You should always ask your judge for their paradigm before a round. If it is not clear, don't hesitate to ask for elaboration.

When judging public forum debate I take seriously that it is "designed to be accessible to the average citizen". So, speaking clearly, comprehensibly and respectfully is essential. As I see it, that is the challenge. It's your job to take a complex dilemma and make your best case for one clear solution.

I'm a traditional Public Forum judge. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with well-developed contentions and significant depth of argumentation. I'd encourage you to state your points concisely, and without significant undue repetition. I do not tolerate spreading; I expect you to have developed reasonable skills of word economy by this point in the season, and would hope that you can concisely develop your case to fit within the required time. I reward the use of reasonably clear enunciation at a comprehensible pace. While I do encourage you to weigh your arguments, be mindful of the tone you use to do so. "Speakersplaining" to me, attempting to tell me which way I am going to decide in the round rather than a courteous appeal for my vote, comes off as arrogant and will not do you any favors in my evaluation of the round. For any clarification, feel free to ask me in-round.

Kamiak 22'

---------UPDATE 2021--------------------------------------------------

My knowledge about this topic is not as deep as the past years so please unpack your arguments :)

----------INFO------------------------------------------------------------

Add me on the email chain :) ---> elina1025.ec@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her or they/them

Currently a 2N but was a 2A freshman year.

tldr; whatever arg you like I'm prob fine with it.

Write the ballot for me in the 2ar/nr -->super important and will increase your speaks a lot. It is also because I feel bad to intervene and make my decision that way :(

-------------below are some of my general thoughts-----------------

Tech over truth 99.9999 percent

Drop args count and I will vote on the stupidest arg but you need to tell me why it matters. I would say I have a lower threshold on buying dropped theory arg. you really just have to make it a voter.

Tag team cx ok, cx is binding, flashing/sending doesn't count as prep

Mostly do what you want, I will try to adapt.

Fairness is a internal link to education unless you tell me otherwise.

policy-

cp, da, t-- no one will not be fine with it so... idk what to say. offense is important.

case debates are sooo important! recuttings and indicts makes me happy

kritiks-

k- Most familiar with security, imperialism, gender, abolition etc. Bad k debates are the worst debate. If you don't know the lit then prob don't run it, it will probably tank ur speaks. Contextualize links plzz--> super important. I am not voting for you unless you can explain to me why the aff SPECIFICALLY links to the k. Saying "because they reform they link" is not a link for me. FW+link -->ok , I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac.

k aff- unless you can run it well or else bad k aff debates makes me sad. I don't think I am qual to judge a k v k round so plss don't.

Public Forum / LD

I guess if for some reason I am forced to judge one of these rounds I will view the round solely on my flow and mostly on impact calc made in the last speeches

Speaks

I know speaks inflation gets kind of annoying sometimes but I still give relatively high speaks

cheating means auto loss and lowest speaks possible :(

-1 pt when you say "can I start prep?" or "Can I take a minute of prep" or "I'm speaking in 3, 2, 1.." or any variations. You are the one debating and you should be in charge of your own time and I don't need to know that.

Things that will increase your speaks:

1. look at me during cx

2. good case line by line/ good analysis

3. good impact calc in your last speeches

4. actively engage in the debate!

I usually give 28 or higher speaks

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

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

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

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

I value clearly naming your contentions,

citing reputable sources of data,

making rebuttals that specifically refute the other side's arguments,

and speaking clearly and not too rushed.

Couple of notes.

*It is okay to pause to take a deep breath.

*Try to stick with 3 or 4 points that bolster your case. For me, judging is about having thirst for knowledge on a topic. Blasting me with a firehose of data doesn't necessarily quench my thirst.

*I am currently working in a high school library, which I love. Yay books!

I am active in the competitive storytelling community -- like The Moth, for example. In fact, I have won six Moth story slams. Prior to moving to the Seattle area, I lived in New York, worked on Wall Street and hosted The Dawn Patrol, a financial news show in Times Square.

I have a strong preference for logical arguments based on facts, even if I personally disagree with your position. I expect debates to be civilized and speakers to be serious and courteous to each other. Relax and have fun.

Emilyn Hazelbrook (she/her)

Please put me on the email chain: emilyndebate@gmail.com

Kamiak '21, Emory '25. Debated policy for four years in high school and in my third year of college debate, although I am not nearly as involved as I once was in the activity.

I adapt to you, not the other way around. Everything below will make it easier for me to understand, weigh, and vote for your arguments, but shouldn't dissuade you from reading anything.

LD for Barkley Forum 2024: I have judged approximately 10 rounds of LD in my life and none on this topic. The closer your debating style resembles policy, the more easily I will be able to evaluate arguments, but I do have experience with evaluating criterion/value debates. My best advice to you is to focus on clash and responding intelligently to the other person's arguments and over-explain terms on this topic. Ask me as many questions before the round as you need.

Tech > Truth.

Argument = claim + warrant (and + impact or reason why it matters in rebuttals). If you say "they dropped the link" and then do not explain warrants and impact out why I should vote on it, I will not vote on it.

K Affs — Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

Topicality — I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

Theory — Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

Kritiks — Read very specific links and err on the side of over-explaining your thesis and alt. I'll probably weigh the 1ac impacts, but if the aff is losing that your reps/in-round actions make the world/debate worse, you're in a bad place. I am not the best for postmodernism kritiks and will likely be confused if I have to render a decision on one.

Counterplans — I lean neg on most questions of competition, although I am really not a fan of consult cps. If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2ns won't spend time extending a losing cp.

Disadvantages — Compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

Case — Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Miscellaneous — High-quality historical examples, well-executed jokes, and really good CX will boost your speaker points. Suffering, violence, and death are unquestionably bad. I like debaters who make it easy for me to flow them by numbering arguments, signposting clearly, and avoiding extensive overviews or walls at the top of the flow. I dislike people who cross the line between assertive and unnecessarily rude during CX, and will factor that into speaker points.

Be nice and have fun!

I am a parent volunteer and relatively new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. For debates I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. For IEs I look for logic, clarity, and dictation.

Lay judge, please flow and time yourselves. Be logical and have fun!

About me: she/her pronouns. I am a parent judge, this is my fourth tournament overall, and my first tournament with this resolution.

Speaking: Please talk slowly and explain your points thoroughly, if I don't understand your point I won't be able to vote on it. All logic-based arguments need to be supported with evidence from the beginning.

Please deliver your speeches and crossfires calmly and professionally - don't argue like it's life or death, I know you made a case for the other side that you would argue just as passionately for. Be polite to your opponents.

When you are delivering your case please enumerate your subpoints clearly as subpoint A, subpoint B, etc.. In all your speeches please signpost.

In terms of granting speaker points, I look for respect, knowledge of the resolution, and clear speaking and communication skills. Other things I look for are clever questions in crossfire, signposting, extensions of arguments throughout the round that respond to any rebuttals an opponent offers, and clear delineation of voters.

Timing: I trust you to time your own speeches and prep time. Asking for an evidence card counts as your own prep time once you receive the card. If an argument or piece of evidence is especially contested or unbelievable, I may ask for a card at the end of the round.

How I choose the winner: I will be deciding the winner based on the arguments that were carried throughout the round, the respectful rebuttals, and what stands as the biggest impacts at the end. In order to do that I have to be be able to clearly hear and process what you are saying - please speak slowly and clearly. Tell me what to vote for in both your summary speech and final focus.

Good luck!

Hi, I'm Mina. (she/her)

Add me to the email chain please: minavky@gmail.com

Paradigm mostly stolen from Carolyn Ky

tldr- Tech > Truth. Read whatever you want. When left to my own devices, I lean on my defaults, but prefer to be persuaded on how I should view the debate. CX is binding. I'm pretty familiar with the topic but it's so wide that I probably don't know your aff well. Flow-oriented and fine with speed (needs to be clear and I don't have the fastest ear). Ending Speeches: Write My Ballot for Me. Start with overview with offense on top (how should I frame the debate and why does that mean you win?). I try to avoid reading evidence too much at the end of the debate unless I'm told to.

quick takes:

• T > Theory (able to be swayed the other way)
• will vote on cheap theory shots when dropped unless it's a reverse voting issue
• should be able to run a line between any arg in the 2ar to the 1ar
• Flex prep is okay

Speaks:

• Usually don't go below 28. I think I give average speaks.
• If the round is fun, I'm more inclined to give 29s and 30s
• Will drop and give low/zero speaks if being blatantly sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, ableist, etc.

Aff

• Don't enjoy affs with a bunch of scenarios that aren't developed
• Affs should have good, well-warranted i/l evidence
• Explain plan flaws well cause I'm inexperienced in them

Topicality

• probably a little less likely to vote on T than the average judge (don't let that stop you)
• For aff - please have a counterinterp and a clear defense of reasonability. Reasonability is your best friend in t debates in front of me, but winning reasonability is not an autowin. It just lowers your threshold on the standards debate (by how much? you tell me).
• For neg - please have (1) clear impact calc on the standards debate AND (2) a case list.

DA

• For aff - willing to vote on conceded or solid defense on DA
• For neg - please have offense (i.e turns case). Generics das w/ specific links are great if ran well:)

CP

• Theory vs CP is underrated (probably more likely to vote for it than the average judge if impacted out well)
• For aff - you should prop ask about judge kick, need to win some offense against the cp AND why that outweighs the net benefit
• For neg - won’t judge kick unless specifically told to. You should probably have a solvency advocate but don't have a problem with a CP without one unless it's brought up by the aff. Then, both sides have to resolve that.

K

• Familiar with cap, abolition, fem, imperialism, but overall have a limited knowledge base of kritiks (especially high theory).
• I tend to vote for k's, because the aff reads generic answers without indicting anything the neg is saying.
• If you can't explain the K in CX in your own words, your speaks will not be great.
• Both sides but esp the neg need to have historical examples (the more recent the better) that prove their methodology/praxis true. The team with the most convincing real-world examples of their impacts/impact turns/links/link turns is likely going to win the debate.
• For aff - don’t lose your aff (the best form of offense) in most of these debates when you explain why your impacts outweigh or why it's just a good departure from the squo. Impact turns are underutilized, but don’t contradict your case (ie. heg good, cap good, fem ir bad, etc ). Perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits is a cool strat too. Will vote on theoretical voting issues to reject the alt
• For neg - Don't love big overviews that are superspreaded at the top of every neg speech :( Line by line is key. Ideal: have specific link(s) to the aff, have external impacts for each link, and why each link turns case (willing to vote on generics if explained well). Don’t necessary need to win the alt if the link is debated well enough to be a da on its own. You can kick the alt if you tell me where on the flow you're gonna get offense and win.

K Affs

• K affs should get perms

• Ending speeches: whoever simplifies the round the best with concrete arguments is likely gonna win the round.
• FW: While I believe "framework makes the game work", I see myself voting against fw because the neg reads a big shell in the 1nc and block and can't write my ballot with clear voters and standards in the 2nr. However, if you're prepared to read framework beyond your blocks, fw is a very powerful argument.
• Not great at understanding K v K debates but I try :/

• For aff - Your aff should have a tie to the topic and a competing model of debate, but what that means is debatable. I should clearly know what the aff is doing by the end of the round. Enjoy k affs w/ a performative aspect. Huge overviews are not ideal. Prefer most work done on the line by line.

• For neg - Please answer the case (don’t need to read cards- analytically poking holes in the aff’s methodology or solvency is great too. I will vote on presumption)

Public Forum debater for four years, judge for three. Feel free to ask specific questions at the beginning of the round but here is generally what I will be looking for:

Sign Post (and Road Maps): Outlining and numbering in each speech not only adds organization to your arguments but ensures that I flow where intended.

Clarity and Presentation: Your arguments are only as good as the way you present them. Apply this concept to speed; speak at a pace so that your points are not only heard but also processed. Present arguments in both a logical and supported manner (with qualitative and quantitative evidence). Rely on BOTH evidence and logic throughout the round, not only the evidence, because I am much more likely to buy into evidence that is BOTH credible and that you can explain (since that shows you have a thorough understanding of what you are advocating for). Succinct explanation, including clear claims, warrants, and impacts will work in your favor. Impacts are especially crucial in explaining to me why what you are saying matters and why your impacts should be prioritized. Remember that link chains should not be implied but explicit.

Respect: Always keep in mind that the round should be clean, civil, and based in evidence. Anything you say will ultimately be a reflection of your character so stay level-headed and grounded in fact. If you question evidence, talk about its credibility, reliability, citations and card-cutting, etc. rather than using subjective words such as bad, atrocious, terrible, etc.

Weighing: Please refrain from squeezing this in at the very last minute! It does not matter if an argument goes uncontested if its impact, and all others, are not weighed against the other side and explained in terms of magnitude, morality, time frame, scope, probability, etc. Use world comparison to explain why it should be a clean ballot for your team. This will help relay a cohesive story to me on why to vote PRO/CON.

Above all, be confident and have fun with the round!

Email: rayelucamyers@yahoo.com

Hey! My name is Atul Rao, and I attend Baylor University. I did debate for 3 years in high school and qualified for State in Public Forum. Speed is not an issue for me, but if you choose to speak at 2 million words per minute, do not be mad at me for not getting everything on the flow.

Please don't tell me when your time starts. I can tell when you start speaking. If you are doing PF, feel free to give me a road map, but I will count it as on time. If you are doing LD, I won't count them as off-time, so don't worry about that.

For speaks, you start at a 27 and then go up or down depending on what happens in the round. I don't flow cross, but I will be paying attention and listening so I can better represent your speaks. There is a difference between a good crossfire and just talking over your opponent. If you talk over your opponent the whole time, not only will I not flow the points you make in cross, I will drop your speaks as well. If your opponent says something in cross that you want me to flow, bring it up in a speech. Speaks are also independent of who wins. You and your partner can both get a 30 from me and still lose, and you can both get 25s from me and still win.

I am not a boxing referee. I do not enjoy shouting matches. If you use ad hominem, I will immediately give you a 20 in speaks for the round and will probably vote against you.

I also vote off of only what happens in the round. If your opponent says something that I know is untrue, and you let it go unrefuted, I will flow it. Don't worry, I will only flow things that are brought up multiple times, so you should have multiple chances to refute their untrue statements.

As smart as you may be, you are not an expert. If your opponent has a card saying something, and you refute it by saying that "it isn't true" with nothing to back up your claim, I won't buy it. However, if you use a card that refutes what your opponent says, I will buy it.

If your opponent doesn't do a line-by-line rebuttal, don't tell me certain cards have gone "cOmPlEtElY uNrEfUtEd" in the round. You can tell me a certain point, or sub-point, or contention has gone unrefuted, but you can't expect your opponent to rebut every single card you bring up in round. Don't bring up arguments that are not relevant either. If you make an argument in your case, and then drop it during rebuttal and summary, I will not flow it if you bring it up in your Final Focus.

I'll let you in on a secret here. Judges from certain schools oftentimes find out records of teams and sometimes are influenced in their decision making process by giving certain teams wins over other teams. Despite this, I will disclose results, but try not to tell your coach so that we can keep the playing field level for all debaters at this tournament.

Lastly, this is high school debate. Your chances for getting into Stanford are not going to be affected by how I vote in a round. I will do my best to give you guys the best RFDs I can, both in feedback and on your ballots. I do understand the feeling, though, when I lose a round and I cannot understand why I lost. If you feel the same way, please email me and challenge my decision. There's nothing I love more than a debater who wants to know absolutely everything about a round that they lost, because to me it screams of a love for debate.

If you made it this far, if you sign the "Remove France" petition on change.org and show me I will give you an automatic 30.

I’m a parent judge and former debater.

For debate events, please note:

• I value thorough research, thoughtful questions, and the ability to defend your contentions.
• Ensure your logic is sound, and you construct a compelling narrative.
• Arguments should be current, evidence-based, and clearly expressed.
• Respect and listen to your opponents at all times. In cross, let opponents finish their thoughts and answer your questions.
• Speakers will lose points for spreading if they are unintelligible or their opponents can't respond.

For speech events, please note:

• Speech organization should be clearly outlined.
• Ensure sources are current and reliable.
• Storylines are important, but ensure that you can link your examples to your topic.
• Have confidence and have fun - it comes through in the speech.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas

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

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

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

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

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

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

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

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

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

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

I am a lay judge. I would really like to see the second speaker to give me voters and explain to me why they should win the round. I would also links being supported by evidence. I would like debaters to be respectful towards eachother or I will be docking speaker points. Carry your relevant cards and arguements throughout the whole debate. I would also like to see impacts clearly being stated so that I can flow effiecently. Because I am a lay judge I would prefer arguments to be read slowly so that I can efficenetly flow arguments.

Thanks

Lokesh Vasisht

I am a lay judge. I would really like to see the second speaker to give me voters and explain to me why they should win the round. I would also links being supported by evidence. I would like debaters to be respectful towards eachother or I will be docking speaker points. Carry your relevant cards and arguements throughout the whole debate. I would also like to see impacts clearly being stated so that I can flow effiecently. Because I am a lay judge I would prefer arguments to be read slowly so that I can efficenetly flow arguments.

Thanks

Lokesh Vasisht

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.

Guidelines:

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.

I stop listening when you go over time.

I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.

Have fun!