Debated parli and policy in high school and went to CHSSA state a few times. I don't care much about presentation; do whatever you want and have fun. Don't be mean or condescending. Make robust, clever, and unexpected arguments (in that order: robust is better than clever is better than unexpected). You need offense to win. If neg only gives reasons the aff might not solve, that's usually not enough for me to vote neg. If I think the aff world probably will be better than the status quo, I vote aff. If I think the aff world probably will be worse than the status quo or the counterplan, I vote neg.

Other than that,

- don't waste the neg block, 2nc and 1nr should be doing different things, not competing over the same job

- the 2nc gets to listen to 3 speeches so you should have the best understanding of the round and how both sides will try to win it, fill your speech with the most appropriate offense to give the 1nr some breathing room. this doesn't mean spray-and-pray extend and line-by-line all the arguments, be robust and strategic.

- both rebuttals should literally write my ballot for me

- a 2ac that only answers the 1nc without making any turns or creating more offense or leveraging the 1ac offense is in a dangerous place

- oh, please don't get into a pointless fact vs policy vs value round debate! it won't matter because the value systems in question are rarely conflicting. please just debate the actual substance

Hello debaters,

I would appreciate slow speakers as I am new to judging. Please don't use too much jargon. Please do not spread. Reminder: be a respectful debater!

Hello!

I'm a parent judge, I am familiar with Speech & Debate because of my daughter.

I am very knowledgeable on real word issues occurring today. So no need to spend a lot of time on background or water it down. If your talking about it, I probably know about it.

I enjoy personal antidots connecting you with your topic. Be passionate with out being overly aggressive. Disrespect to opponents and unprofessionalism will be taken into consideration when making my final choice. Please be clear and signpost when responding to arguments. Speaking in a average pace is best (NO spreading) also don't use advanced debate terminology.

Factual evidence will win you the round. I don't care as much about impact weighing or small details. Debate the facts and the best side will win.

This is my fourth year judging--I enjoy it and am so impressed with all the competitors.

I'm glad to judge across all speech and debate disciplines.

I base my winners on clarity, organization, dynamic speaking, engagement with/commitment to the topic, and respectfulness toward peers. Thank you.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

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 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

I have judged for almost four years.

I don’t have any specific preferences for the students I judge other than the following:

• I like professionalism: act respectfully towards your opponent (don’t interrupt them, talk over them, personally attack them, etc.)

• Please have thoroughly developed evidence and impacts (if you don’t impact your arguments they lose a lot of weight in the round for me)

• Articulation is key when reading evidence/convincing me to believe your claims

• I like nice, well thought out presentations of the cases I hear.

• Don’t talk fast or try to spread

Thank you for keeping the aforementioned preferences in mind! I look forward to judging you.

I'm a former high school debater. The events I competed in were Parliamentary Debate, Public Forum, Extemp, and Impromptu. Though I don't mind if you speak fast, please don't spread. I value arguments being carried and flowed throughout the debate. If you drop an argument, I won't evaluate it at the end of the round. I don't mind unique arguments and interpretations of resolution, as long as it's not completely outside of the realm of the resolution's intention. I don't mind hearing Kritiks, and I would love to have clearly crystalized voter issues in your final speeches. Good luck :)

Over a decade's experience of being a parent-judge. Feel free to spread - if the opposing team can track you and debate you, I can follow. I flow - help me by clearly enumerating your arguments. Theory and kritik arguments are ok to an extent - don’t make the entire debate about that.

In the end persuade me.

1. Please give me clear reasons why I should vote for you.

2. Please do not spread as I will not be able to follow your thoughts.

3. Have fun and you will be awarded.

Hey there!

My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY

A little context about me:

I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.

My Paradigms:

Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.

THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent

IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.

VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.

JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help

DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.

LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.

I am a parent judge and have judged debate for a few years

(Pronouns: She/hers)

Howdy!

I have limited experience debating Parli but I have both competed and judged - my only requests: please don't spread (speaking moderately fast is totally fine, so long as I can understand you through the online format) and thoroughly explain progressive args if you will be using them (I am very open to learning and will do my absolute best to understand the args presented to me!!). I was a PF debater all four years of HS (for Riverside STEM) and haven't had much exposure to progressive arguments or speed. I will be flowing thoroughly and appreciate both line-by-line and narrative-centered debates (balancing both = probably winning my ballot) - please debate in a way that makes you comfortable.

Misc:

Love brink args!! But if you want to win them on my flow - at least 2-3 well warranted links (more for war/nuke wars)

Least familiar w/ K debate, comfortable w/ theory, plans, CP, PICs, fiat, presumption, V/VC framing etc. (If you want to know my familiarity with a brand of argumentation, feel free to ask before we start or assume no prior knowledge)

Will do my best to limit intervention - make it easier for me by: being very explicit (don't make me assume something is wrong/BAD, tell me why) and giving me comparative weighing (or other path to ballot analysis) starting from the first neg and extended cleanly.

Speaks all start at 29, make me laugh and I will boost.

I have the utmost respect for y'all debating through this online format and want to create a welcoming in-round environment.

Racist, sexist, or otherwise clearly offensive/problematic args will automatically lose my ballot.

Introduction:

Hello, my name is Pavan Katragadda. I have been involved in the world of speech and debate for over five years, serving as a parent judge. My journey in this field has been enriching and enlightening, and I am eager to continue learning and growing with each debate I judge.

Communication Style:

Clarity of speech is of utmost importance to me. I believe that the essence of a good debate lies not in the speed at which arguments are delivered, but in the articulation and structure of those arguments. Therefore, I encourage debaters to speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow their line of reasoning. If you choose to spread, please be aware that if I cannot follow your arguments, it may impact my evaluation.

Technical Terms:

While I am familiar with the general rules and format for most of the Debates, I may not be well-versed in all “technical” terms from the debating vocabulary. If you plan on using any such terms, I would appreciate it if you could explain them during your speech. This will ensure that I fully understand your argument and can evaluate it accurately.

Post-Round Process:

After the round has concluded, I like to take a few minutes to reflect on the arguments presented and enter my feedback and results. Please understand that this process takes time, and as such, I will not be able to disclose the results or provide judge’s feedback immediately after the round.

Expectations:

I expect all debaters to come prepared with strong arguments backed by solid evidence. A good debate is not just about winning or losing; it’s about learning, growing, and enjoying the process. So let’s have a fun and engaging debate!

Inexperienced parent judge. English is my third language. I am also hard of hearing

I would like the debaters to do the following while in the round:

1. No spreading. I am a parent judge. If I do not understand, I will not follow you. So please go slow and make yourself clear.

2. Make clear arguments that are well warranted and have clear impacts

3. Please give me clear reasons of why I should vote for you.

4. Finally, have fun. I believe the debate is an educational activity - you learn when you lose or win!

Hello Debate Teams,

I am a parent judge and am looking for clear arguments that are well connected to your position.

No spreading please - if you are speaking fast and I cannot follow you, I will not understand your argument.

Be respectful and have fun!

Hello Speakers,

I look for the following in speech events in general...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of speech, clear conclusion, your interpretations of quotes or statistics, and clarity of thought process. Based on the specific event I usually look for additional elements in your speech.

I am looking for the following in debate events...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of your speech, clearly support your arguments, clarity of rebuttals, and strong conclusion.

Your video/audio quality, speaking style, spreading/speaking fast does not affect my judging. But, speaking at regular pace and clearly will help me in understanding your arguments better.

Good luck!!!

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Lay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 2 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude.

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

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not flow. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, and this is my 2nd year judging.

Please speak slowly - rushing makes it difficult to follow.

Relax and have fun.

Former LD competitor, also did a bit of PF and Parli debate. I am way more comfortable judging traditional arguments and would like to avoid theory if at all possible. However, if it's important to you that you include theoretical arguments in the round then just make sure you explain them very clearly and without a lot of jargon that I probably won't have heard of. Apart from that, make sure you clearly engage with your opponent's arguments (CLASH!) and be conscientious of the issues you are discussing. Speak clearly and be nice! :)

Prefer typical conversational speaking cadence with arguments organized in numbered talking points.

* I am a parent judge

* refer no spreading (just normal speed)

* refer Good Sportsmanship

2nd year as a parent judge. Only judged Varsity Parliamentary debates last year. I'm familiar with the general rules of Parli so no need to explain them in your speeches.

General Reminders:

I will be flowing and my decision will be primarily based on my flow.

Keep it clean, be respectful, practice professionalism.

Stick to the rulebook.

Speaking Points:

I usually start at 27 then adjust from there. I rarely give 25s and 30s unless something really stands out (on either end of the spectrum).

Completely fine with whatever speed you're going at but don't spread. However, if I can't understand what you're saying, you'll be losing speaking points.

Voters:

For clashing arguments, I look at each argument's adherence and relevance to the weighing mechanism, then the impacts to decide.

Definition debates aren't fun to judge although can be unavoidable. However, try not to spend the entire round arguing over a definition.

Theory/K

I'm most comfortable judging a traditional round, but if you decide to run a theory or K, make sure you explain it well and argue the resolution.

Good luck and I look forward to judging you.

I am a novice judge with a background in political science.

Present clear and well articulated arguments with emphasis on fulfilling that fulfill the value

No spreading, deliver arguments with clarity and good tone

The conjectures reached should be supported well by the facts stated and the link between them should be made clear.

I am a former competitor and I judge on pacing, volume, and energy that feels relevant to the context of the speech. If blocking is into your speech, I will be judging on how clean and organic it is. If this speech is an original I will also be critiquing the context of your speech as well as the organizational structure. Good luck! I will make sure to give you the best feedback I can :)

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

This is my 3rd year judging. My daughter competes in PF, OO/OA, and Expos.

I am a lay judge. I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the materials. Speak clearly and don't just read your arguments. All of your overall arguments, evidence, links and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion. Have a good clean debate, be respectful at all times.

Have fun and good luck!

Hi, this is Ted Shafer, parent judge, from San Diego.

This is my first season judging.

I would like the debaters to do the following while in the round:

1. Be courteous - no profanity
2. Please signpost in your round
3. Make clear arguments that are well warranted and have clear impacts
4. No spreading. I am a parent judge. If I do not understand, I will not follow you. So please go slow and make yourself clear.
5. Please give me clear reasons for why I should vote for you.
6. I am not familiar with any debate philosophy (e.g. Kant) hence I would prefer util.
7. Finally, have fun. I believe the debate is an educational activity - you learn when you lose or win!

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.

I would like all debaters to be

courteous and respectful of one another, make strong arguments that have clear impacts, and provide clear reasons of why I should vote for you.

Please speak slowly and make yourself clear, do not spread. Good camera angle and lighting preferred.

I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.

Arguments

Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.

I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.

I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.

Other

Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.

You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.

I have judged for the past 9 years so I have experience. I debate with my wife everyday as well. I am a laidback judge, but I will flow the debate. Do not run "circuit" or "tech" arguments.

For PF, I trust evidence but I NEED analysis to weigh arguments (DO NOT CARD-DUMP). Give me voter issues.

For LD and Parli, logical arguments are necessary to get my ballot. Bring up evidence, but logic is as important if not more.

When you use evidence (especially empirics), make sure to explain how the study was conducted if possible (just helps me weigh "equal" evidence)

In every debate, signpost every argument.

Spreading = Loss

Disrespect = Loss

Feel free to ask my for any clarifications on preferences prior to the round.

I don’t like to see excessive aggression in debates.

Debaters, please do the following while in the round:

1. Be courteous and respectful

2. Signpost in your round

3. Make clear and concise arguments with well warranted support

4. Please don't spread. I am a parent judge and if I cannot follow you, I will not understand your arguments.

5. Have fun!

Clarity with emphasis on the most important points of your arguments are very helpful. Please do not rush - 'slow down' is a comment I find myself writing over and over. Please introduce yourself.