I am a parent judge. If you are going to talk fast, please enunciate and speak coherently so I can best understand. Be respectful and do not interrupt each other, debate is a learning experience and I do not want things to become heated in the round.

Things I look for:

good evidence, impacts, carrying your arguments throughout the round, being respectful, making best use of crossfire while being respectful, and a case around quantitative data and analysis tends to work best.

Please note: Your speaker scores will reflect your speech skills, in the sense of respect, voice enunciation, and quality of argument.

I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

I am a parent judge from The Overlake School, Redmond, Washington. I have judged public forum form of debate for the last 3 years.

I like a clear and concise flow of arguments that ties to your case and advocates for your position as well as refutes your opponents’ arguments. I do not deduct points on speed and lack of speaking skills unless it impedes my understanding of your arguments.

Offline roadmaps and voters narrow down and bring into focus your mindset so they are helpful. I want you to be telling me why I should vote for you, through your logical construct and why your arguments are convincing enough to give you that win since often at this level, both teams are equally passionate about their respective sides and have worked on their cases.

I believe that through debate, students learn valuable lessons and I seek to be fair so will pull up any student who tries not to follow conventions during cross-examination rounds and are rude. Argue passionately, have fun yet be respectful of your opponents’ ideas and convictions. You are here because you enjoy being here and I respect you for that.

***Ticky Tacky Stuff***

-No I do not care where you sit whether you are aff or neg. Aff can sit on the right or left... I don't care.

-If you have similar questions, like whether or not I care if you time yourself, take prep time, etc., the answer is I don't. I have been in debate rounds where the 1AC was a freestyle rap and poetry. There are no rules in debate besides time limits.

-Maybe instead of asking everyone in the room individually if they are ready, ask, "is there anybody not ready?"

-Don't start with your speech with "starting....my time.....now..." Or any variation of this. I don't know how this became a thing.

-Read impacts to things: tell me why economic collapse is bad instead of assuming I know.

-If you only have a lay case, which includes a variation of evidence and analytical arguments, do not speed unless you are super clear. I listen for tags/claims, the author, and date. I then wait until I hear another tag, author, date. I don't flow analytical arguments in fast rounds when they are mixed in with cards. I don't think that's even fair UNLESS you file-share/give your aff to the neg because they can't tell when the card author ends and your analytics begin. Ask about this if you don't get it!

***Rant Over***

LD has basically become policy, which is where most of my experience has come from.

Here is my experience, and I'll let you decide what you would like to read, I'm fine with anything you want to do.

High School:
4 years policy
4 years LD (NFL 08, 09)
4 years speech events

Wichita State Univ:
2 years policy

Kansas City Kansas Community College:
1 year policy (NDT 2011, CEDA Octos)
1 year LD (PRP National Chmpnshp)

Univ of Kansas:
1 year policy

Debate coach at Eastside Prep in WA since 2018

Speed is okay, but I much prefer well-explained arguments and claims that are delivered with eloquence and conviction. Too often, debaters seem to forget that debate involves giving a speech, so use elements like tone and pauses to get your points across. I have a particular distaste for spreading; if I cannot capture what you say in the flow, it does not register.

I teach political science, political philosophy, history and economics, and I have a degree in International Relations, so chances are, I have a greater than average starting understanding of nearly all PF topics. Therefore, use complex concepts and theory with caution - make sure you fully understand what it means, otherwise do not use it.

Hi! I'm Tom, a parent judge, in PF for about 3 years. Be careful about speaking exceedingly fast, I will certainly miss some parts of your arguments! Please keep track of your time, I will as well, and will raise my hand if you are running out and don't seem to be coming to a conclusion. Carry your arguments through the rounds, I'll weigh a hotly contested contention more than one which has been lightly discussed or basically forgotten about. By the end make sure you make it clear why your side has won, as if it isn't clear to you, it certainly won't be clear to me.

Be considerate during cross, ask your questions and allow your opponent to answer. Feel free to answer a question through the end of cross time, but don't start a new question with very few seconds left.

Off-time roadmaps are fine. Card sharing is also off-time, between speeches and cross-fire.

Good luck!

PS. I have only judged Parli once, but it was a pleasure.

Hello friends

i evaluate debates as tab as i can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. you can read lovely squirrely arguments and i'll evaluate but if i dont understand something i feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

i used to debate for interlake; i liked debating and i like watching people debate. whether i like judging is another question that is contingent on some of the things below

things i like:

• clash
• efficient collapsing
• frontlining in the next speech
• complete extensions. defense is NOT sticky and whoever made that up was weird for that
• warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so", and answer either a) why smth happens or b) why it matters
• implicated turns. a "turn" that's actually a DA and doesn't constitute as a link turn needs to be weighed to actually be responsive, otherwise I just scratch my head like ummm i guess they're both true
• content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis, i like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round, and i like responses which tell me WHY i should evaluate the round as a policymaker or a game ref or whatever. I like ROB debates!
• cool, intuitive arguments that make me go "hey thats cool"

things i dislike:

• any new in the 2
• new implicative weighing in ff
• debates where both teams read extinction, there is both risk of offense, and i end up intervening with a tear in my eye
• friv theory, please don't waste my time
• bad spreading; if i didnt hear something my eyebrows will scrunch and you might chose to reiterate if it was important
• bad evidence
• talking over your partner during grandx
• teams that don't come to their rooms on time
• racists

email me or put me on the chain hwhuang04@gmail.com. ill disclose whenever i can. feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isnt running behind

Hi everyone!

Good on you for being so proactive about checking paradigms. I like speakers to be very clear and succinct. Please spoon feed me (which means I would like a roadmap)

Here are some things I don't like (some of these are exclusively congress):

- having evidence that doesn't reallllly prove what you're saying

- skirting answers or ones that don't really answer the question

- rehash

- name dropping senators and not actually refuting them. stop it :(

You're going to do great!! This is just my personal opinion. Remember that ballots do not determine your value or worth as a person and have fun!!!!!

Rosie :)

3 years PF, state/TOC. Flow & TR judge. My paradigm is fairly simple:

Basics: Tech > Truth. Presentation is important, but I will almost always judge based on the flow first. Progressive argumentation is perfectly fine. Off-time roadmaps are fine if they're short. I will call for cards if concerns aren't cleared up in-round. Don't steal prep. Don't spread against small schools.

A note on prejudicial behavior: As a judge that belongs to some minority groups but not others, I don't feel I have a right to decide what level of harm a group or individual has incurred as a result of in-round actions that are prejudicial. Because of this, I almost universally drop debaters that act in ways that are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. If only one partner behaves prejudicially but the team wins on the flow, I will tank your speaks without dropping you.

Argumentation:

1. Engage in clash. If you and your opponent say conflicting things, tell me how each statement interacts with the world you're advocating for. Tell me why the links into your impacts are more sound than your opponents'. I will always weigh solid link-level analysis over card-dumping.

2. Make your narrative clear and crystallize your arguments as the round progresses. Condense and group arguments after rebuttal. Number responses if you can. I shouldn't be confused about what a world in which I vote aff or neg looks like by the end of summary.

3. If I see that you've dropped an argument on the flow, don't try to pick it up again later in the round. If I can't carry it through my flow, I'm not voting on it. If you want to weigh on an argument, extend both the warrant and impact you're going for.

4. Overviews and weighing mechanisms make the round much cleaner; I encourage you to use them. Signpost.

5. Theory is fine. Progressive argumentation in general is fine. Don't be abusive.

6. Read content warnings for the constructives that require them. If you're running anything that requires a content warning, consider offering anonymous opt-outs to both your judges and opponents.

Bonus: I'm only a few years older than most of you. Feel free to meme when it's appropriate; it makes judging more fun. Questions are welcome before or after the round. Email me for feedback/disclosure if we're short on time at si2089@nyu.edu.

Hello, I am a parent judge with 1.5 years of experience.

I do keep flows and take into account how other teams rebut arguments. I also appreciate if you would talk at regular pace, if you talk too fast and I don't understand what your saying then I wont flow it through. If one team drops one of your arguments, I will keep track of it and you can mention it as well. I appreciate the off time road maps and please time yourself. Please be respectful and know there is a fine line when it comes to being aggressive vs. getting your point across. In final focus and summary please weigh your arguments and tell me why I should vote for you.

Prefer sign-posting

No spreading

No outside time summaries.

I am a parent judge, and have judged many Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates at middle school and high school tournaments. Do not spread, and slow down on justifications in your last speech. I will not consider Kritiks and topicality. If you have any questions, please ask me before the start of the round. I'm looking forward to an engaging, respectful and fun debate!

My name is Robin Monteith and i am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my second year judging at speech and debate competitions. Both years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach this year, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

I competed in CX, LD, PF, Congress, and a few speech events in high school, so I'm pretty tabula rasa. I like standards debate and I will pay close attention to it, but I don't mind if it isn't the most important thing in the round.

I have four years of high school debate experience and two years of coaching experience. I was Assistant Coach at Redmond High School and taught labs and summer camps for Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Foundation. I am now Head Coach at Eastside Preparatory School. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast I’ll let you know. If you still don’t slow down, I’ll hold up my pen and then set it down to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important to me. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Impact calc/weighing impacts: HIGHLY encouraged in final speeches, especially if you are into winning.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises in Final Focus.

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

For me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say, because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Please sign post. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off time road maps are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you sign post, I'll know which order you're going in.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying.

This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

UNLESS YOU ARE IN POLICY, I DO NOT WANT OR NEED AN OFF-TIME ROADMAP

add me to the email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

TL;DR

Don't lie, be considerate, treat me like an old man, and you'll probably be fine.

Background

I've been involved with debate for eight years. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I coach for a few different middle/high school programs around the Puget Sound area, compete at the university level, and am the content manager for TalkMaze. I’m a graduate student at the University of Essex studying the Theory and Practice of Human Rights.

You should read my whole paradigm - Some stuff in PF will be applicable to LD and vice-versa.

Online Debate

I cannot think of a single reason for me to care whether your camera is on. I can think of many reasons why you might be uncomfortable having your camera on. As such, I do not enforce camera policies.

I, on the other hand, will have my camera on. If I don't have it on, assume that I'm not present.

Evidence Ethics

Have them! I have voted on evidence ethics in the past, both with and without competitors calling it out in-round. Don’t paraphrase - I want to see actual cut cards. You cannot take evidence out of context (this includes implying it supports something that the author doesn't) or manipulate the text in any way.  

Speed

but still be clear, clarity trumps all

Congress Philosophy

i do not like congress please don’t make me judge congress

Policy Philosophy

the only event worse than Congress

Public Forum Philosophy

Debate is a game, and the most important thing to do in a game is to win (the second most important thing is to have fun). To that end, I am generally tech > truth, but I tend to sit right on the line between the two, so it's really important for you to explain the link chain, especially for big impact contentions. I will not vote for "oppression/death good".

The line-by-line matters a lot. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal. That means you should respond to arguments in an order that makes sense (down the flow). That means you should be actively extending your own arguments. I don’t want to extend arguments for you.

On the subject of extensions, two notes. First, for an extension to work you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it’s important. You can always do that in three sentences or less, and if you can’t, your argument probably isn’t realistic. Telling me “extend the Hendrickson card” means nothing to me because I don’t flow evidence names. Second, I'll only let you kick an argument if both sides agree to do it - Just saying "we aren't gonna go for that" doesn't mean your opponent can't keep pulling it through the round. Don't bring up arguments that you can't be bothered to defend throughout the round (this goes double for progressive argumentation).

In Public Forum, fiat is almost always going to be a thing. There’s a reason PF topics usually ask “is this policy a good idea” and not “will this thing happen”. That said, politics DAs can work provided they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and they don't say that a policy won’t happen because of politics.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there’s a legitimate violation and that it’s something you’re willing to bet the whole round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy

only do off-time roadmaps if it's a really weird round.

I am a grad student in human rights, which means I have an irrevocable bias against util frameworks. I wouldn't say I hate them, but I do strongly dislike util framing. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but I won't like voting for them unless you go deeper than "greater good." What I will never do is vote for "oppression/death good" arguments.

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my sole decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to explain how you want me to interpret the round if you don't use a value/criterion.

Don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time for my dissertation work and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, counterplans.

Don’t paraphrase, don’t rehilight.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

Oppression/Death Good Arguments (or impact turns)

I will not vote on this. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted "on the flow" and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run these arguments in front of me unless you want a loss, 20 speaks each, and the round to end early. They're not good education, they actively create an unsafe space, and they're often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

(This includes Spark but usually doesn't include Dedev).

Trigger Warnings

Better safe than sorry, I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience of being triggered.

Speaker Points

they're dumb, shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker, and mine skew high

Backup of this paradigm

it's located here

At this point in the year, I would like to see eye contact made with either myself or the opposing team member(s). Speak slowly and succinctly. Get your ideas across thoughtfully. It is more important to get two points made well, then 5 points made in a run-on speech.

Most important, of course, is to respond to the opposing team's points.

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

Parent judge (college professor) looking for clarity of speech and arguments.

Winners determined by relative impact of arguments that flowed through debate.

First and foremost, speak properly, I need to understand what you are talking.

i like it when you are expressive.

As it’s online. You take care of your time.

I take notes during your debating/arguments. I give points the way you start, end, type of questions asked and how it is answered. I normally depend on the way your speech is given. If I feel you are confident point will be on top.

Try to stay on the topic.

I will try to give you feedback immediately so that you can improve yourself for the next round.

and above all be confident and all the best.