. While I generally don't vote based on perceptual dominance, instead on your arguments, it does unconsciously factor into my decision (I am human, after all).

You can probably count on me having some background information on the topic, but it will definitely not be anything specific; now that I'm no longer debating, I don't have the proximity to these topics, and I'm not really staying updated about the Baltic States or the South China Sea in my free time.

I may have already added this somewhere, but I'll reiterate it here. I support sticky defense, but that is only if the evidence/argument has gone unresponded to by your opponents by the end of the round. Sticky offense is not a thing; please extend.

Watch this. It is so cute.

And at some point, please read this. It was written by a good friend of mine, and points out some very interesting points on debate itself. And on that note, please treat sensitive issues as sensitive issues.

I'm going to leave you with a life tip (which implies that I've lived long enough to experience much more than you all, which really isn't true, but whatever heh). Public Forum Debate is one of the most interesting, inclusive, and exhilarating activities I have ever done. I gained an entire second family here, one I conversed with daily and trusted with all of my heart. Public Forum will always hold a special place in my heart, and nothing could change that. That said, competition often transforms debate into a very toxic atmosphere to be in. Treat each other with respect and just be polite. While this is an important point for debate, the real world is a very toxic place as well - just try to be the nice person. Everybody is going through something: maybe their parents are having a divorce, their grandfather just died, they just broke up from a long-term relationship. Don't add to their internal problems. In rounds, debate your hearts out, but do not go for any personal attacks. Don't say anything that can be perceived offensive, including acting homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anything of the sort. At that point, I will drop you if you're actively contributing to debate's toxicity. Just be nice.

Note for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 season of debate. Please do not sit with your partner, on the same screen, together (AKA not social distancing). Not only is it not safe for you and your partner, it's just annoying because there are so many teams that get disadvantaged for taking the proper safety precautions.

With that, good luck everybody.

updated march ‘22

pronouns: they/them

put me on the email chain: lizclayton6@gmail.com

experience: debated 7 years in middle/high school policy for crossings in oklahoma city

tl;dr-

1. be nice

2. have fun

3. do what you want, just do it well

Tech---------X-------------------------------- Truth

online debate

i’m okay with speed, however, i can’t hear as well over a speaker, so either slow down a little bit or make sure to enunciate- i don’t want to miss anything!

preferences

none of my preferences affect my decision. the categories below reflect what i am most experienced in/what arguments i would be best at evaluating.

K- Dislike -----------------------------------------X Like

CP- Dislike -------------------------------------X—-- Like

DA- Dislike -------------------------------------X--- Like

T- Dislike ------------------------------X----------- Like

FW- Dislike ------------------------------------X----- Like

Theory- Dislike -----------------------X------------------ Like

Case Neg- Dislike ---------------------------------X-------- Like

specifics

K

mostly ran antiblackness, settler colonialism, and deleuze/guattari, sometimes baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and cap.

i will look at the framework debate first. keep your arguments consistent and clear. i feel like it often gets muddled because both sides forget that they must impact out and do comparative analysis with their standards. if there's not a role of the judge i will default to... a judge at a debate tournament. (if you want me to be a policymaker you gotta tell me) the aff gets to weigh itself against the alternative. i default to choosing the best option (util if no impact framing)- how i frame the ballot is up to y’all. lots of clash on the flow is appreciated.

love a good link debate. be specific! if you have more than one, it helps my flow if you number them. evidence indicts are cool. i have high standards for any k link, generic "you talk about/don't talk about X so you're guilty of X" is not particularly convincing unless it's dropped or severely undercovered.

the impact debate is so important! probability matters. have a decent timeframe for terminal impacts. anything long-term not very convincing, especially if the aff wins timeframe arguments for their impact. use ptm. (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

tell the story of how the alternative functions, and pls explain how each perm is a worse option than the alt. idk how i feel about utopian alt arguments because technically the aff is also guilty of utopianism. most of the time nobody really sits on it anyway, so do what you will with that information.

DA

i’m not really picky about them except don’t read more than one with the same impact. pls have solid uniqueness evidence, i will read it if there's unresolved uq stuff. high standard for the link debate, there must be a reasonable way for the aff to cause the impacts.

CP

can’t go wrong with a solid advantage cp. have a clear net benefit (i default to best option) and explain mutual exclusivity.

T

t is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. impact comparison is super important. having da's on it is cool. engage the opponent's arguments.

Theory

i see it mishandled often. there has to be a tangible risk of abuse, a reasonable interpretation, and supporting examples for me to want to vote on it.

Aff

policy affs should have solid internal link chains, explain what the aff actually does, who does it, who it affects, etc. explain why your solution is the best solution.

k affs should have an advocacy statement. the aff position shouldn't change mid-round. i have very high expectations for the internal link and solvency. explain who the aff is good for, why its a good idea, etc. same as before, explain why your solution is the best solution.

My name is Svetlana and I have not been a judge of speech and debate tournament yet. This is my first tournament. Please speak clear, good pronunciation will help me understand you, not too fast, please. Make sure it is clear what's the main point of the argument is. If you use acronyms, please assume I don't know what they are, please explain all abbreviations in your speech. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

Sourabh Goyal

Debate/Politics :
I really enjoy Political discussions or Debate topics.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 25.0.

I did 3 years of varsity pf in high school. I will flow all of your speeches :)

General

1. Truth > Tech.

2. Please do not misconstrue/lie about your cards. It's not fair at all! I will always call for a card if I'm sus (make sure every card has a link). If you do lie about what your card says, I will call you out for it in RFD.

3. Speed: You can go as fast as you want, but make sure you're understandable to a certain extent. The slower you go, the more likely it is I will write every point you're making.

4. Make clear speeches/arguments. This means that you are signposting.

5. Please allow your opponent(s) to speak during cross. It's not a competition of who can talk the most, but who can argue their points the best. If your opponent(s) are unable to ask 1 question during cross because you're overtalking them, I will gladly give them 3 minutes extra to just ask you questions and will take 3 points off your speaks. It's annoying so just don't do it :)

6. If you don't respond to an argument or a question, I will consider that you have conceded (try not to do this).

7. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh your impacts (what is your impact, why is important, how do you outweigh, why is your world better). Weighing requires you to compare so make sure you do that in your final speeches at the latest.

8. If you make me laugh, I will add 1 more speaker point (esp. in rebuttal or crossx)

PF

1. Please try to make eye contact and speak loudly during case. I was first speaker so if you go 10-15 seconds over your case or any speech in general, I will allow it :)

2. Signpost during rebuttal. Analysis > Cards. Explain the card, don't just recite it for me.

3. Everything in final focus must be in summary. Please start weighing in summary so you can be nice to your partner :)

4. Everyone has to talk in grand cross. Grand cross is also not a screaming fest even though sometimes it feels like that.

5. No new arguments in second summary (as tempting as it is, it's not nice).

6. Please do not hold the timer in the air if you're opponents go 1 second over. It's annoying and most of the time they haven't even reached the time limit.

7. If you're not nice to your partner (don't let them speak), I will remove 2 speaker points. PF is a team event so act like a team.

8. If you nod during your partner's speeches, I will give you 1 more speaker point (support your partner, you are in this together!! )

Let me know before round if you have any questions! Good luck :)

I am a Program/Agile manager at Cisco. I have judged quite a many rounds for Public Forum and enjoy listening to everyone's speeches.

I like standards and collapsing into your opponents frameworks.

I enjoy seeing weighing and word to word comparisons either in summary or final focus. Final Focus I mainiy look for voters issues, and if u bring up dropped arguments I wont count them.

I also look for good impact and links and extending main arguments to the end of your cases. And good warrants with statistics such as percentages or ratios. Good solvencies are also important to show me why your world solves better for the resolution.

I would prefer sign posting so its easier for me to keep track of arguments and also prefer slow speaking so its easier for me to follow and take notes. Speaking too fast also doesn't help make clarity in arguments.

I also look for more direct responses and in crossfire I look for open ended questions that help me better understand your side of the resolution.

Overall confidence , good mannerism,voive modulation is the key.I prefer team on video as expressions matter in debating:)

Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness. 

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please be clear and provide definitions. I do not flow, but will take notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to WEIGH. Please time yourselves. I most likely won’t understand Theory or Ks but if you explain well I will keep that in mind. In terms of speaking, make sure your words are coherent. In order to win, you need to draw me a clear path of why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

Things I am looking for:

* Speak clearly and slowly with no spreading

* Counter the arguments of your opponents

* Present a clash of ideas

* Display solid logic, reasoning and analysis

rubyshea.m@gmail.com

Hello. I am a lay/parent judge, although I have a bit of experience judging. I will not write down arguments so if you want something to stick in my head, be sure to repeat it each speech. I will not tolerate any vulgar language or actions in-round. I would prefer it if you speak at a talking pace. I wish all teams luck in the round and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know in-round. Send any evidence asked for in chat.

*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)_/¯

Hey yall, I'm Yvo (she/her)! I'm a current PF debater and I'm also a coach for middle schoolers.

Update for 2020-2021

Don't break COVID guidelines to debate with your partner. It's dangerous, unfair, and generally a bad move. I'm going to vote on 6 feet theory pretty easily.

Speaker points

My usual score for a relatively clear, effective speaker is a 28. Signpost, especially for first speakers. Be clear, loud, and concise, and you'll be good. If you're excessively rude, cursing people out, racist/sexist/transphobic/anything, you will be dropped. I've never given below a 27, but I will go as low as possible for offensive speech.

How to get 30 speaks

I play fast and loose with speaker points, i.e. they don't matter to me, so why not have fun! There are lots of ways to get 30s from me, but here's a short list:

- Puns (the worse the better)

- Snacks! (no pressure on this one)

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense

- Clearly reference a TV show, movie, musical, or singer (list of things I'm a fan of is at the bottom)

- Rap your summary or FF

Spreading (anything over like 800 words)

I'm in high school, I'm perpetually sleep deprived, and I'm a slow writer. Don't spread.

Crossfire

I'll listen to your cross, but I won't judge off of it if you don't bring up damning points in your speech. You don't have the obligation to respond to anything brought up in cross during your next speech unless they extend it through their speech.

I do absolutely notice when yall are cutting off your opponents and not letting them answer. I will not hesitate to drop your speaks, even if you win the round. This is mostly for the toxic male debaters but I'm equal opportunity on this one.

BE RESPECTFUL!!! Don't yell, cut each other off, or be rude. Don't try to make your opponents look stupid. If you've got the answer/info you need, back off.

Arguments

Run whatever you want. As long as it makes sense, isn't overtly offensive or problematic, I'm good with it. Explain your links well, make sure your arguments are unique, and talk about your impacts in all your speeches. I'll call for cards at the end if I think I need to, or if one team has a serious request for it. I don't want to vote for an argument I don't understand, so rare args need a good logical flow to it. Be clear on uniqueness.

I like moral arguments over big stick impacts, as long as there's evidence for it. So prioritizing impacts for certain populations that aren't prioritized for traditional debates.

Theory/Ks

I'm good with it, but keep in mind the skill of your opponents. Don't be abusive. I'll still judge on frivolous theory, but please note I hate disclosure theory and think it's a waste of time. I prefer theory related to issues I can solve in the round (ie, dropping the debater fixes the problem).

I'm not as familiar with Ks as I am with theory, so just explain the argument well. Same goes here, I prefer issues that can be solved in round.

Links

Make sure they're logical, explained clearly, and not dropped in later speeches. You must win the link-level debate before I'll even consider your impacts. That is, if your opponent turns you or delinks you, explain why they're wrong before jumping to "we outweigh."

Impacts

Please do good, clear weighing. Tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs. Tell me why poverty is more important than the economy. Even if it seems clear why your impacts outweigh, you still have to explain it. Card your impacts.

Other Stuff

Second rebuttal should frontline, but second summary can bring up new frontlines. If second summary does new frontlines, then they can't complain if first ff addresses those.

Defense isn't sticky or terminal. If you read a turn on them and then don't bring it up in summary, I assume you concede it and they don't have to respond to it anymore.

Case doesn't need to be extended in rebuttals, but it does have to be fully extended in summary or I drop whatever you don't read.

I try not to intervene as much as possible since the round should speak for itself. However, if I feel like it's needed or I just have to (for very messy debates), I'll note it in the RFD and explain why.

If you ask, I'll probably disclose if you give me a minute to collect my thoughts. I'll always submit my ballot before disclosing, so if you get argumentative it won't fix anything.

Welcome to the part where I tell you all my favorite TV shows and stuff:

The Office, Parks & Rec, Brooklyn 99, Good Place, Umbrella Academy, anything from the MCU, Kim's Convenience, Hamilton, Dear Evan Hansen, anything from Harry Potter (books or movies), Real Genius, Some Kind of Wonderful, Yuri on Ice, Skam, the Politician, Feel Good, Great British Baking Show, She-ra, Conan Gray, Carry On (30s for the whole team if you do this one)

I'm a former varsity PF debater from Los Altos High School, CA and current college student.

Read the entire paradigm, please! This is also a paradigm aimed towards PF, so if this isn't a PF round, ask me for a verbal paradigm beforehand.

- Virtual Debate Stuffs

Email: shah.aman.a@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain or evidence sharing document.

Cameras: Unless you are having a tech issue, I expect cameras to be on.

Tech Issues: If either you or I have tech issues and I miss part of your speech, we will do our best to determine how much extra time you would need and I will allow you to repeat that section of the speech.

- Please don't ask me when you want to take prep. Tell me. Claim your prep with confidence because it's YOURS.

- Absolutely NO SPREADING at any point!! Your speaks will sink like the Lusitania (If you do not know what the Lusitania is, shame on you). I need to understand what you're saying. I am also a sleep-deprived student who does not have the mental capacity to be flowing a round where you are spreading (speed-reading). Also, Zoom audio is not conducive to spreading, so don't shoot yourself in the foot.

- You must SIGNPOST! It is totally okay for you to use off-time roadmaps and I encourage them. Please also signpost during your rebuttals and summaries especially to make sure I know what to flow and where to extend my flow. Also, number your responses!

- Please debate a PF Round: No kritiks, theory, counter-plans, etc. It's Public Forum, not Policy or Parli.

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits. For all other debate events, you tell me.

- Kindness: You need to be kind to your opponents. Do not be condescending towards your opponents or call their arguments silly, etc. I will call you out and tank your speaker points. Debate requires a certain decorum and if you cannot follow that, debate is not for you.

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

- Speaking Point Method: My standard speaking points will start at 27.5.

Speaks will go down if you use a lot of filler words (like, um, uh, etc.) or go over/under time (It is fine if you are within 10 seconds of the time limit on either side).

Speaks will go down more if you go over time than if you are under the time limit (especially with 3 minute summaries). Your speaks will go up if you show exemplary sportsmanship and are nice but firm during crossfire/cross-ex.

If you get 30 speaks from me, it means I believe you have descended as a deity (of whatever belief you may subscribe to) and speak like an angel.

Please ask me if you do not understand something in my paradigm or need some more clarification! Good luck!

If you need clarification regarding your RFD, please email me. If you are argumentative with me about my round decision and RFD, I will ignore you. So don't argue.

Things to up your speaking score:

- speak clearly and slowly

- an off-time road map (state your contentions)

- expand your arguments (I will be flowing)

- provide a printed script

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

hi! i'm a senior at westridge and been debating for a bit i know some things but you probably know more

tldr: don't neglect your link or i will be sad, weigh weigh weigh, if you extend through ink i'll be sad, 30's for everyone, be nice

go as fast as you like, 250 is my max w/o a doc, but make sure your opponents are chill w it

rebuttal: please frontline in 2nd rebuttal. i really like weighing on their case (ie why its a bad place to vote) early in the round. analytics are great. implicating your responses is amazing: if you read me 13438 cards tell me how they apply. signpost, please! layered responses make me happy: don't just read general stuff go link by link warrant by warrant and i will love you! no offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal, aka no overviews that are like another contention. just read it in constructive if it's that important.

!!! femxles: you can be as aggressive as you want, please don't feel like you need to fill the sexist model of girls in debate {i have a particular soft spot for girl/girl teams as I was on one}. conversely, if you do something sexist (or racist, homophobic etc) you will get a long talk about why that is bad and be automatically dropped

i have fewer preferences for the second half of the round but:

summary: is hard. be clean please! defense is sticky (you don't have to extend it through summary if they don't frontline). frontline dropped turns! but make sure your frontlines are responsive, not just restating the argument. make sure when you extend, you extend the whole arg: the links, the warrants for the links etc not just card names. do your thing.

ff: weighing is the way to win! woooo! no new weighing in 2nd ff unless it responds to new weighing in 1st. please make your summaries and ff mirror each other it's just sexier.

misc:

-i like it when you give speeches off your flow

-postrounding: please see elizabeth meersons paradigm

-please don't call me 'judge'

-i'm a bit mean in feedback but i respect you endlessly for giving debate your time. this is where i get all meta: you have 6 minutes of uninterrupted time of just you speaking. everyone, by rule, has to listen to you and can't interrupt. isn't that so powerful!!! debate is the only forum like this. respect that time. what can you do with that time? i am on your side: believe me, i want you to be the next winner of the toc when you walk into the room. because i want you to have a good round as much you do.

-i can't spell

-the only acceptable bribes are cash and sour patch (jk but sour patch is good)

-speaker points: totally arbitrary. i love 30s; i start at a 29. speaks go up or down depending on a) my mood b) how the flow is in round c) if you are funny d) weird formal-ness makes me sad e) if you take a risk and it pays off f) i have a soft spot for debaters saying weird things - my partner could tell you that...

while i'm at it: be nice to your partners; be nice to your parents. they worked really hard so you could be here.

I am a parent judge. Please speak at regular speed. If you speak too fast, you risk losing me. I value logic in an argument. I have a strong background in statistics, so please make an effort to fully understand the evidence you present, especially those with numbers. Statistically a good posture and good manners correlate with higher speaker points that I give.