I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging debate.

General Preferences

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponent.

Please talk slowly and clearly to better help me understand your arguments-Quality over quantity.

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Examples are helpful.

I value cross-examination skills. Being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case can help win the round.

Please be civil towards your opponent. I do not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia...you get the picture.

My name is Diya (she/her and pronounced DEE-UH). I debated throughout high school and am currently a junior at Duke (make a reference and I'll smile). I don't debate anymore ... ie I'm out of touch with fast speaking, technical debate, and am coming into this topic with no background. I will vote off the flow.

Speak clearly! Please please please don't spread. Call me traditional (I was), but speaking quickly for the sake of it is not what debate is about

Don't be rude; be respectful (if you're rude, expect low speaker points)

Frame your arguments - I'll default to util if you don't provide a better framework. WEIGH

I appreciate frontlines in second rebuttal

Warrant statistics and evidence with logic. Your numbers mean literally nothing unless you can explain to me WHY they're relevant or actually make sense. That being said, very low chance I call for evidence... you should know how to read and correctly interpret data

Backgroud/"qualifications:"

I debated for 4 years for Charlotte Latin School. I did congress for 3 years and switched to PF my senior year. I qualified to TOC and NSDA Nationals in both events, finaled at Emory and Harvard in Congress, won Durham Academy in PF, and made semis at Bluekey in PF.

PF Paradigm:

I'm a flow judge and can handle reasonably fast PF teams, but if you want to spread, switch events.

A few important things for me:

Signposting: Please tell me where on the flow I should be putting responses. This does not mean an off time roadmap before rebuttal where you tell me "I'm going to start on my opponent's case and then go back to mine." Rather, just say, "as an overview" or "starting on my opponent's first contention" before you make your overview or first response. This will help me actually consider your responses at the end of the debate rather than spending half your rebuttal trying to figure out where to flow things.

Responses: Please make sure your responses actually engage with your opponent's arguments and aren't just the same three cards you read against every Aff case. I would much rather you analytically attack an argument which you are unprepared to answer than attempt to misapply evidence you've already cut.

On that note... Evidence: I have no problem with paraphrasing evidence as long as you stay true to the author's original intent. Conversely, just because you directly quote or line down a card does not mean you are fairly representing the author's point of view.

Evidence indites: If you indict a card, that's great, but explain why that indict matters. Ex. Don't just say "the thinktank our opponent cites is funded by big pharma" explain how that conflict of interest led to poor scholarship or data manipulation on the part of the author.

If you have any other questions about my preferences feel free to ask before the round.

Congress Paradigm:

Here's how my rankings usually turn out at the end of the round:

Last. The kid that actually says nothing

6. The kid that speaks, but says nothing of value

5. The kid that says nothing of value, but confidently

4. The kid that says something of marginal value to the round but poorly delivered

3. The kid that does the same in a more compelling manner

2. The kid that borderline spreads to cover the flow, but does so well

First. The kid that does the same as #2 but with better word economy

As you can see by these rankings, I value argumentation above delivery but consider delivery a tiebreak between equally skilled debaters. I think later round speeches should do more refutation/weighing, but if you have an actually unique constructive point late-round, I understand that you don't always get to speak as early as you might want. I also pay attention to when you start standing and I'll be impressed if you switch sides/rewrite your speech because you aren't called on early. On that note, please don't give the *insert number greater than one* aff/neg in a row. You'll always be better off switching sides and giving a slightly worse speech than speaking on the same side as everyone else in the round.

As far as writing bills is concerned, if you submit a bill I will take into account the quality of the debate and the saliency of the issue. Since congressional debate requires lots of people to speak, a bill with a very limited scope of argumentation is not a good bill. Since congressional debate is meant to model the US congress, it should be conceivable that what you submit could be brought before congress. And most importantly, since congressional debate is meant to be a debate, your bill should have arguments for and against it, not just enough ground to give an authorship speech and then shame everyone who goes neg because it's an impossible position to defend. I know that by the time you read this, it's too late to change what bill you have submitted, but these are the things you should consider before you ever begin writing legislation in the first place.

Lastly, if you use rhetoric that either A) I came up with, B) one of my teammates came up with, or C) I've heard used verbatim before, I won't be impressed and might count it against you. I'd much rather you give a brief intro based on some historical fact than steal catchy rhetoric (trust me, I've heard it all and you won't be able to reuse rhetoric without me noticing).

I am a parent judge, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. If you don't connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

2. Do not spread--I value quality and connectivity over quantity.

3. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

4. Be confident but courteous in the round.

Speed: I debated all throughout high school so I am fine with speed within reason (i.e. don’t spread)

Cross: Let your opponent answer the question. There is a difference between being aggressive and being rude. I'll take off speaks if I think you've crossed a line.

Rebuttal: If you’re speaking second you don’t have to frontline in rebuttal. You can, but don’t sacrifice making responses to the opponent’s case just to do it. Also, card dumps are less effective than giving a few very logical responses so I would prefer for you to stay away from them if possible.

Summary: I was a first speaker so I think summary is the most important speech in the round. I would strongly prefer that terminal defense is in both summaries, but if it isn’t in the first I will live. Frontlining, however, is not a preference. If you don’t frontline I will flow their responses through and probably drop the argument. This is especially important for turns - if a turn is unresponded to it is offense for the other team and a reason to vote for them. Lastly, you must weigh in summary.

Final Focus: If it isn’t in summary it should not be in final focus. Also, weigh.

Other: I don't flow cross, so if something important happens in cross please bring it up in another speech.

Hello, I'm a parent judge and have been judging for 8 years. I prefer you speak clearly and be respectful of other debaters.

If you have any questions for me, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

I competed from 7th grade thur college - I was a Policy Debater.

I have been coaching for 20 + years. I am not a fan of the direction that most debate is going.

Don't waste my time with obscure arguments. Bonaparte once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot. PS...make sure you have a warrant and impact...

If your flow and delivery are clear - SPEED isn't a problem, but if it sounds like you are having a spiritual moment while you are running your case - I am not impressed. Spitting is just rude. Work harder - no-one cares.

Loud isn't an emotion. No Bullies aloud/allowed 20L is in your future.

I am okay with offtime roadmaps - if it's really a roadmap and not trying to sink the other team...

Signposting is fine - I am an English teacher.

Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

I like good solid evidence, clear debate, and solid connections.

Debate is hard but it's not personal. Have fun - be kind - play fair and tell great stories.

I love powerful words and phrases.

CX can be the root of the best conversations.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

Gabriel, He/Him/His, sandovg65@gmail.com

UPDATE ASU CONGRESS 2024: I've debated congress before but this is only my second time judging it. I'm a debate judge so focusing on the cohesiveness of your arg is my priority but speaking also matters (can't get a 5 or 6 on arg alone). Happy to answer questions pre-round.

Intro

I debated Policy for 4 years at both the state and national level, and have experience judging all three debate events. I was an assistant Public Forum coach for a year and have also helped coach Policy students. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your analytics-- if it's unintelligible, I won't flow it. Just make it really clear when you're transitioning from one idea to another.

I don't trust tabroom completely anymore, so if you have any issues seeing ballots/ anything else with my profile, just email me, I will have the rfd's all saved in a word doc.

Because this is a concern I've heard expressed from some debaters I know-- if I'm not looking at you, it's a good sign, because it means I'm flowing. If I am looking at you, I'm trying to figure out what on Earth you are saying, so I can try to flow it.

Please put me on the email chain.

FOR LD/POLICY (pfers scroll to the bottom):

On Policy and "traditional" args

Theory/ Topicality: I'm cool with this stuff if and only if it is run when necessary. Be careful with theory as it isn't always your friend-- sometimes it is just a time waster. For example, I don't like it when teams run disclosure just cause they're used to it/good at it. Run it if the aff is tricky and them not disclosing actually hurts how you are able to debate-- you need to prove that it is your education at stake if you want to run disclosure in front of me. Truth over tech for sure when it comes to theory.

Topicality I have more patience for (I'm more willing to vote on it for tech-based reasons) but also you need to prove to me why it's bad for debate if the aff is untopical. I'm not going to vote on theory or t just because the aff drops one of your million analytics--but I will vote on them if I feel like you've proven to me the world of debate will be better adhering to your norms. I actually really like topicality when it's run properly I just think that often times it's run as a time suck which makes me sad.

Other Policy args: Framework is good. Disads are good. CP's are good (but I am sure to be considerate of the aff and the potential harm that ridiculous CP's bring, especially if aff makes args for itself). "Traditional" style LD debates are good. Policy style debates are good.

Everything is pretty much good with me if it doesn't undermine the well-being of your fellow debaters or marginalized groups in some way. I also value education in the debate space VERY highly-- don't stifle it.

Tricks-- If you have to rely on tricks to win a debate round, you should probably strike me.

On K Debates

I'm cool with K debates and think that if done right they are some of the most educational debates. I do have one rule, however. Either a K aff should be semi-related to the resolution or the aff debater needs to devote a couple seconds to telling me why the K takes preference to the resolution. I feel like most debaters do this, so it's not normally an issue, but if you don't I think then it's fair game for the neg to fight for resolutional debate. Basically, I go into the round prepared to vote based off the resolution, but I will do differently if it is successfully argued otherwise.

I've both debated K's and debated against K's before, BUT if you read anything too critical, consider summarizing it briefly for me in lay terms-- if I don't know what it is, it'll help me out, and if I do, then it'll boost your speaks because it shows me you can adapt to lay debate with critical arguments. Putting it into a "real-world" perspective will highlight to me why this argument matters.

Overall I think K debates are great and are always better if they're a K you run passionately than if they're the old Cap K you pulled from a camp file 2 years ago and shoved a link card on.

On Voters/ how you should debate

I love both traditional debates and non-traditional-- but I need you to include voters in your rebuttals that tell me why I should consider voting for you. These voters should be for strats that you have carried throughout the round and fleshed out well-- it's okay to condense down to a couple key arguments if you know they can win you the round. What's not okay is just dropping your opponent's arguments without either making it clear to me why they don't matter in the context of the round or neglecting to tell me why the issues you have selected are the critical talking points of the round and deserve all of my attention. There are usually so many arguments in the round, and having each team tell me what they value as the most important argument and why said argument is a voter makes it much easier for me to give a ballot (this means you should condense, even if you are aff, don't try to go for everything, it never ends well). Without voters, you risk me voting on whatever issues I think are most important, and who knows if that will benefit you or not.

Again, tell me exactly WHAT you did that I should focus most on and WHY it is worthy of a ballot. I can look through my flows and evaluate the technical aspect of the debate myself-- what I can not do myself is determine which arguments are most important without bias. Please don't make me even come close to having to rely on my personal opinions to decide a round.

Overall, debate is a game, somebody will win, and somebody will lose. I love seeing different strategies and approaches to it-- that's what makes debate fun. That being said, no game should ever come at the expense of hurting somebody personally, so if there are abusive attacks and/or harmful arguments at the expense of a marginalized group/ a debater, I will take it very seriously both in the administration of the space and with my ballot.

Always feel free to ask me questions before round.

Speaks Chart (for tournaments with decimal speaks):

30: I feel lucky to have judged you because you are just that good.

29.7-29.9: Your performance "wowed" me, good on the flow, good at speaking, and with exciting argumentation.

29.3-29.6: Great debaters.

28.5-29.2: Good debaters and good at speaking.

28-28.4: Good debaters with room for improvement on speaking.

27.5-27.9: You made a couple of errors, but nothing that significantly frustrated me.

27-27.4: You made several errors, but I can see a semblance of strategy.

26.5-26.9: You made several technical errors that have me questioning if you really ever had a path to the ballot.

26 or lower: You said something really offensive/made the debate space actively bad.

FOR PF:

1) Weighing is really important!!!! Teams NEED to tell me how to vote-- I go in to the round open to voting for just about anything (no racist, homophobic, etc. arguments). Telling me how to vote and providing me with evidence/args to back up your claim that you have the best voters is key to my ballot. Especially in debates with lots of args all across the board-- I need voters so that I can see what you think is most important about the round. Teams weighing helps make my ballot so much easier.

2) Refute your opponent's arguments in addition to extending your own, but also don't try to go for everything in your final focus. CONDENSE! PLEASE!

3) As a former policy debater, I'm decent with speed, but be careful transitioning too fast between contentions/ analytics. Those fast transitions are what can make PF hard to flow. Basically just slow down to sign post so I put things on my flow properly. Maybe one day PF will pick up flashing and I can delete this.

4) Have arguments that are backed up by both evidence and analytics. I'm not going to vote solely on unwarranted claims, but I'm also not going to vote for you because you threw a bunch of authors at me and just said "figure it out." Evidence debates are only good if your opponent's evidence is unethical/incorrect, and rarely are good when your evidence is just "better."

5) I'm not the biggest fan of sticky defense or not frontlining defense in second rebuttal, but I understand that PF speeches are short and you're in a time crunch, so I won't hold these things against you. All offense must be frontlined in second rebuttal, however. No new arguments in second final focus, ever!

I'm not a fan of PF cross x and there is a pretty big chance I won't evaluate it unless things that are said come up again in later speeches. I will listen to it, but probably won't put anything down on my flow based solely off of what I hear in cross. Teams being nice, clear, and not turning cross X into a garbled mess often times get rewarded with high speaks from me in this event.

If you have more questions you can ask me before the round. I implement the same speaks chart as listed in the LD/Policy section (if there are decimal speaks).

I am a Parent Judge with 3+ years of judging experience primarily in PF.

First and foremost, I value well-researched and warranted arguments that are presented clearly. I will vote primarily off the flow but will take into account demeanor and civility as well. Please stick to traditional styles of debate; I will not be able to keep up with spreading nor am I very familiar with dense literature. Unless there is an evidence dispute, I will not look at the evidence itself. Finally, I expect all debaters to be civilized and respectful--being disrespectful will result in low speaks. If you have any other questions feel free to ask them before the round.

Trained first year judge that values a clear and concise communication skillset. Courtesy and respect are required during debates and will be judged accordingly. Crossfire and Grand Crossfire rounds are of particular interest, specifically how teams interact with each other, and provide support. Time keeping is important but not a primary priority as I will let the "flow" of a presenters contention play out within reason of time constraints. Presenting evidence in the forms of links and specific points of topic notes is encouraged.