Hello. I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. I competed in what is now called Public Forum Debate and the individual events of Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speech at John F. Kennedy High School in Richmond, California. Our coach was David Dansky and during his 25 year tenure, Kennedy High teams won three state championships.

I have a professional background in law, originally as a litigator and then a transactional lawyer.

I value clarity in presenting one's points in debate rounds and curiosity in listening well to an opponent's points, thinking them through and responding to them.

It's been a while since I competed and thus I appreciate when students take care to spell out things at least once before proceeding to refer to them by debate jargon. My hope is that every student emerges from a round I judged feeling like they gave a great effort and had fun.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

I wont waste your time with this

he/they

if your comfortable with it id ask that everyone shares pronouns before the round starts or that we refrain from using gendered language and just use my opponent/opponents.

Im not sure exactly what ill be judging but i did every event besides policy in high school and im a debater at the collegiate level with UCSD. Speed is fine, Ks are fine, theory is fine, squirrely arguments like nuclear war are ok but your link chain better be flawless as im not inclined to vote for the magnitude outweighs probability argument for the 6 millionth time. Please signpost, please weigh at the end, be kind, be courteous, respect me and your opponents and just have a good debate overall. I dont give speaker points below 28 unless someone has been racist, sexist, xenophobic, ect...

PUBLIC FORUM:

Lay judge with no previous debate experience. Please don't spread/read faster than a normal human could comprehend. Assume I know nothing about the topic being debated -- please take the time to explain jargon. Disrespect and ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Most of all, have fun and enjoy the round!

christinaklas@icloud.com for file share

I like off-time roadmaps in all debates; it helps me flow everything

I do flow cross

I always prefer quality of arguments over quantity-- keep sub-points to a minimum

Signpost please

I will dock speaker points if you're disrespectful, sexist, racist, or make the debate space toxic or harmful

PF: I never competed in PF, but I am very familiar with the structure, etc. Standard and framework is super important, so please make an effort to maintain these through the round. Also, maintain clear voters and extend the arguments you intend to win on. Theory is fine, but it should be relevant in regard to the resolution and if you intend to run something non-traditional, I expect that it has a purpose and is not performative. Strategic concessions are nice, especially when they help keep a clean flow; trying to salvage arguments you probably won't win on won't win you any points.

LD: I consider burden of proof very important, so that is essentially how I will normally determine a round. I am generally good with philosophy, so don't stray from traditional LD content for the sake of simplicity. I do keep a solid flow, but I will not pick a winner based off how many points they won on if they don't fulfill basic LD elements (like burden of proof).

CX: Please put me on the email chain! I am familiar with all CX terms and the structure of the round, so don't worry too much about that. Spreading is fine for evidence, but I would prefer for you to slow down on analytics. I don't mind T arguments as long as they are truly relevant and follow the T format, but T as a filler is always a little disappointing. Links are incredibly important; I will not count NEG attacks if they do not have a link (impacts as well). I won't weight the round for you, so give impact calculus and voters throughout. K is great, but I'm not very familiar with a lot of Ks so I would recommend you slow down a little more if you do run it.

CON: Speaking style is just as important as content. I like clash with previous speeches, but I also expect that Congress speeches are clean and preparation is obvious. I do take PO into consideration for rank, but I expect an efficient and controlled chamber from the PO. I don't want to hear repetition of the same arguments; after a few rounds of debate, please don't recycle points. I do consider chamber engagement in my rankings, so asking good questions and moving along chamber proceedings will help you stand out. Evidence is important.

About me: I graduated high school in NM in 2021 and I'm now double majoring in Economics and German at UNM. I did CX, CON, Imp, BQ, and extemp (more DX than IX) across (about) three years in high school, but I have watched and judged numerous debate rounds of all types in-team. I did CX and IX at Nats, have qualified in DX, and was State champ in IMP, BQ, and CON, so I am most familiar with those events. I am generally good about not applying policy tactics to other debates, but know that policy was my main event. I hope you have a good, organized, and respectful round! Thanks!

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

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.

Hello, my name is Nancy Lu. I am a Electrical engineer and parent judge from Able2shine, California.

I have previously judged tournaments for the SPAR, Informative and Impromptus events.

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

I do not judge a debate by my personal opinion over the topic.

But make sure your speech clearly enough for me to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them.

Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments. I will vote for any well-argued position, and appreciate good rebuttals for my ballot. Thanks you and have fun!

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who is judging his second debate contest. Please avoid debate jargon. While I don't have any formal debate skills, I have been a board member for 17 years and use logic and persuasion to convince my fellow board members to support my proposed positions. I prefer clear communication over speed. Saying words so fast that your audience does not understand them is not effective communication. As my Rhetoric and Communication teacher once pointed out, "if you wave to your friend and they don't see it, have you communicated?"

I am a civil engineer and tend to be skeptical of arguments that are not supported by facts and logic. While it is great to know a lot of facts regarding a position, as an effective speaker, you need to be able to prioritize your time to focus on the most important facts and arguments that support your case.

While in a debate contest it is possible to be aggressive and talk over your opponent during the cross fire, success in real world public policy relies on building relationships with your opponents as well as your friends. Remember to be civil to each other. Make your points, but allow your opponents an opportunity to speak as well.

Hi,

I am not a lay judge, so I will be judging your points.

Decision making:

I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (If there is one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below

First Speaker Speech

- Pretty Standard

- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up

All Crossfires

- Ask actually questions

- Don't just waste time asking stupid questions

- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.

Summary

- 3 minutes long

- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!

- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.

Final Focus

- 2 minutes long

- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here

- Like summary, Weigh!!!

Prep time

- 3 minutes

- You can ask for cards here

Sources

- If your opponents ask for a card, you have 1.5 minutes to bring it up, or it will be dropped

- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them

- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round

- Don't search anything up during the debate

- Don't make things up during the debate

Speaker Points / Cheating

- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points

- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points

- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying

- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.

- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.

- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!

*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.

1. Please speak slowly. If you speak too quickly, your points may be missed.

2. Enjoy the experience and be nice!

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I am a lay judge, being a public forum judge for about 1.5 years. So please speak slowly and clearly (<200 wpm). If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I will look for a clear explanation of the arguments. If you signpost clearly during your speech, that will be great. Please run less run any progressive arguments but try to focus on debating the topic. Please use little debate jargon (such as de-link and terminal defense, etc.) but use simple terms. And most of all have fun!

Please signpost your contentions in the debate.

Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and audio.