I only began judging in October of 2020. However, I participated in public speaking when I was a high school student. I am currently a trial attorney and have been a litigator for over 21 years.

I like to see the evidences cited. Please post them in the chat window. Also, speaking fast is fine.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

This is my eighth tournament as a judge. I am the parent of a debater.

I don't like when debaters talk fast and please speak at a normal rate and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. I can not award points, if I can not plainly hear your arguments. I may not always be looking at you when you are speaking that is because I am taking notes during the round. I find notes help me with decisions, following your flows and awarding speaker points. I'm am a numbers person so providing (stating plainly) empirical data as evidence will move me toward your argument.

Please remember to be respectful of your opponents and keep to the time schedule. Please do not interrupter speakers during cross, this will cause a loss in speaker points.

Above all do your best, have fun and enjoy the process!

I am a flow judge.

That is all.

Prefers to hear all sides and great if speaks clearly and thanks you and good luck!

Hello! I am a parent of a second year Newton South Debater. This is my third tournament judging. I will come into every round a clean slate, and I will take notes, but I don't know how to "flow".

Some thinks I like:

A slow, understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

If you tell a story. One or two big ideas for me is really persuasive. Explain in depth why your arguments are correct (my son says this is called warranting)

Weighing! I don't understand the buzzwords, but I would also like to know in a comparative worlds analysis why your world is preferable.

Be Nice! Humor is appreciated, but don't be disrespectful.

Fist Bumps!
Some things I don't like:

Speed (see above)

Rudeness
Off-case arguments (please no)

Buzzwords

Going for everything - explain why your best argument wins you the round

At the end of the day, debate is about fun ~ so please have fun! Also let me know if I can make the round more accessible to you!

Background

I am currently one of the debate coaches for Milton High School in Massachusetts. We typically include local tournaments but include at least one national tournament a year. I never did debate in high school or college, but I did teach our debate class at Milton for a school year and have served as one of our coaches for several years now.

Rounds:

You have all put a lot of time and effort into creating your cases and evidence to support your points. I ask that you try and speak in a conversational tone and speed. Try to speak clearly. If you speak too quickly I may miss key components of your contentions, claims, warrants, data, or impacts. At that point, that information is lost to me and I will not ask you to clarify or bring it back up, so be aware of that. You all are talented and have spent so much time to create these cases and I do not want to miss out on it.

Be civil during our debate. Being rude or obnoxious will cause you to lose points.

Be clear and specific during rebuttal. Refute the contentions of your opponents. Using rebuttal to go over every aspect your case a second time will not help you.

Make crossfire....crossfire. I do not want to spend the entire time on one question or one piece of evidence/data. This is a time for each team to question the other. Let's make that happen!

Keep track of your own prep time

Use summary and final focus to let me know why you won the round

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

not charitable to pre-fiat impacts. please mind speed. treat me as lay. have fun!

I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I have been judging for a few years now. Please speak slowly and clearly, no jargon. You should concentrate on the 1-2 most relevant arguments at the end of the round and point out to me why I should vote on those. If you want to win off of an argument, please highlight it in the summary and reiterate it in the final focus speeches. Please be civil to your competitors.

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

I am a lifelong speech and debate person. My judging is informed by a policymaking background but not determined by it. I don't believe I have a particular paradigm per se. My ballot pen responds well to clash and specificity.

Hello. This is Xiaojin Liu and I'm a parent judge at Newton South High School. I prefer logical and concise presentation. I will judge on both the content and how the content to be delivered. I vote for the team that show direct evidence to support your arguments.

Parent judge

Hello,

I am a fourth year debater, having done 3 years of Varsity Public Forum and 1 year of Novice Policy Debate. Here is some important information about my preferences:

Speed: I can handle speed. If you do speak fast, make sure you are clear.

Weighing: I cannot stress this enough, the easiest path to my ballot is to weigh. If you and your opponents both don't weigh, I will have to weigh it myself.

Speaking during speeches: Don't talk to your partner during their speech or during 1st or 2nd crossfire. It often causes them to lose their train of thought. Also, they need to learn to be self sufficient through experience.

Evidence: I will call for evidence if I believe something may have been misrepresented or if you ask me to do so.

Progressive Argumentation: I have nothing against progressive argumentation. If you want to run a kritik or theory, go ahead, but make sure to inform your opponents that you are planning to do this.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 for speaks, and depending on your performance in the round, it can either go up or down. I won’t give below a 27.5 for speaks unless you are exceptionally rude to your opponent or misrepresent evidence.

Now, onto speeches:
Constructive: Make sure to have a clear link chain. Make sure to read your case clearly. If I can't understand you, I will let you know.

Rebuttal: I am not the biggest fan of debaters completing unread case arguments in rebuttal, but I will still flow it if you do so. I would like it if you started weighing in rebuttal. Don't waste time extending case arguments. Just focus on rebutting the opponent's argument and weighing, and if you give second rebuttal, frontlining. Signpost, it makes it easier for me to flow what you are saying.

Summary: I know with the three minute summary there is a temptation to go for all your arguments. Don't do it. Make sure to collapse, rather than going for everything in case. Extend offense- you can't win without it. Don't forget to weigh!

Final Focus: Make sure to extend the arguments which you think should decide the round, and weigh. DO NOT bring up new arguments. I will not weigh them.

Crossfires: I don't flow crossfire, but if an argument is conceded in cross, and the other team brings it to my attention, I will consider it in my decision. Be courteous to your opponent. Being rude will cost you speaks. During grand cross, make sure not to get to heated, and try to keep the conversation civil (the last thing we want is a shouting match).

Have fun debating!

Add me to the email chain: 21mallikarjun@lexingtonma.org

I did PF in high school for 4 years. If you speak too quickly, I'll likely miss something. I will time your speeches and prep time but please please time yourselves and do not go over time. I'll let you know when time is up and then I'll probably stop flowing.

I have experience in speech from high school and British and French parliamentary debate from college. This means that while I can follow you if you spread or otherwise speak rapidly, I may not understand specialized terminology. As a judge, I value three things: clarity of argument, reasoning, and clash. Above all, however, I value consistency, so don't use one framework to justify one set of claims while adopting a different one just to be able to make some other claims to try and increase the volume of claims made. But in truth, I consider myself more of a one-man jury than a judge. I will never call for cards - that is your job - and I will only drop contentions if they are never defended or are successfully rebutted, and not because I personally find them incredible. You should also time yourselves and maintain a calm and civil crossfire; I should not have to interrupt.

Good luck!

For best debate experience, please read my paradigm in its entirety.

Debate as you feel comfortable doing.

I appreciate eye contact.

I care about cross-X, I won't flow but I will pay attention, and I expect you to address important things in Cross X in your speeches. Cross X will also affect your speaks.

Don't be abusive in Cross X, but don't let the other team walk all over you. If you ask a question, let the other person finish. But if the other team is babbling and stalling, don't let them do it.

I don't mind if you call for cards, I think this is good practice as long as it's not abusive.

Don't say "basic economics".

If you actually know what you're talking about, I will be happy.

I love weird cases, if you have one, run it. (I've run my fair share)

I don't like jargon, if you hit me with K, T shell, or any similar jargon I will not be happy. Explain all these things using regular English. :)

Bonus points for accurate pronunciation in Spanish or French. It's just nice to hear.

Be organized and signpost, it makes my life easy.

I will always disclose if allowed.

If the opposite team places a burden on you, you should contest it thoroughly and right away.

If you place a burden, you should be ready to defend it early and often.

I won't tolerate general abusive behavior.

Be friendly to each other.

I really appreciate using logic and analysis in conjunction with cards. However, refrain from using logic INSTEAD of cards. This usually ends up with both teams making weird analogies that no one understands - this does not make for fun rounds.

I believe I am a fair judge. That being said, if you have an issue with my decision, you can respectfully tell me that.

1. I am your typical lay judge

2. "Truth>Tech"

I'm honestly too lazy to write a full paradigm, so I'll just make it quick.

I'm a senior at Lexington High school and Ive debated a year of policy and 3 of PF. Speed doesn't matter to me as long as you are clear in what you're saying. I will also vote off of the flow, so make clean extensions and weigh!!! Please please PLEASE do some comparative weighing as early on in the debate round as possible. I will literally give you higher speaks if you give a clear roadmap and/or signpost.

Also I really am not a huge fan of cross, so please please be nice to each other when asking questions (and in general throughout the round). I'm just here for a chill time:)

Have fun, and I'll see you all on the other side of the flow

- Jamin <3

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

I am a lay judge, but I am on my second debater kid, so I do know a little bit about PF, just don’t go too fast. I'm an estate tax attorney in my day job. I like appeals to philosophy but only if you get it right.

In terms of style I like weighing and frameworks so I know what's important upfront.

If there is anything that I should know about you, anything I should accommodate, please let me know.

I appreciate section titles to help me follow your argument.

I did PF for 4 years at Stuyvesant High School. I prefer a more lay/flay style of debate.

I'm a parent judge. I prefer slow and clear speakers to fast and aggressive ones. Make fewer but strong arguments. I don't flow crossfire, but please be civil.

I am a parent judge with a little bit of judging experience.

The biggest things for me that will help me in my decision:

-Please speak slowly so I can catch everything you are saying

-Lots of signposting so know what you are talking about

-Please don't leave anything unresponded to

-I value evidence, so please make sure to back up your arguments with evidence.

-Weigh your case against your opponents to really sell me on your argument

For evaluating speaks, if you speak slowly, clearly, and coherently you are sure to get good speaks

Please time one everything to make sure the debate goes smoothly

Any form of excess aggression or rudeness will result in very low speaks!

For evidence or case, docs use this email: parisvakili@hotmail.com

I am a parent judge.

There are a few things that I would like to make clear when you are debating

1. This is probably the most important thing to note on this paradigm: Please speak as clearly as possible (and please speak at a average pace) Anything I don't hear, I will not count to the round. If you spread, I will not understand anything.

2. To help me understand better, please signpost. (It will also get you get higher speaker points)

3. I will be as impartial and as fair to this topic as possible, even though i have biases. If there is an argument I think is untrue, but you still warrant it well I will count it.

4. Speaking about warranting, if you want to win the round, I don't want you to dump evidence everywhere. Explaining and warranting is more important. When comparing arguments, I will evaluate on who has the better warrant first and then the evidence second

I will evaluate the round by going through these 3 things:

1. The most important thing is how well I understand your arguments and warranting. I probably don't know a lot of terms when it comes to this topic, so please explain everything. The more I understand and the more you explain, the better your chances are.

2. I secondly evaluate by the way you respond to your opponents arguments. Please address everything so you have the best chances at winning.

3. please weigh and don't just say you outweigh. Once again explain the weighing. Being comparative is probably the most important parts of weighing.

Some additional things:

1. Don't be rude or else you get low speaks

2. I like when people are intelligent and well spoken

3. Again to reiterate, please speak at a normal understanding pace. PF was supposed to be a debate where normal people off the street can understand it, so try to meet that goal as best as possible.

This is my first time judging, I’ll try my best to give unbiased judging results. But in order to do that, you need to follow these guidelines.

1. Please speak clearly and not too fast

2. If there’s difficult technical word, please try to explain it. If I can’t understand, I can’t judge fairly.

3. Please not to be rude.

4. Organize your sentences in a logical way. Avoid simple repetition of your content over and over.

Lay Judge

Talk slowly or at a moderate pace for both cases and speeches.

Clarity is key - make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly. Don't use debate jargon as I probably won't be able to follow you.

Be respectful - don't be rude or passive-aggressive during cross.

Implicate and extend claims, warrants, and impacts. Don't assume the judge knows what you are talking about in every new speech, reiterate the most important concepts in the round that you want the judge to vote off of.

Reexplain all defense read in all speeches as it isn't extended if you don't explain the warranting from speech to speech.

WEIGH - Tell me why your arguments/links to those arguments matter more. If no weighing is done the round could go either way.