I'm a parent judge with East Coast parliamentary debate judging experience.

I will flow but ultimately make my decisions based on the quality and strength of the debaters' arguments.

Please speak at a reasonable pace and limit debate jargon - I can't give you the credit you deserve if I can't understand you.

Be respectful of everyone involved: teammates, opponents, judges, and any spectator. Have fun!

Hi! My name is Grace, and I’m in my first year of college debate (APDA). I did parliamentary debate in high school. A few things:

No spreading. I will not be able to give your team the argument if I cannot figure out what you are saying. I am not flexible on this, and will give low speaks for spreading.

I am not a fan of debate jargon or theory arguments. Please try to keep your arguments straightforward, and avoid overly technical language.

I really prefer debates that stay organized, particularly if they are on the flow. No one enjoys messy debates, and it results in a much more productive debate if points are structured clearly.

The best arguments are the ones that are well-impacted. I especially appreciate speeches that clearly analyze major points of clash in the debate. I love good weighing, especially on magnitude/probability/time frame.

I will award high speaker points to debaters who clearly and passionately articulate their points. I especially enjoy it when multiple refutations are offered to a single point - take your opponent’s argument at its best, and refute that.

I absolutely will not tolerate any offensive language or content, and will give an automatic loss and low speaks to teams who violate this policy. I will also contact equity officials.

Please time yourself with a stopwatch, instead of a timer, so that you're not interrupted at the end of your speech. I won't penalize you for using a timer, this is just a personal preference.

Have a great round! Remember that this is a learning experience for everyone, be respectful, and enjoy the debate. :)

Email: gf2482@barnard.edu

Hello! My name is Akshaj and my pronouns are he/him. I have debated for about 6 years in a variety of debate formats. I like to see lots of reasoning and impacts in addition to your evidence. Do not just give evidence and assume that everyone understands the reasoning! Also, be sure to explain to me why your world wins OVER THE Opposition world if you are Government as you have the burden of proof. Make sure that you are providing lots of clash to the other team to create a better and more educational debate. Try not to make abusive definitions or frameworks as it doesn't make the debate fun or educational.

Hello, I’m a lay parent judge. Content is the critical aspect of how I score. However, if you speak too quickly your content will not come through clearly enough. Especially for PF, try to use almost all of your time, as someone who uses only a small fraction of their time (especially in PF, Parli can sometimes have ample time) often performs as if they have less to say. Also, I do not permit offtime roadmaps, they aren't based in the rules. If you wish to roadmap please use your allotted time. Many thanks!

I judge my rounds almost entirely off my flow chart, so signpost and be clear about where you are on the flow.

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

Parent Judge - that tells you a lot.

General Philosophy:

-I value intelligent thought-process. “Winning” a contention is less important than showing well-researched warrants and logical links to key impacts.

-Do you acknowledge the other side’s argument? You will likely debate both sides of today’s topic, so you know there are good contentions on both sides.

-I could tell you my philosophy on speech speed (s-l-o-w d-o-w-n) ; warranting (show off your warrants and explain them) ; theory arguments (save your breath) ; timing (time yourself, 15-sec grace) ; turns (wonderful), ; collapsing for weighing (I like, you don’t have to) ; etc, but that would imply I know what all these terms mean. I’m not here to judge your knowledge of debate rules but to judge your respectful delivery of summaries and weighs.

-Be nice. The most intelligent people in the room are your teammate and your opponents. Not me. So treat them as such if you want to have a chance of winning. Did I mention, be kind.

Even professional judges get their decisions wrong 5-10% of the time. Expect volunteers like me to be more incompetent but friendlier.

Have fun with a fun topic.

I'm a former high school debater and have experience coaching parli and BP.

I can flow fast speeches, but online debates lend themselves best to slightly slower speakers. If you're speaking too fast for my internet connection, I will ask you to slow down.

I judge based on arguments not style. Speaker points are awarded based on the quality of your argumentation, not the quality of your speaking style. For rebuttal speakers, quality argumentation means effectively collapsing arguments and weighing. If you just repeat your arguments in a rebuttal speech, you're not doing your job.

I like examples. Since it's parli debate, that includes hypothetical examples. Please extend your arguments in constructives by giving new examples, new evidence, or new warranting or impacts. I don't like it when debaters repeat what their partners have already said. It's boring for me and it does nothing for your case.

You can run anything you want to as long as you explain it well :) theory and Ks are just arguments, so I treat them the same way I would treat any other argument.

Be respectful! I don't ask for pronouns because no one should be forced to explain their pronouns but don't assume your opponents' pronouns. I'd prefer you say "my opponent" then "he" or "she.

Tabroom paradigm

The tldr if you are almost done with prep and just realized i have a paradigm:

East cost/BP level lay, truth> tech, do not love theory/K’s, honest and well-weighed arguments will get you very far, be kind and respectful. In general, if you are nice (+ bonus points if you weigh) I will happily and fairly judge whatever round you have!

Background on me:

• she/her

• I’ve been debating and judging competitively for 4 years. I have experience in American Parli (Exclusively east coast parli), British Parli (my fav), and World Schools.

• Debating as a freshman at Wesleyan University now!

• Particular areas of interest: government, law, courts, justice, social movements + social action, history, feminism, Jewish history + culture, IR, art

• Particular areas of disinterest: sports, econ/finance (you can run these but no jargon)

• I was an equity officer on the NYPDL board for two years and ran equity in local middle school leagues for a few years. Equity is very important to me.

• I adore debate and the debating community! If you ever want help, feedback, advice, support, don’t hesitate to reach out! + do your part to keep this community awesome. Good vibes in and out of round please! (to contact me: juliaswenja@gmailcom)

Things to know if i’m judging you:

My general philosophy: Debate is about being the most persuasive, not being the sneakiest → for this reason, clear+ intuitive arguments, polite + equitable behavior, and honest weighing are the most important things to me.

• Truth > tech but not by miles. Be reasonable and honest, and warrant and weigh.

• Equity is very important to me: treat every person in the room with respect and politeness, and treat every argument with thoughtfulness and nuance. Be aware of the position you speak from, and be conscious of how your identity informs your advantage in the debate world. Respect and kindness are non negotiable parts of being a persuasive speaker and member of this awesome community.

• Theory/K’s: I am an east coast/BP judge, so think east coast/BP level lay. I will not autodrop anyone, but I have no experience at all with theory or Ks of any kind and have a high level of skepticism about it. I wouldn’t recommend running theory in front of me: I will judge fairly whatever debate happens but will be quite grumpy with you.

• Speed: I am a good flower and can keep up with any speed east coast or BP. No spreading please!

• Signposting: signpost please!

• Content warnings: any obviously triggering content needs to be content warned. Don’t run very graphic violence in front of me please.

• Offtime roadmaps: Not my fav. You were given an amount of time by the debate gods. Use it!

• Rhetoric: I love a strategic use of rhetoric/emotion. Can be a powerful tool in persuasion!

• Rebuttals: I adore rebuttal speeches, and a strong LOR/PMR has a lot of power for me. Good round vision and weighing will make me VERY happy. I dislike dishonesty or redundancy in rebuttals.

• organization/flowing/coverage: I’m not a strict flow judge and don’t care a ton about dropped arguments. However, prioritizing and strategic coverage is important. Spend lots of time on the best arguments!

• Definitions debate: noooooooothank you

• Cases:

• Sneaky cases/Counter plans: I have a preference for straight opping and goving motions. I don’t like sneaky strategic decisions and prefer not to judge them unless there isn’t a different clear path to victory. If you run a CP, please commit to it.

• Creativity: I have no strong preference for creative cases: if they’re good arguments, run them, if not, keep it simple. Please don’t sacrifice intuitive and clear cases to creative ones. I will chuckle if you run something funny or clever but there won’t be extra points for creativity.

• Quality vs. quantity: I love dense + heavily warranted cases! Feel free to throw as many mechs as possible

• Principles: I have no strong bias for or against principled arguments. If the argument is warranted strongly and weighed well, I will happily vote on it. If not, I probably won’t.

Experience:

3 years of HS debate, I've been judging intermittently for 2.5 years

I'm mostly familiar with east coast parliamentary and extemporaneous policy debate (CT Debate Association). I have also debated at a few west coast parli tournaments.

General Stuff:

Just stating statistics doesn't mean anything. You need to show why they actually support your case.

Weighing is important

Humor is appreciated

Be respectful (Don't discriminate based on race/gender/sexuality; don't personally attack your opponents (physically or verbally))

West Coast Parli Stuff:

I have debated in a total of about 20 rounds at West Coast tournaments, but I did not encounter theory or K's in any of those rounds, so I'm very unfamiliar with them actually being used in rounds. That being said, I have an idea of how they work (although I don't know all the terminology), so you are welcome to run theory or K's, but I would advise only doing so if you think it's necessary and if you can clearly explain everything. If you're running theory/K's just to exclude another team, I will drop you.

Don't spread. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but not to the point where you have to alter your breathing patterns.

At this point, I have heard a fair number of debates, but I am a parent judge. Like all parent judges, I really appreciate it when debaters speak slowly.

To repeat: please speak slowly. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Also, please do not use debater jargon. I might understand you, or I might not. Either way, you are much more likely to convince me if you explain your points clearly and fully from start to finish. You may be tempted to try to save time by saying something like: “Judge, you should delink this argument from 3.C on the flow because there’s no XYZ warranting here.” But I probably won’t understand you, and even if I do, the point will have less force to me buried in jargon without further explanation.

Whether or not argument is explicitly labeled as “weighing”, I am most likely to be swayed by a few thoroughly argued key issues, accompanied by analysis convincing me that those issues decisively cover the key territory. A team may have the better argument on every point except the critical argument that logically controls the overall outcome, but in my ballot I’ll try my best to follow that critical, controlling argument.

I find that evidence is more often an issue in public forum, but in any form of debate, there are limits to what sort of evidence is credible, or how much I will trust it. For example, evidence claiming to predict the future is always uncertain. Opinion evidence is only as convincing as the reasoning and facts that support it. Solid empirical evidence, ideally paired with deep analysis, often carries the day in a public forum debate, though logical analysis can beat empirical evidence if the analysis explains away the observation.

And evidence in any form of debate that the other side convinces me is unreliable will undercut the credibility of an argument. If you tell me that something is a fact, I expect it to be true.

Most of all, be nice to each other, and have fun! In my experience, the most skilled debaters are often the most gracious.