Cupertino '23, copped a bid or two

abhayacharya1@gmail.com

Regular flow judge I guess, I'll evaluate basically anything if it's warranted. Tabula rasa to a reasonable extent.

Dont's:

- Extend through ink

- be racist/xenophobic/homophobic etc

- Bring up new stuff in FF (Unless it's directly responsive to the prior speech)

- Disguise delinks and turns as wEiGHiNg in FFs (e.g. saying "they never give you a brightline so prefer us on probability")

- Go over 250WPM, especially if your opponents can't keep up

Do's:

- Extend with warrants in every speech (besides rebuttal obv)

- Link comparisons, fire weighing, metaweighing

- postround me as much as you want

- Signpost specifically (stuff like "on their c2 about drones, go to their link about perception")

- Number your responses pls :)

- Clear your opponents as much as you need

- Call out abuse

Prog Debate:

Not much to explain here, but I default yes RVIs and reasonability. DON'T be exclusionary and read theory for the easy W against teams who have no clue what you're saying. I'll probably still vote for you, but I will hate you forever and probably give you bad speaks.

IF YOU ARE RUNNING A KRITIK OR REALLY ANY APRIORI THAT HAS A DISCOURSE IMPACT, MAKE IT AT LEAST SEEM LIKE YOU CARE. If I get the feeling you're commodifying the ballot, my threshold for voting on it will be significantly higher, and you'll probably get low speaks no matter who wins.

But most importantly, have fun y'all. Debate is a game, so play to win.

Speaks:

+1 if you read clever impact turns (dedev, death good, ice age, etc)

+1 if you sing/play music/read a poem/ etc

Auto 30 if you bring me food/coffee

-1 if you read evidence indicts more than one speech after you call for the card

For the past thirty years, I have been judging individual events.

For interpretation events and duo, I value natural, motivated, and believable characterizations. All movement should be motivated, not just visually stimulating without real purpose. The key to believable characterization is an internalization of the motivations that manifest themselves through the nonverbal communication channels. Performances that cause me to reflect upon what I have seen/ heard long after the event are indicative of a great, mature performer. (This should be applied to both humorous and dramatic pieces.)

When evaluating public address and limited prep events, I believe the content of the speech with credible sources should be paramount; however, the delivery and connection to the audience must also be present in order to captivate the audience. Support should delve beyond a superficial quotation or secondary source rendering; consequently, I find the unified approach to be far more powerful since it allows the speaker to develop the arguments further than a three part line of reasoning approach (especially in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking). Again, the speaker needs to cultivate a relationship with the audience in order for the content to be effective.

When evaluating debate, the focus should be the strength and depth of both sides of the argument. Fallacies and flawed policies should be exposed. A skilled speaker/ team can conduct himself or herself professionally and analytically without the rapid fire of spreading. The argument should not be made at the expense of the relationship with the audience. I follow a leader who inspires and talks to/ with me, not at me. Points that are hard to flow are not points at all.

Hi All,

This is the first time I'm judging a youth contest.

I have been judging Toastmasters Speeches for sometime now.

Ambrose Hormaz Commissariat

When judging, I look for powerful delivery, slow measured speech, body language, insightful analysis and love contestants they enjoy their time under the spotlight. Go You!

I am a parent judge and judge primarily on the local circuit. I am a practicing attorney and, accordingly, am experienced with evaluating the quality of many arguments. I can flow and will do my best to evaluate all arguments to the best of my ability. The following information may be helpful if I am judging you:

GENERAL:

-Signpost as clearly as possible so that I know exactly where you are on the flow. If I don't know what an argument is supposed to address, it will be difficult for me to weigh it.

-Give clear warrants, impacts, and framework links to all of your arguments to the best of your ability. If your claim has no backing or impact it is unlikely that I will weigh it heavily.

-No spreading. I am relatively inexperienced judging LD and clarity is key. With that said, speed is fine but if you are going too fast for me to understand I will put my pen down.

-Generally, I will vote on the line-by-line but if you give me a blatantly ridiculous argument I will not evaluate it even if it goes completely conceded by your opponent.

-VOTERS ARE A MUST! If you give me specific voters and tell me why you are winning on a specific argument and how it impacts the debate, I am likely to vote for you.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION:

Again, because I am relatively new to judging and LD, I would prefer it if you kept progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, Plans, CPs, etc.) to a minimum. If you feel the need to run a progressive argument, keep technical jargon to a minimum, and explain them to me clearly.

FRAMEWORK

I am a fan of framework debate. Frameworks that have a specific impact calculus are preferable and should be used strategically throughout the debate. If your framework is phil-based, explain it clearly. Further, if the framework debate becomes muddled and more-or-less irrelevant throughout the debate, don't waste my time with it.

An avid debater - both extempore and prepared during my younger days.

Winner of the Inter Collegiate debates during my engineering and business school day.

This is my first formal year of judging both speech and debate events and I love providing constructive feedback to all participants that can help them with their future rounds.

Interest in wide ranging topics including technology, psychology, politics and current affairs, sports, cinema and visual arts ... Avid sportsperson and an enthusiast, Coach and Mentor for Robotics and Odyssey of the Mind teams !!

Arguments should be well supported with evidence and be impactful. One should be able to explain arguments in their own words. Overall structure of arguments is also very important. Clear points and an explanation of why I should vote for you should be provided. I am a lay judge and don't have experience.

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this


EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate

a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.

b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.

c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.

d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.

This is my 3rd time experience as a Judge. So i still feel i am novice at Judging.

I prefer participant to articulate their content in a clear and in the right pace(neither fast nor Slow).

Personally i do not prefer very fast speaking speech as its difficult for me to comprehend the content.

This is the first time I'm judging a debate.

However, I'm used to debating pro's and con's of a proposal, evaluating other proposals in my day job as an engineering executive.

A debate happens on a topic because the answer is unclear to a question. So, lot of the work is to string together data and logic to make projections.

I do prefer using reliable, authoritative data used in a logically consistent framework.

A debater bringing out the ambiguity in data/interpretation can show authenticity in research and the argument.

Do your best!!!

I am a lay judge/parent.

In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. More contentions does not mean better contentions, make me understand your definitions, weighing mechanism and why your speeches show you win the debate. It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.

Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.

Please do not speak too quickly or I will have to disregard information that I missed. I take notes, so make sure to emphasize what you really want me to hear.

Tell me why you win this debate, don't make me have to guess.

And above all, have fun.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

I am a lay judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. I will not be able to follow speed-talk. I can follow logical reasoning. I give credit to how well and clearly an argument is constructed, over how many arguments were made during your allotted time. The best pace of the debate for me is like how people talk in News channel debates or the presidential debate.

I have judged debate events off and on for 35+ years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged high school Policy Debate and only occasionally high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) andHIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and SPAR/Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in high school Policy Debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I judge on what I hear. I expect debaters to both make arguments and use evidence (even in IPDA/extemp debate - even though I understand there will be less evidence there). I also expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.

Background: Competed in New Mexico from 1998 - 2001. LD, US Extemp, and nearly all Interp events. Competed at NMAA District and State competition. Former coach at Tom Glenn High School and Danielson Middle School in Leander, Texas. Began both programs when both campuses opened in 2016 and 2020.

Current: Independent coach (OO in Maryland), judging predominantly online.

Debate Paradigm: I'm a tab judge who prefers to be treated as a lay judge. I don’t love spreading but won't ticket you for speeding. Always provide a road map, with special attention to how well you’ve researched and read on your value/plan. My decision hangs on clash, solid sparring in cross, proper use of prep (pre-round and during), and voters - literally tell me how you want me to vote down ballot. Literally change my life with your compelling case.

Interp Paradigm: As long as you're convincingly conveying your interpretation and are deliberate with every movement, you're on the right track. Unless Duet Acting, interpretation requires you to interpret the authors’ work. Take proper care of the author's work.

Extemp Paradigm: Extemp is the first event I was successful in as a competitor and helped me decide that I wanted to coach. I like a traditional set up and will take notes down ballot on: Teaser/AGD, Intro, Question/Answer, Points/Subpoints, Loads of Mixed Evidence, Closing/AGD. I expect tight signposts with an approachable delivery.

I'm a sucker for ethos, pathos and logos. Please include your sources when making claims. Above all, I'm looking to BELIEVE the words you're saying, and that you're fully engaging in the debate. If you're furthering debate, you've got my attention. Please avoid personal attacks during cross examination and/or direct questioning.