I am a parent judged with a couple of tournaments completed in the past. I look for an overall respectful debate, good organization of arguments with a consistent approach throughout, impacts and sources.

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon, tech, etc. I don't usually disclose after rounds.

This is my second tournament judging, so I am not very familiar with many arguments. I am not a primary english speaker. Please be very clear as to what your arguments mean and tag all of your arguments and refutations. if you don't tag them, I may not write it properly. Like I said, I don't have much experience judging. While I know some things because my son does debate, don't assume I know anything past common knowledge. Other than that, please be confident and respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!

Please deliver your facts and arguments clearly and understandable. Your goal is to persuade your audience and/or your opponent, so make sure people can understand you. Good luck!

Hello my name is Micaela Bensko (she/her)!

This is my first time judging in a few years and still fairly new, so please try to refrain from using jargon. I know how hard you all have worked to be here, and truly look forward to being a part of this experience.

Have a great round!

I am a parent judge and have judged a couple of tournaments in the past. I look for an overall respectful debate, good organization of arguments with a consistent approach throughout, clarity of communication and conviction in arguments, impacts and sources.

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Hi all,

A good debate from my point of view involves:

1. Solid research of the topic (back with evidence, examples, and data sources)

2. Clear structure of key debate points (fewer is better than more)

3. Crisp articulation of the key points (slow delivery in the beginning and ending of each round will help).

Enjoy! I am honored to have the opportunity to judge your debate.

Daisy

I look for speeches that are clearly articulated at a normal pace, and arguments/statements that are well-explained that also expands on its impact.

Hello, I am a first year parent judge, so I would prefer not to judge theory or kritiks. I would appreciate if your arguments were very organized and clear so that I can follow along. Also, please speak at a moderate speed. Thank you!

Beginner parent judge

I am a lay parent judge. Please do not talk fast or spread. Please be clear. Time yourselves. I am fairly new to debate.

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

Hello,

I value logical arguments based on the objective evidences.

Please try to speak slowly and clearly for me to understand you better.

Please keep your own time.

Enjoy!

Aloha!

I am returning to judging after a couple years off to care for my parents. I have judged speech and debate from middle school to collegiate levels. I have a Master of Arts in teaching Language Arts and qualified for AFA-NIET (Now AFA-NST) during my time competing.

i recently judged prelims and outrounds at AFA-NST 2022 in Lincoln,Neb.

While speech/debate is a very personal endeavor, my opinions may run contrary to your expectations for any number of reasons and my decisions are not personal, but are rooted in 20 years of judging and coaching experiences.

I’m holistic in my judging and judge on the merits of arguments rather than anything negative toward your opponant.

I would appreciate getting a roadmap/info chart to help with flow. I also appreciate metaphor when interpreting resolutions.

I appreciate a good turn in debate rounds—Hit me with unexpected angles and viewpoints. Thank you for keeping your delivery slow and clear—especially since we are online and internet glitches happen. I also appreciate clear analyses of why your team should win in the final rebuttals.

Finally, I lived in Hawai’i for 14 years and will often drop “Aloha” or other Hawaiian words. If it’s unclear, please feel free to ask!!

I value clarity and organization in your presentation or argument. I appreciate it when you keep things simple and straightforward and logical. I also value moderate pacing and volume (i.e. speak slowly and don't yell), a confident demeanor, clear enunciation, and courtesy to your opponent(s). The content of your speech obviously matters most, but style of delivery (e.g. pacing, tone, mien) does affect my judgment.

In adjudicating debate rounds I try to be as tabula rasa as I can justify. I will intervene when I deem it necessary (probably only to avoid harm to anyone involved).

What I'm definitely okay with: Reasonable speed. Kritikal argumentation. Debate theory.

What I'm definitely not okay with: Exclusionary or discriminatory behavior/language. Manipulating evidence.

What I appreciate: Impact calculus. Signposting. Being told where to flow arguments. Link stories.

Please note that I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please do not rush and speak clearly so that I can understand you.

I view logic as the most important factor for my decision. Please provide clear reasoning as to why your argument makes sense and is better than that of your opponents.

I also highly value the evidence you support during the round. Please give credible evidence and citing the evidence will help as well when I try to determine if the evidence is credible.

Lastly, please have a professional tone and attitude while speaking.

This is my first year of judging. As additional background , I am the head of finance and compliance for public biotech company and give high points to clear presentation of facts and well supported evidence.

Prefer slower debates, articulate presentation and clear flow of thoughts is valued higher than speed. Maintain respect at all times and also dress appropriately for debates.

A few tips for winning

- Introduce your argument before jumping into it

- Make your points in a concise manner, do not spend too much time on any one point.

- Summarize your argument

- Be sure to address all your opponents points in your rebuttal

- Treat being on virtual calls as being in the room, body language counts!

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for 3 years.

Please speak at moderate pace and with clarity. Be respectful to your opponents and keep track of your time so you can end your arguments. When I am judging, I look for:

- Critical thinking about the arguments and supporting your arguments

- Rebut your opponents

- Don't go in circles and keep repeating

- Be logical and realistic with your arguments

- Eloquent communication of your arguments

Good luck and have fun.

I'll happily listen to anything you have to say.

Hello! I'm fairly new to Policy debate, so super fast speeches and jargon are not great for me.

***PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN FOR PARLI***

First, you don't need to use your time to thank me, and you really don't need to shake my hand. Both of these concepts feel gross, personally.

I debated parli in high school, but not since, and heavy use of theory will likely get lost on me, just because I was never that sophisticated. I am open to some artful experimental/off-topic stuff, but actual trolling is a pathetic waste of everyone's time.

I am not a "blank slate" judge and will struggle to accept what I know to be blatant falsehoods.

I can have trouble understanding very rapid speech, especially if quiet, partially due to an auditory processing disorder. If you start to spread and you've lost me, I will throw my pen down in anger and glare at you dead in the eye and/or yell CLEAR at the very top of my lungs. Further, the sound of constant gasping for breath makes me want to shove my pen through both eardrums just for a moment of respite. This is debate, not auctioneering. In other words, don't spread. Just don't do it.

Humor and wit and personal style are great ways to earn speaker points! Invective toward the other side, etc. is the fastest way to bleed them. Ditto *any* sort of hostility to marginalized/oppressed groups in your case (racial minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, so on and so forth). That is a quick path to me giving you the lowest score possible and reporting you.

Final pet peeves: if you're going to talk extensively about funding, know how appropriation works. If you're going to cite the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, get it right. I don't expect anyone to grasp the nuances of foreign policy or anything like that, but you should have a very good functional understanding of the US government structure, laws, and especially the legislative process.

Ultimately, please have fun and DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, because I'm having fun when y'all are. And if you have any questions or clarifications to bring up before the round, please feel free to do so.

Hi, I am a lay parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents, besides that have fun & Good Luck!

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

I am a parent judge with no debate experience. Please be organized in your presentation and avoid spreading. My daughter has explained the basic rules to me such as POIs and POOs.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations.

Hello all! I am going to start with a brief description of who I am and my background. I am a current third year student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo majoring in History. I did three years of Parli debate at Grover Cleveland HS in Los Angeles. I am currently competing in the college YODL BP Circuit. I love debate as an institution, I think it was probably the most important thing I did in High School, the critical thinking and just overall breadth of knowledge you gain from it are unmatched. I use he/him/his pronouns.

tldr: do impact calculus, compare arguments, try to be nice, write my RFD for me throughout the round, make your warrants and impact weighing obvious. Good chance I won't understand your speed reading. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speed and Structure: Please do not spread, you can talk fast, but there is a line you cross when you spread that I cannot understand. Please use points and subpoints when presenting arguments, it makes it much easier to flow. Try and go from one side of the flow to the other, Gov to Opp (or vice versa). If you notice your judge's paradigm below, it's because I constantly commandeer bits of other judges' paradigms to improve my own.

Theory and Kritik: I prefer case debate, I think that it is just more fun and interesting. If running theory, please make it obvious the abusive actions of your opponents. I will vote on theory based on exclusion. For Kritik debate, if it is genuine and has a clear connection to the round I will vote on it. Have a solid alternative, that is not just for me. Assume myself and your opponents know nothing about complex philosophical ideas and know no rhetoric. I am by no means an expert in Ts and Ks. Like I said before, I much prefer case debate, unless it is absolutely necessary and you warrant as such, stick to the resolution.

Congress: Everything for speed and structure should apply, speak clearly and prounounce your words. Follow the Rules of Order and listen to the PO. Impact well!

If you say or do anything bigoted I will drop you. You will also get the lowest possible speaker points.

Ask me if you have a question about my paradigm or a brief summary in the round.

I have previously judged two tournaments. I am a practicing in-house attorney (non-litigator). I appreciate clear, well-reasoned, and well-supported arguments, delivered calmly, respectfully and sincerely. I tend to favor quality and clarity over speed and quantity. Thank you, and have fun!

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

I am a first year parent judge. Please speak at a moderate speed so that I could better understand your points. Thank you very much.

Parent judge

(Well organized and logically laid out arguments) > (speed talking or try to win on technicalities)

Most debates come down to a few key arguments. Please lay it out for me. Don’t force me to organize your arguments nor decipher your weighing.

Be competitive, be passionate, but be respectful

Have fun!

Logic-
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I appreciate art, but I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.

Evidence-
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.

Signposting-
Without being excessive, please do signpost whenever possible. When done effectively it often helps me to track your arguments, thus making it easier to see and understand the reasoning behind your points.

Have Fun!-
Prepare, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!

Speak clearly and explain your arguments thoroughly. Explicitly state which arguments you are responding to.

I am a parent judge.

This is my fourth year judging both Parli and Public Forum. I am mainly a lay judge so I would prefer that debaters speak slowly and clearly convey their arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. Other than that, I have no preferences about cases or arguments.

I'm a new judge. I appreciate arguments that communicate. Organization, clarity, use of meaningful sources are important parts of what I'm looking for. Poignancy works for me when the other pieces are in place.

The way to win my ballot is to speak slowly, I'll be taking notes and the more clear and slow you are the easier it is for me to catch things.

This is my first time judging, but I do like comparative weighing and analysis. I want to hear you tell me what your world looks like.

I will try not to intervene, but make logical arguments that make sense.

Explain each term you put forward so everyone knows what you are talking about.

Besides that, be respectful to me and your opponents.

Let's have a great round!

I am a first-year parent lay judge. Here are some of my preferences:

Provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.

Support your claims with cited evidence.

Maintain composure during heated moments.

Enjoy the experience!

Hi, My name is Zhihua Li and this is my first time being a debate tournament judge. I would give higher points to speakers who can stand up straight, look into my eyes with confidence, pay attention to all audience and talk at medium volume. I do not understand debate jargons so please be careful using them. I would give higher points for speech at medium speed with clear logics.

I am glad to be here and wish you all of you do your best today!

Hi all,

It is my 2nd time to the judge of this speech and debate program.

And it is my pleasure to be here.

Best Regards,

Jack Z. Lin

Evergreen , San Jose, CA

My name is Min Liu. I was a computer engineer for 10 years before I co-founded Able2Shine, a soft skills training company.

I’ve only judged a few debates this year but I’ve grown to love this activity. Events I’ve judged so far are Public Forum, Parli and SPAR, and I can’t wait to try Policy and LD.

I prefer clear communication over speed, and honestly if you speak too fast I might not remember much when you’re done talking.

I enjoy the nuance of facts and subtlety of logic, and am excited to learn from all the debaters.

Presentation matters because in the real world you have to win hearts of minds of people. So when the debate gets close, the team with better speaking skills wins my vote.

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. Please don't speak too fast. Please stay within time limits. I don't usually disclose results immediately after rounds.

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

I prefer students speak at a regular rate. Also, I look or listen for well-reasoned and/or well-organized arguments in debates.

First time judge. Good luck!

I've never judged before. Please talk slowly and explain thoroughly. Good luck!

I enjoy all forms of debate and argumentation. I’ll vote on anything that is persuasive.

Hey everyone! :) My name's Vidushee and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a second-year at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach for Berkeley High School. During high school, I competed for Irvington for 4 years and some of the highlights from my debate career were: three-time TOC qualifier, state qualifier, semis at Cal Parli, semis at Stephen Stewart Invitational, etc.

General notes:

- From David Gomez Siu's paradigm: "Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect nor can I see all forms of violence, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab."

- I'm usually tech over truth unless someone is being problematic in round.

- I appreciate weighing arguments, collapsing (especially in the rebuttal speeches), IMPACTING, and being organized/sign-posting throughout the debate!

- Tag-teaming is fine but I only flow what the speaker says. This means that if your partner is tagging for you, then you have to repeat what they said in order for me to write it down and evaluate it.

- I don't like intervening in debates unless it's absolutely necessary so if you're going to be reading a blippy argument that calls from judge intervention, I probably won't buy it. If you do want me to intervene, make sure to explicitly JUSTIFY it.

Speed:

- I can flow moderately fast speed, but if you aren't clear I likely won't be able to understand you. If you want to go extremely fast then please make sure you're clear. I will tell you to slow or clear if I can't understand you, and if you choose not to, then I won't flow what you're saying.

- Also from David's paradigm: "If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. Interps/texts twice, please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENTS."

Case:

- I loved case debate, so I prefer it, and I appreciate unique/interesting arguments that go beyond just general links and blocks of uniqueness that can be recycled for all of your rounds.

- Please make sure to pay particular attention to weighing, impacting, and signposting here because a messy case debate isn't fun for anyone!

- I prefer if you cross-apply certain arguments after explaining why they're relevant in a new part of the flow rather than repeating the same things over and over again.

- I'm fine with basically any CPs but please don't be annoying about small things like funding, time frame, consultation, etc because all that does is take away from the quality of the debate (unless it's a legitimate issue, of course). Also, PICs are cool. :)

Theory/Topicality:

- I ran and debated all kinds of theory and topicality so I'm familiar with most arguments and I think that they can definitely be useful in round.

- I don't think that trying to win on frivolous theory is a good debate strategy, especially if you're running it against a team that's inexperienced in answering it. However, if both teams like debating with lots of shells and are comfortable answering them, then that works for me too!

- I default to competing interpretations, but if you want me to vote on reasonability please give me a clear definition of what that means and reason to do so.

- I will vote on potential abuse if the argument is articulated well but I prefer if there's proven abuse.

- I don't have a preference for either fairness or education; it really just depends on which one is argued better.

- If you want me to drop the debater and not the argument then you need to give me a strong reason to do so, otherwise I will default to dropping the argument.

- RVIs are fine, they just need to be articulated and argued well.

- Remember to weigh the theory and tell me how to evaluate it in relation to other arguments, whether that be compared to case, Ks, other theory, etc.

Kritiks:

- I didn't really read Ks when I was debating, but I've hit and listened to enough of them to know that most people don't really understand the literature that they're talking about. That being said, however, I'll evaluate them if they're read.

- If you use a K to exclude someone from the round, I will NOT hesitate to drop you.

- Performance-based Ks are fine, but I never read one myself and I've only ever hit one before.

- I really don't like K affs unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (which obviously needs to be articulated in the PMC).

- I'm probably not the best judge to read super confusing or high-level Ks on because I might get confused, but if you think you can explain them well, it should be fine!

Some parting thoughts, that were also taken from David's paradigm:

"Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds."

Please feel free to reach out to me via email (vidusheemishra@berkeley.edu), Facebook, etc. for anything at all! Debate was a huge part of my high school experience and I'm very familiar with the feeling of not knowing anyone on the circuit or having a coach to ask for help, so I'm more than happy to help you out in any way that I can! :)

*Small note about my judging history: I don't always vote aff but that's how my ballot ended up being at the SCU 2020 Invitational, so don't worry about that.

4/8/2022 Update: I haven't judged tech debate in a while so I'm not as used to it as I used to be, so take that as you will.

I am a first year parent judge for Parli debates. I consider effective communication and the art of persuasion as essential life skills and I'm honored to take on the role of a judge. I particularly enjoy Parli debates as participants need to think on their feet without the benefit of extensive prep.

I prefer a roadmap at the beginning as well as signposting throughout so I can follow along. Please speak clearly, respectfully, and at a speed at which I can understand - if I can’t understand your argument, then I cannot award points for it. Focus on the strength of the position you decide to take and how you formulate your arguments in favor of it. If your opponent introduces new arguments in rebuttal speeches, I expect you to let me know by raising a POO. If it is a close debate, the quality of speech delivery will decide the winning team.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a relatively new judge and have judged one tourney which was for parliamentary debate. When presenting warrants explain thoroughly. I do not like to see spreading but would appreciate it if you are clear and concise in your speech. I like to see weighing in debate and would love to see pmt in the final speeches as well as a two world analysis. Good luck!

My ballot will go to the team who presents the most consistent and coherent narrative in the round, with clear links and logical warranting. Rather than race to one extreme or another, impacts should have real-world significance. Most importantly, do your best, and have fun!

Hi,

I am Chandan.

I am new to judging and looking forward to contribute to debate competitions.

I do not like theories though PoI and PoO are welcome!

Enjoy!

I am a new parent judge. I'll do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments, but I'm not yet familiar with debate jargon and it would be appreciated if students spell things out for me. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

• Interrupt others

• Run hateful arguments

• Be overly invasive with POIs

• Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Please Do:

• Be ready on time for the debate

• Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

• Be respectful

• Have fun and not be overly aggressive

• Thank your opponents

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

Please always introduce yourself and speak at a normal pace.

I did not debate in high school or college, so I appreciate cogent, reasoned, clear, and persuasive speech rather than technicalities and empty rhetoric. Please be polite to each other and to me, talk slowly, and enunciate. Looking forward to judging your rounds :)!

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading will not help

Please keep your own time; off time roadmaps and sign posting preferred for clear and logical flow

Overly technical, jargon filled, incendiary comments are not helpful

Clearly state standard, contentions, evidence and make strong tie to impacts; and clearly concisely state voting issues in final statement.

Please keep points of information brief (15 seconds or less) and frame as concise statement, or a pointed question.

For parliamentary debate, the guidance from http://debate.uvm.edu/meanyparli.html is helpful:

"Good parliamentary debaters speak at a rate of speech comprehensible to the layperson untrained in debate. Physical and vocal delivery, humor, passion and persuasiveness are important elements of parliamentary debating. A parliamentary debater should maintain eye contact with the audience and develop a speaking style that is fluent and expressive.

Parliamentary debaters do not read written speeches, briefs, or evidence. Instead, parliamentary debaters speak from a few notes that record the arguments that other speakers have made in the debate and outline their own main points. Each of these points should be signposted, explained, supported by relevant facts and examples, and given impact."

Hello I am a parent judge and this is my first time so I will be lay.

Please speak slowly and clearly and do not be abusive. Explain complicated terms clearly so I can judge better.

I wish you all good luck.

My Background

I did parliamentary debate and only parliamentary debate for four years, and I mostly attended lay tournaments. I don't have any experience in policy or pofo, and I did try LD for a while, but I definitely don't think I should be judging those events. If you're in a non parli form of debate, please be patient in explaining the rules to me, and explain arguments more clearly than you normally would because I may be unfamiliar with how those arguments work. I generally like case debates, but I'm not opposed to theory if you have to run it. I don't like kritiks or abusive arguments, but I do like creative arguments that are believable.

I am currently an Economics and Public Affairs major, so I understand quite a bit about how government works, and while I try to be tabula rasa, my knowledge may bias the way I judge debate rounds. Make sure you explain all arguments clearly and correctly. I do fact check, so don't make things up.

Case

Make sure all of your points are very clear. Please organize everything into your uniqueness, links, internal links, impacts, and responses. Do not skip links. I run into a lot of debaters who just kind of assume that their plan solves without explaining or giving evidence as to why. Signpost all parts of your argument too. I should be able to figure out exactly which point you're responding to at all times. Also please terminalize your impacts. Every argument you run must have an implication and significance. If you don't explain the significance of your argument, I will have trouble weighing it in the round.

Do not make up evidence. If there is a contentious piece of evidence in the round, I will fact check it. Completely fabricating numbers or quotes will result in an immediate loss. However, reasonable paraphrasing or truncating is okay. Calculating percentages is okay (if it's done correctly).

As much as possible, refutations should be offensive. Try to do link turns more often than no links. I especially like double binds that are explained clearly. I really like interesting impact turns too, but make sure they're substantiated and don't double turn yourself.

Rebuttals

Please use voter issues in the rebuttal speeches. Do not treat it as another constructive speech and spend all your time responding to arguments unless you're the PMR and you have to. Weigh the arguments against each other, and obviously make sure the argument you're winning is given more weight. Seriously, don't try to win every argument. Find the arguments you're winning and explain why they're more important. I also like rebuttals that explain why your argument short circuits their argument. I look at probability, magnitude, and timeframe. When it comes to impact analysis, I kind of like timeframe arguments and sometimes probability arguments. I don't like magnitude arguments that are incredibly unlikely (like nuclear war), unless they can be well substantiated (like if Ukraine joins NATO). Seriously, don't run nuclear war arguments unless you have a good link scenario. Most of the time nuclear war arguments become nonunique anyways. Both sides claim the other side has nuclear war with little to no evidence, and MAD means that nuclear war probably won't happen. Both brink scenarios typically have equal chance of happening anyways.

Plans and Counterplans

I'm not very picky about plans, but they should definitely be topical. Small affs are fine, and I oftentimes finds them to be clever. Avoid extratopical plans, and make sure your plan solves. See my theory category for more information.

In general I'm fine with all types of CPs, but make sure your CP solves, is competitive, and isn't abusive. In other words, your CP alone must be better than the plan and the CP together. This can usually be done with disads to the plan. Make sure you have disads to the plan, do not simply talk about why the CP is better than the plan because that does not generate offense and does not protect against the perm.

No conditional CPs, but dispositional CPs are ok.

Consult CPs are ok as long as you give a good reason why consulting is important and prove solvency.

I'm fine with PICs, but I'll also listen to theory arguments about it. If you plan to run a PIC, be prepared to have responses to theory.

Agent/50 States CPs are fine too, but make sure you have actual evidence as to why 50 states would solve better than the federal government. If there's no good reason why a particular agent or 50 states is preferred, you'll probably lose on presumption.

Theory

Make sure you have all five parts (interp, violation, standards, voters, underview) for every theory argument. If you're missing any of them, you might as well not run theory. There is a time and place theory arguments. I don't like frivolous theory, and I probably won't buy any theory arguments that seem unnecessary. That being said, I think that theory is necessary if a plan or counterplan is confusing or abusive. If your opponents genuinely misinterpreted the resolution, run theory. Topicality and spec are oftentimes the most useful forms of theory. Oftentimes, the aff plan will be so vague that educational debate is impossible. In this case, the neg can easily win on theory.

If you're confused on what's "unnecessary." Think of it this way: if you're running theory because you want a cheap argument to beat your opponent, it's probably unnecessary. If you're running theory because your opponents genuinely did something that shouldn't be allowed, run theory. When in doubt, run theory. The worst that could happen is that you waste your time. I generally don't buy RVIs.

Also, I'm a huge fan of we meet responses to interps. It's probably the best way to quickly defeat theory.

Kritiks

If you're going to run a K please make sure you explain each part of the K clearly. I know a bit about Nietzsche, Sartre, Daoism, and Baudrillard, but that's about it. Everything else you'll have to explain to me clearly.

Misc:

Tabula rasa and tech over truth for the most part. Basically, if you drop arguments (even if they are factually wrong), I have to give that argument to your opponent. This has happened before. You can avoid this by not dropping arguments and making sure you do line by lines if you're the LOC or MG.

Hot take: I don't really care about shadow extensions, but I'm willing to listen to a point of order if the PMR does a shadow extension. For the LOR I feel like the PMR's ability to use golden turns voids the abuse of a shadow extension.

I am fine with whatever speed you want to go at, but do not try to speak so quickly that your opponents or I can't understand you. Make sure you are speaking clearly. I will say clear if you're not being clear enough. I'm fine with tag teaming, but I'll only flow what the speaker says.

I award speaker points based on how well you speak and present, not on the quality of your arguments. That being said, I will nuke speaks for a variety of reasons including but not limited to racism, sexism, and making up evidence. I think you can speak quickly and still be a good speaker.

I prefer cameras to be on while you speak so that I can more accurately judge speaker points. I do judge based on hand motions, eye contact, movement, and stuff like that. If you are able to, please turn on your camera and present your arguments to the best of your ability.

Presumption flows neg unless there is a counterplan in which case it flows aff. Please do not make me vote on presumption. You can do this by making sure your arguments are offensive and not defensive. That means if you're neg talk about why the aff is harmful and if you're aff talk about why doing nothing is harmful and how you solve for those harms. You can also avoid making me vote on presumption by weighing arguments in the rebuttal speech. Seriously, if you weigh an argument you're winning and your opponent doesn't weigh, you'll win.

There are a number of debates I've won from creatively redefining or reinterpreting the resolution. I honestly think this is necessary sometimes if the resolution is seriously skewed against you. I really like these debates, but please make sure your definition or interpretation of the resolution is valid and substantiated before using it. Just remember for any resolution, there exists some creative a path to victory. Do not give up during prep time.

General Focus

The debate case should have clear contentions with evidence supporting your claims that explain the topic well. Generally, your case should be structured so it is easy to flow and understand as the audience. The arguments should be concise, and clash is essential. Follow the structure of the debate format you are competing in. For example, in LD, the Value and Value Criterion are significant; centralize your case towards them. Extend your arguments throughout the Debate; consistent repetition is not necessary.

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

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.

1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!

I am pretty much a debate judge, I can follow along and flow a debate really well. I understand parli jargon, but I dont like to see it outside of appropriate rounds. I also very much favor structure in debate. If you can make your arguments clear and understandable, then it makes it so much easier for me.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

Explain any complex debate terms/rules

Speak at a moderate pace

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I have a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for a non-profit

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to sus out the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it! I appreciate humor in a round as well!

General (And also some framework stuff):

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but being clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it, I just might be sad. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can really lead to great discussions in round. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help for getting folks into critical literature if it’s done well and is weighed well against the aff. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K.

Perms: Whether it is a CP or a K if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc and I’ll vote on it

I debated parli for around two years for Los Altos. I'm at ucla now.

Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.

Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.

Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :) Don't run Ks. I don't know them.

Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Don't have your camera on and laugh/make faces during speeches; it's kind of distracting and a lil rude. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points.

treat me like a lay judge

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.

I have only judged since 2020. I look for good organization and evidence. I can judge debates of any speed.

I am a non native English speaker, so I would not prefer very fast speech as it is difficult for me to fully understand the content.

I will make my judgement based on your organization and how clearly you present, how you use the argument, and do cross-examination, and how you present your evidences, not based on the sounds-right or sounds-wrong on the debate topic itself.

So please be well prepared, and well organized, and be calm and clearly present your points.

Good luck.

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it

No spreading, theory, or kritiks please.