Parent judge, keep things simple, and do not go too fast.

DEBATE EVENTS

I am a LAY judge

Please explain your arguments at a conversational rate. If you talk too fast, then I won't be able to understand what you are saying. If I can understand your argument, then that will be favorable. Also, please sign post and tell me what points you are going for and why that's good. DO NOT BE TECHNICAL.

Don't be rude during Cross Examination- I will reduce speaker points and probably drop you. Give your opponents the ability to speak.

I am a parent lay judge. Analytical and thoroughly explained responses are preferred, but if you have evidence make sure to tie it back to your response. Speak at a normal pace, with minimal fluency breaks. Make sure to keep your own time, and be respectful during cross. My RFD will be based on the arguments I understand the most.

I am a parent volunteer judge with children doing debate for many years. I have been judging debate for a few times already. I judge the debate based on who persuades me of their side more with facts and logic. With speed, I am comfortable with slower and clear speaking. In LD I understand the importance of value and criterion so please make sure you have both and that your arguments center around them.

I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.

So please, no jargon.

I am a parent judge. I have judged rounds of humorous interpretation, poetry, and LD. I have judged one round of novice congress before, but I will try my best to judge fairly and learn about congress from the chamber. I highly value speaking and presentation.

ELA Teacher - do not like spreading. If a student speaks so rapidly that they cannot be understood - it doesn't work well for me. I need to hear the arguments, evidence etc.

Hey!

Do not spread. You can talk fast and be super tech if you want, but make sure your extensions are clear and try to win the weighing debate. You have to win access to your case to win the rounds. Interact with your opponent's responses. New responses and evidence cannot be brought up in the back-half of the round.

My email is rithviksai92@gmail.com if you have any questions or for evidence exchanges.

I am Lay judge. Please do not speak fast and explain things well to me. I am also fairly educated on domestic and foreign affairs, but I will most likely vote off the argument that is contextualized and brought up the most.

Don't speed read. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. Please stick to stock issues.

I am a Parent judge.

I have judged a couple of debate rounds and have little experience with debate jargon. Please simply your language.

Please speak clearly and slowly and create a narrative throughout the round. The cleanest narrative will have the best chance to win.

I have worked in the software development industry for years and love to hear arguments about technology and software.

Please be nice to each other in round and respect each other, debate is a learning experience and everyone should have fun doing so!

I am a parent lay judge. I prefer for deeper analysis into arguments, instead of repeating the same basic reasoning over and over throughout a round. I also don't carry any biases within the round over which arguments you run, but there's also a limit to how far you can push the logic of an argument. Going slow so I can follow is also extremely important in the round, and it's probably one of the main things I'm looking for. Comparison of arguments is good, and don't use any jargon, I'm not going to understand it. Crossfires are also something that I pay attention to, so make sure to respond to questions immediately, rather than sit there for a few seconds pondering the answer. Speaker points are also updated throughout the duration of the round, and continuing to speak well with good gestures and posture will also be important.

Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.

I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to shail21_21@yahoo.com

Thanks and I hope for a good debate!

I am new to coaching Speech and Debate this year. I like speeches that are not overly fast-paced. In the virtual environment, I believe annunciation is very important. Also, presenting with a strong volume without yelling will be preferred.

I like a teaser and other forms of attention grabbers at the beginning. It will be hard to get my attention if I'm disinterested from the start.

Any point being made should have evidence to support it. Don't assume I agree with anything. Present me with evidence that is factual but in a way that keeps my attention.

I do not mind the use of mature material as long as it is addressed in a mature manner. I think it is important to address these topics but students should do so in an academic fashion. Students also should refrain from using curse words unless they are directly quoting an author.

Most importantly, presenters should keep their energy up throughout their speech. If the are lulls, you could easily lose my enthusiasm for your topic.

I am a parent judge. Please speak at a conversational pace and be clear.

Logistics

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

• there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
• Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
• Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
• I will vote for one team and one team only
• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
• I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
• I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

Donts

• Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
• This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
• Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
• having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other events

• im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
• if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

Parent judge

speak slowly probably a little faster than conversational pace I won’t listen to speeches that I can’t understand

i will do my best to flow all the important stuff

this process will be easier for me if you send me a speech doc: stellaxh2009@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge and will vote on what I feel is the most persuasive. Please present your case in a comprehensible way. Please do not use debate jargon and please do not spread. If I don't understand you, I will not be able to vote for you.

hey everyone!! my name is neha zaheer and my pronouns are she/her. i'm a student at University of Texas at Dallas, debated public forum at elkins high school for four years. in case you need to contact me, you can either message me on facebook or email me neha.zaheer12@gmail.com 

general:

-speed is fine to a certain extent (don't spread). give me a roadmap/signpost.

-speaks: i always give high speaks unless you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc..

-evidence: i won’t call for any evidence unless it sounds REALLY outlandish or you ask me to in round

-if something is dropped, you can’t pick it back up in the next speech.

-collapsing: collapsing shapes a clean flow/ballot. if you don’t collapse, it’s likely that the round will get messy. i’m not a fan of the new “quantity over quality” type of style that teams have recently started to do. i think it’s inefficient and annoying.

-crossfire: don't be rude or talk over people!! i'll pay attention, but it's not pivotal in determining whether you win or lose.

-weighing: i love comparative weighing. i prefer it in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary.

-extensions should be uniqueness, link, and impact. i don't really care if you do card names or not for case extensions, but everything else needs names.

-turns: have an impact off of the turn or there is not reason why it matters. weighing turns is also good.

-2nd rebuttal: must frontline, i prefer you collapse here, and i prefer start weighing here.

-i don't like new stuff after first summary unless it’s in second summary responding to new content in first.

-final focus should not have anything new. make sure everything is extended here or i'll have to presume.

-progressive args: i like substance debate wayyy more. i've never judged progressive arguments, so it's probably not a good idea to run them.

if you're confused or have specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before round. good luck!!