I am a parent judge and this is my second year of judging. Here are my preferences:

1) Keep it simple. Please make sure you tell me why I should vote for you.

2) I prefer medium pace. Please be clear in your delivery.

3) No Kritiks or Theory, please.

4) I consider argument and style to be both important, with argument having a slight edge over style. Meaningful and relevant statistics that support your argument will be appreciated.

5) Please treat your opponents with respect and be civil during cross. Also, please do not bring up new arguments during cross.

Hello there! I am a parent judge for Public Forum. I am ok with you speaking quickly, but please do not spread. I will not be able to understand what you are saying. Also, do not expect me to be familiar with debate jargon, so feel free to ask me if I need any clarification on anything that happens during the round. I look forward to judging your debate!

[Paradigm updated for Lewis]

Hello there! I am a student judge from Palo Alto High School. Currently competing in PF, also did one year of LD.

General Stuff:

I flow, so I will take note of dropped/extended arguments and will greatly appreciate it if you signpost your points clearly, i.e. let me know what contention you're talking about or responding to. If you don't it just makes it harder for me to follow you and less likely I will flow your arguments.

I understand debate-specific terms like framework, fiat, solvency, etc. However, you are not off the hook in terms of clearly explaining what you mean and substantiating your points when you make an argument or a rebuttal. i.e. don't just say "they're wrong because fiat" and assume I'll get it. My capacity to not understand things knows no bounds.

Please don't spread or use excessive speed because I'm not going flow arguments I don't understand. If you're not sure, default to going slower.

After time runs out, please finish up. Take up to ten seconds to finish your thought and end the speech. I will not flow individual points that begin after time ends. I will not intervene unless you just keep on going and its clear you haven't realized the speech ended.

I generally don't flow crossfire/cross-ex. It is useful to me as a tool for gauging speaking ability and preparedness, and it is useful to you as a space for clarification and setting up a springboard for your arguments. So, to sum: If something is brought up only in crossfire then dropped in speech I will consider it dropped, but if you set up your argument with a concession and leverage it later, I will note that when evaluating your arguments. Overall rule of thumb: concessions in crossfire are only helpful if you bring them up in regular speeches.

Evidence and logical reasoning are both excellent. If you have solid evidence or solid logical reasoning that is enough to substantiate your argument or rebuttal. In my eyes, both are not necessary. Trying to drop an opponent's argument by saying it has no cards when it is clearly logically warranted is not effective.

I try not to let my personal background knowledge interfere (tabula rasa). If something obviously false is brought up, but you do not rebut it, I will consider it true. So, the falsehood will be considered true for the purpose of the flow and decision, but it will lead to speaker point penalties and I will let you know in the RFD that it was false and whether or not the round would have gone the other way if it was rebutted. I hesitate to say "tech > truth" because truth will impact speaks and I definitely am a big fan of truth, but for the purposes of the round consider me tech > truth.

I am not a big fan of T or K in general. Even if you are trying to make a legitimate point about debate, prog stuff too often devolves into a method for churning out wins. Since I can't judge if you are being sincere or just trying to farm for your college apps, I probably won't consider prog at all unless you do a really good job and shell something unique. If you're not sure if its unique enough, default to not running it. If you think your opponent's T or K is abusive or otherwise useless and merits no further discussion, just say so. If I agree with you I will consider this terminal defense. Also, feel free to toss a voter issue about taking time away from actual educational debate into your last couple speeches. Chances are I will agree with you and it helps bolster your voters when it comes to decision time!

If you really care about the point you want to make with your shell, bring it up after the round in an earnest and gracious manner. People are more likely to change their behavior if you engage with them in an actual discussion instead of forcing it into the debate, in which case they are incentivized to resist you.

Evidence prefs:

Just follow default practices and whatever the tournament specifies. Mention author and year when you present evidence in case. However, if you're discussing this evidence in later speeches, make sure to remind us what the evidence is in relation to. i.e. don't just say "this is false because of Author 2020," say "refer back to my Author 2020 evidence which we brought up in [speech name] that tells you [what the evidence tells me], and because I want to strengthen my rebuttal here are further logical reasons why this argument is false."

If your opponent calls for cards let me know when they are provided so I can keep track of time. I prefer shared documents to email chains because they're more convenient and keep things speedy, but its up to you and your opponent. Chat is a last resort for quick things.

My email for docs / chains is: kabirbhatia04@gmail.com . Feel free to email me after the round or tournament is over for any questions, and I will do my best to answer!

Speaker Points: (if no speaker points read anyway for my speaking preferences)

To get good speaker points, just be confident, know the topic well, be organized and prepared, and don't be overly aggressive during cross or otherwise. Being assertive is good, but not if your assertiveness gets in the way of full and complete answers. Racism, sexism, et cetera will be an instant loss and minimum speaks.

For a speaks bonus: Let me know you read my paradigm either before or after the round by using the very specific secret code phrase: "NSDA Campus do be somewhat of a dank meme doe am I right my homies hubba hubba." You must say all of these specific words in this specific order with proper pronunciation. I will grant you a bonus depending on your inflection and how enthusiastic you are, probably about .2 to .3 points. I will cut this bonus in half if you laugh, so try to keep a straight face. a joke this is not

Not counting the bonus, here is the approximate scale for speaker points (scaled to the event - I'm not going to judge novice on the same scale as varsity):

29.5 - 30 - Literally no faults

29 - 29.5 - Excellent

28.5 - 29 - Very good

28 - 28.5 - Good

27.5 - 28 - Decent

27 - 27.5 - Ok

26.5 - 27 - Some pervasive issues

25 - 26.5 - You done goofed up real bad somehow

PF prefs:

I like it when people weigh impacts under frameworks or do two-world comparisons in summary and final focus. It really helps me simplify my decision. If nobody does this I end up having to make personal judgement calls about individual arguments and impacts, and nobody likes that.

Make sure you respond to both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal. First rebuttals need not defend their own points because they haven't been rebutted yet, but if you have time it's good practice, refreshes the arguments in my mind, and helps reinforce your narrative.

I don't require you to extend your entire point in order to flow it. If, in summary, you frontline defense, then I will flow your points across. Focus mostly on the warrants, links, and clash. You don't need to spend 30 seconds rehashing your impacts. However, definitely mention your impacts and weigh them.

LD prefs:

It's been a while since I've done LD, so make sure your off-time roadmaps / signposting are as clear as possible. Be sure to collapse/crystallize and impact weigh in later speeches to make my job easier. Always remember the goal of LD is to debate broad values and morals through the specific topic, so tie your arguments back to this! I am unfamiliar with the rules around counterplans, advocacies, etc., so tread carefully here.

Other debate form prefs:

I have less experience with non LD/PF. Giving background on the speeches, times, and roles of each speech would help. I'm familiar with the stock issues in Policy but for other forms I'll probably end up evaluating the round like LD/PF on impact weighing unless you specifically suggest otherwise in your speeches.

A final note:

I will try to disclose if you and your opponent both want it and the tournament allows me to, since I think feedback is important. However, an important note:

A focus on winning leads to abusive debate and not-fun rounds. Remember that the purpose of debate is to learn, to grow, and to compete in healthy, fun competition. Good luck and have fun in round!

keep those chill vibes going

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

I am a parent lay judge, and have started judging PF events in the past year.

I value organization to help me flow your arguments. I find it helpful if you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Reiterate your arguments in summary and final focus and weigh. Tell me what's the most important issue in the round of debate and why I should vote for you in your FF.

For debate rounds, I value clarity and logic. Quality of the argument is more important to me than quantity, and as such, I will look for specific evidence to back up your statements.

For speaker points, I award points based on how well I understand you and the level of the performance. If it seems like you have practiced and rehearsed, I will take that into account. Speak with clarity and pace that a judge can comprehend. Don’t assume I understand debate jargon.

Above all, be respectful. Good luck and have fun!

As a parent PF judge, I understand the unique dynamics and challenges of adjudicating Public Forum (PF) debate rounds involving young debaters. My role is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants while prioritizing respectful discourse and critical thinking skills development. Below are the guidelines I follow and the expectations I have for debaters in my rounds.

Guidelines:

1. Fairness: Fairness is paramount. I expect debaters to engage in honest argumentation and to refrain from any form of cheating or unfair practices, such as misrepresentation of evidence or spreading misinformation.

2. Respect: Respect for opponents, judges, and the debate space is non-negotiable. I expect debaters to maintain a civil tone throughout the round, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful language.

3. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically and concisely, making it easy for judges to follow their line of reasoning.

4. Evidence: Debaters should provide credible evidence to support their claims. I encourage debaters to cite reputable sources and to analyze the evidence effectively within the context of the debate.

5. Time Management: Debaters must manage their time effectively, ensuring that they use their allotted speaking time efficiently and allowing their opponents equal opportunity to present their arguments.

6. Adaptability: I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies and arguments based on their opponents' responses and the flow of the debate round.

7. Engagement: Active engagement with the substance of the resolution is key. Debaters should address the central issues of the debate and respond directly to their opponents' arguments.

8. Sportsmanship: Debaters should display good sportsmanship at all times, accepting defeat gracefully and congratulating their opponents on a well-debated round.

Hi debaters!

I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd time judging debates. Please speak slowly and clearly. Also please explain your warrants and arguments in plain terms.No spreading.

Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting. If not, I will drop your speaker points.My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts and summaries. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.

Thank you and good luck!

I am a parent judge with two years of judging experience

General Preferences:

Don't speak too fast

Be concise

Time yourself

Emphasize important points with pauses!

PF:

I care about how you speak

Make your contention names clear when reading your case

Make your opponent's contention names clear when you are refuting them, and be specific as to what you are refuting.

Make sure all arguments are responded to

Hi, I am a parent judge. I like when the team speaks much more clearly and confidently. I don't like when people talk too fast.

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.

About me : I am parent volunteer judge, This is my second season jugdging.

Comments:

-Please be nice, and please be clear

-Explain speech/debate topic and Format

-Speech and Debate should be logical and engaging, I like value argument over style.

-Keep medium speaking pace

-I take notes in contructive, rebuttal and crossfire(pf)

- Please add me to email chain with both cases

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

My name is Demece Garepis-Holland. I am a parent lay judge. Please speak slowly or send me a speech doc if you’re going to go faster, but don’t spread please. If spreading or any sort of fast-paced debate is to be expected, please send me a case disclosure prior to the round. I will not be able to properly judge the round if I cannot understand what you are saying, and therefore prefer clarity. I expect all debaters to time themselves throughout their debate as well as manage prep time. Signpost so I know which argument you are going to be discussing so the round doesn’t get messy. Collapse strategically on the most important arguments. Weigh and tell me where I should vote to make the round easier to judge. Wear whatever you want to the round and make sure to have fun!

I am a parent judge, but I was a high school debater. So I will flow your arguments carefully and evaluate your evidence and impacts. I appreciate if you show respect to your opponents and I value good speaking skills.

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

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

Hey debaters! Here is some information about me that I think is important to know before you start the round:

- I am a lay judge.

- Assume I'm completely new to the topic so whichever side convinces me the best will be voted for.

- Please refrain from spreading, I will most likely miss arguments if you spread.

- Speak clearly with logic and analysis, not just evidence. Evidence is useful in many situations, but always include logic and warrants to back it up, it's useless to just read cards during a debate round.

- I expect both teams to be timing themselves during your speeches and I'm fine with a 10-15 second grace period for each speech just to finish up your last thoughts.

- Please remember to be respectful at all times during the debate round especially during cross x, I will not accept behavior that is not respectful.

Finally, remember to have fun! :)

I prefer clear signposting of your contentions and a pace that allows me to easily follow your arguments.

Please speak clearly. Speaking too fast may inhibit my ability to understand what you are saying, especially if you start mumbling (which sometimes happens when you try to speak too fast).

I value logical reasoning with relevant supporting evidence in an organized structure. Signposting is appreciated.

I do not flow cross-ex, so if you bring up a key point during cross-ex, please restate in your summary or final focus or I will disregard.

And please be respectful to each other.

Good luck!

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my second year of judging.

● Speak clearly. Spreading won't help.

● Keep your own time.

● Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

● Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

● I don't disclose.

● Stay polite and calm during crossfire.

● Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Lay judge with no previous debate experience. Please don't spread/read faster than a normal human could comprehend. Assume I know nothing about the topic being debated -- please take the time to explain jargon. Disrespect and ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Most of all, have fun and enjoy the round!

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

Parent judge with some experience

I will take notes

Don't spread, you will lose me

Extend all your arguments

If its in cross but not in a speech, I won't vote on it

Weigh your impacts

Please avoid technical arguments

If there is an email chain add me: srivatsan.laxman@gmail.com

* Please speak slowly and clearly.

* I value research skills, significant evidence & comparison.

* I work hard during the debate and review my notes & logs carefully before giving a result.

Hello Everyone!

Make sure you are timing yourself while saying your speech.

Be clear and don't speak too fast.

When someone calls for a card, make sure they receive it.

Lastly, have fun!

• I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my fourth year of judging. I have judged multiple formats at both the novice and JV levels.
• Please keep track of your time. I prefer organized speeches with emphasis on continuity.
• Please make sure to provide evidence and/or references where necessary.
• I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.
• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I am relatively well informed of the many issues being debated, and while I certainly have an opinion about various subjects, I do keep an open mind and can be persuaded by the well presented arguments. I do pay attention not only to the substance of the arguments, but also to the presentation style and competitors attitude and sportsmanship.

My name is Madison Moore and I am currently a first-year at American University. I am double majoring in legal studies and economics while pursuing a minor in art history. I am also on the Mock Trial team here at AU. I competed in PF in high school all four years and made it to the national circuit. I took a gap year before coming to college so it has been a little bit since I've been on the circuit. Below is my approach to judging debate, let me know if you have any questions:

1. I am a flow judge. If you do not flow it through, you cannot win on that point.

2. This goes for things that are dropped during rounds as well. If you drop it, I will catch it and if you try to flow it through, it won't work.

3. I will listen to cx for comedic reasons but I will not flow any of it. If you want me to know about it, say it during your speech.

4. Summary and final focus should complement each other. You should know what you are going for by the time summary comes around and the final focus should write my ballot for you.

5. You must respond to turns or else they become offense for the other team.

6. You can drop parts of your case! Go for what makes sense. Do not waste your time.

7. You have to give me warrants. If I can still ask why, the warrant is incomplete. DO NOT just card dump. Tell me why.

8. Be nice to each other. Refrain from derogatory, sexist, homophobic, and offensive remarks. This is a sure-fire way to lose points and potentially the round.

9. Have fun. Debate is not about winning. It is about getting better and learning how to effectively argue. I will provide comprehensive feedback either orally or written and am happy to clarify.

Please speak slowly and clearly as this is my first time judging.

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.

Hi,

I am a lay judge. If you want me to understand your points, please speak very slowly and elaborate.

Hi! My name is Julie (She/Her/Hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of California, Berkeley. I was a competitive debater and have competed in PF (with some parliamentary and worlds) in high school for 4 years.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the tournament:

julieqi@berkeley.edu

Judging Paradigm

1. I love debates with fiery clash, but please remember to be respectful to each other! If I hear anything inappropriate (any ___ism), I will lower your speaks precipitously. If serious enough, you will not only lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

2. If you don't extend your arguments in your Summary and Final Focus, they will be dropped on my flow.

3. Do your best to write the ballot for me and PLEASE weigh your arguments. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round, you do not tell me how you win the round lol. At the same time, warrant your arguments! (don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

4. I do not flow crossfires, therefore if anything important comes up, please mention it in your speeches so I take a note of it when I weigh the round at the end.

5. I usually don't call for evidence, but I expect you to be prepared to hand any evidence requested to myself or your opponents ASAP. If you fail to provide evidence in a timely manner, I will start charging you prep time to find it. Usually, I will give you 30 seconds to find the card.

6. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round. I do not like super technical conversations about it if none of you are actually framing your impacts and arguments around it.

7. I can handle speed, but please no spreading if possible. Enunciate and project yourself, and do not mumble your words quickly. This will help both me and your opponents in making this debate as engaging as possible. My speaks usually start at 27, and I go up from there. I usually give speaks around 28-30. oh and if you manage to make me laugh, automatically +0.5 for you :)))

8. Evidence > Opinions

Most importantly, have fun! If you have any questions before/after the round, don't hesitate to ask.

I am new to the judge business. My daughter is a 9th grader at Los Altos High. I got involved because of her. I am a real estate agent. I love my job. It gives me great satisfaction serving people with their home needs. Aside from having good arguments in debates, I would also like to see all contestants being courteous and polite to each other. Good luck to all of you!

I am a parent judge judging for about one year . My golden rule is to just do your best and have fun with what you do . I want everyone in the round to be respectful while still making their point clear . Just have a good time :).

Here are some of the criteria I would use to judge (some of these are chosen based on what works best for judging in Virtual/online events)

(1) Though I look at both evidence and pragmatic analysis, Pragmatic analysis works better for me in Online debate.

(2) I read rules handbook for a specific event carefully and try to apply that knowledge / theory every time consciously.

(3) I will pay more more weights on analytics to validate reasonability

(4) I would listen to full Affirmative and Neg and before making decision

(5) I prefer normal speed of communication, than fast.

.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

I like Ks, but admittedly sometimes I can be a little slow. Please throughly explain them to me. Even if I am familiar with them I want a team to throughly explain their critical solvency or their alternative to me.

I don't enjoy a lot of straight up policy debates, but I'm also not against them. Run what you wanna run and don't let my standpoints deter you from your debate aspirations.

I enjoy debates with fiery clash, but I expect everyone to be respectful to one another. A debater's speaker points will be lowered if they are being disrespectful because it's just not cool and I don't vibe with it.

Spreading is fine, if it is done correctly. Please enunciate and project! Do not mumble your words quickly. This makes evaluating the debate easier because I do not need to decode the mumbling.

https://youtu.be/njoJ0VRbYzc

Please add me to the email chain.

E-mail: jessicatero16@gmail.com

I'm a college student who used to compete in parli, World Schools, extemp, and imp with experience judging every speech + debate event except for Congress and policy.

For debate (mostly parli) specifically, I'm very rusty with flow debate and would prefer that you choose a strat that assumes that I'm a lay judge.

I will say that I'm receptive to squirrely case args (e.g. 50 states PIC) if you're doing it because you think it's a genuinely good argument for the context of the round and not just for the sake of doing it. Additionally, I do understand how some topics/in-round situations can justify off-case args, so I'm down to evaluate whatever theory shell or other arg comes up if necessary.

hey y'all!

a little background on me: i was a public forum debater all throughout high school and captain of the team for two years, so i have a fairly thorough (though rusty) understanding of PF and a general sense of speech/other debate events. i have not debated in around 3-4 years now so take that as you will.

things i think are super important:

• signposting (and offtime roadmaps if you're planning on switching between flows) is a MUST!! it helps me flow arguments easier and allows for a more productive debate
• extend links and warrants through the whole round or else there's a 50/50 chance i lose them in my flow
• make sure to give me clear voters and weigh - the aim is for me to do as little work as possible. i hate intervening
• tech > truth
• i do call for cards. sometimes im just curious (it typically won't play into my decision) but if there's obvious violation of evidence ethics its a 20 L. and on this note, don't just throw cards at me and hope one of them sticks - tell me why they matter! give me good analytics!
• i know nothing about Ks and theory. i don't mind them and i am okay to evaluate off of them but you have to explain them super super thoroughly
• BE KIND in cross! that doesn't mean you have to let them walk all over you but be respectful and mindful of how you are treating your opponents

baseline is, make everything clear for me. don't assume i am going to remember big parts of your argument just because you think they are important!

definitely less important but i give 27.5-28 speaks on average. bonuses if you bring candy or snacks (i dont have allergies) and/or if you do something fun (e.g. incorporating merriam webster's word of the day). I think debate at its core is meant to be fun and educational so don't be afraid to get silly :)

sorry this got a little long but absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the round about any specifics! good luck!!

if you want to reach out to me for any reason my email is nataliekatran@gmail.com :)

Hi, I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please emphasize links and impacts because it is easy for me to get bombarded by too many statistics. I will try my best to keep up.

-I am a volunteer judge from Wilcox High School, and this is my first year of judging.

-Be respectful of one another during the debate

-Keep you own time

-Off time road maps are preferred

-Give organized, concise speeches

-I will be taking notes throughout the debate, so make sure to restate and emphasize your points.

-Clearly state you stance at the end of the final speech.

I am a parent judge . This is my third year judging PF debate.

Please speak slowly, clearly and articulate your points well (Do not spread).

I pay close attention to cross fires and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.

*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!

---------------------------------------------

I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.

So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.

1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.

2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow

3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it

4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round

5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.

6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.

7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.

8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.

9) Read #1 again. :-)

Please have persuasive reasoning responding to the argument and interactive exchange of ideas where debater is responding to the other's argument.

I do not like spreading.

No excessive speed unless u want me to miss something. No prog idk how to evaluate.

Don't talk too fast and don't be rude. Please respect each other and me. Plz don't be too technical.

If you say a line from Polo G's "rapstar" I will give you a bump in speaks depending how well it was integrated to your speech/cross/etc.

Worldstar rule applies though: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel