Hi debaters! My name is Munazza Ahmed, and I'll be your judge today. I'm a lay, parent judge who has been judging for 2 years, with one kid who goes to NA and competes in Public Forum Debate. I have no specific preferences other than clear speaking and being respectful towards your opponents. Good luck!

I was a PF debater in high school and American Parliamentary in college. This paradigm is very PF-centric, but some things apply for any debate round.

Evidence: I don't want a round with just cards being rattled off or arguing over sources (feel free to call out bad sources of course, but I will not be happy if all of cross is just arguing back and forth about cards instead of the real topic). I'm happy with a certain amount of logic being used over evidence when fitting. Don't shy away from making logical arguments solely because you don't have 12 cards to back it up. Further, just because you do have a card and your opponent doesn't have one does NOT mean you automatically win the argument- if they can effectively argue that your card is completely illogical and nonsensical and you can't adequately defend it, it's not going to go your way.

Please do not misrepresent your cards or cut them in a deceiving way. If you do that, it will be a huge knock on you.

Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as you're not completely spreading.

Weighing: Please, please, PLEASE weigh. You might be throwing away half the arguments you focused on in your speech if you are not weighing them. Clash and weighing are some of the most essential parts of debate.

Respect: I have no tolerance for rudeness; if you are extremely condescending, scream over opponents, never give your opponent a reasonable opportunity to respond in cross, etc, I see it as a reason to drop. Treat your opponents with basic respect and don't be racist/homophobic/etc. Don't assume your opponent's pronouns.

Timing: I will time you and stop flowing after about a 10 second grace period. You can ramble on for an extra 50 seconds or whatever, but it won't get flowed by me so it serves no purpose. If you start going way over time, I will cut you off. Please time yourself, though. I will get annoyed if I have to do this and it can hurt your speaker points. If there's a reason you can't time yourself, no big deal- just let me know and I will be happy to give you hand signals or whatever you need. It won't bother me as long as you let me know!

Sliming: Do not introduce new arguments in final focus. I will be paying attention to what's new and totally ignoring all of it.

Cross: I don't flow cross. I pay attention, of course, but if you make a good point in cross, you need to discuss it in your speeches for it to count on the flow.

If judging LD, I will be unfamiliar with lots of the phil, so just be sure to clearly explain your framework!

If you have any other questions before the round begins, please feel free to ask!

My profession is driven by speech and argument. I enjoy hearing you compete in these activities and discuss topics. I will always attempt to judge your arguments from a position of objectivity and disinterest.

Please make your deliveries clear, which may mean slowing down and refraining from maximum spread.

In debate formats, I find that effective rebuttals will include a statement about why your side should win on a particular point, usually as a conclusion to that segment of the rebuttal. Of course, the rebuttal should also include factual and argumentative comment that actually does make your side prevail. Don't assume I will understand why you should win without that explanation, but also don't merely insist that you should win.

I am not usually impressed by off-topic arguments or kritiks. Any argument you make should relate directly to the resolution or to the other team's argument.

I expect PRO to argue for the adoption of the entire resolution. I expect CON to argue for the status quo.

I am particularly impressed by use of the crossfires to engage with and turn the other team's argument. I suggest you do not use crossfire to give the other team an opportunity to further explain their arguments.

I hope that you will develop skills and habits that assist you throughout your life, and that you enjoy your participation in speech and debate activities.

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

For all Debate Events:

I am what you would consider a "lay" parent judge. Please do not spread or talk super fast, talk clearly and slowly or else I won't be able to write down your arguments. Also, I enjoy good clash between teams, but please always be respectful and polite to your opponents as this is an educational activity. Finally, for PF, I do encourage, but don't require, for the 2nd speaking team's rebuttal to refute the points made in the first team's rebuttal. For speaker points, I start each debater at 25, and then based off of the quality and delivery of speeches, I will either raise or lower this score. I usually give both members of a PF team the same speaking score. I will rarely give a 30 and I will only give this score if outstanding and superior speech delivery and persuasion tactics are shown.

For all Speech Events:

Have good understanding of the material. Speak clearly and coherently. Very thorough and understandable presentation of the material.

I am a former PF debater, I am flow judge. Don't forget to Weigh arguments. I will flow logic arguments, cards aren't needed for anything.

Hello! My name is Alexander Perdue, though you can call me "Judge" or "Alex". My pronouns are he/him/his. Outside of speech and debate, I am currently a PhD student in Political Science (MA '23) at Binghamton University.

My personal/"speech and debate" qualifications: I've been working as a judge, primarily for online tournaments, for my former speech and debate program for the better part of the last 4 years. Most of my experience is in judging debate, primarily LD and PF, but I have some Congress judging experience and a round or two of interp under my belt.

Prior to being a judge, I did three years of speech and one year of debate for Salem (Salem) High School in Virginia--competing in extemporaneous speaking (both IX and USX), impromptu speaking, and Congressional Debate (Virginia does not have a House/Senate split in VHSL events), winning the 2019 VHSL 4A Championship in Impromptu Speaking and making it to the 2019 VHSL 4A Finals in Congressional Debate.

As it stands, given my previous speech and debate experiences, the only thing I'd say is "out of my depth" right now are the primary NSDA events of Big Questions and World Schools...and Policy.

Policy / CX / Big Questions / World Schools

I have no real experience judging any of these and therefore have no specific pointers (for now, maybe one day) or preferences. For a more general overview of how I judge/evaluate, please see the following sections about LD and PF as guidance.

I will say that, in general, arguments should be big picture and not hyperbolic. The one round of policy I've judged had debaters discussing the harms of extinction. When it's not plausibly an effect of the resolution (maybe it is on the 2023-24 CEDA resolution, certainly wasn't for the high school resolution), don't argue it. I definitely get annoyed.

Lincoln-Douglas

I largely judge my Lincoln-Douglas rounds on the following evaluative criteria. These are not "perfect", but they are generally how I arrive at my decisions.

1. Who is showing a better flow through the round? Don't just come out in clash and assume that by clashing, I'll get it. I strongly encourage you to make the argument that you won by showing it during non-cross time.

2. Who does a better job of using their value and criterion through the round? Too often in debates I've judged, students have done a poor job of bringing up their value and criterion through the round, not connecting it to their specific contentions and therefore not really providing the values clash that LD, you know, is. Values and evaluation criteria should not be an afterthought in Lincoln-Douglas! Think about ways you can better tie things back to your criteria and value through your contentions, not only will it make you a better LDer, you might stand a better chance at winning a round judged by me.

3. Who better uses Cross-X? Shot and parry is the name of the game in Cross-X, especially in LD where the clash might be more stark than it is in, for instance, Public Forum. Successful debaters having me judge them will use their time in Cross-X to get that their opponents' values through their contentions. If you can show that your value is the better supported one in the round, and or the more logically consistent one, you will do well.

LD Specific Note: Off-time roadmaps are fine, and, in fact, I encourage them. I find they make it easier for me to follow things during the round.

Public Forum

When it comes to public forum, I have three main thing I would say I look for in regards to making a decision.

1. Get to the point and make your arguments easy to follow. That is to say: be organized and make things tight. If I couldn't write down your case, state your position, and know your contentions by the end of your first speaker's speech, something has gone wrong. Making things tight will also lead to better and more...

2. Efficient use of Cross-X to "score points". This is simple, make sure that you can find the argument in your opponent's case that you can seize on, clash with, and clearly show your own arguments are superior to. I strongly encourage you to make this very clear when you speak!

3. In the absence of clash, I simply have to determine whose case makes the most sense and which side does the better job of presenting its argument in its logical consistency. To avoid this, seek out clash! That's what we're here for! The best debates are always the ones in which there is a decent amount of clash because it makes it clear there is a choice to be made between two (relatively) equally-matched sides.

Public Forum Specific Note: Point out if your opponent has dropped one of your contentions. Oftentimes I pick up on it, but it shows too that you're paying attention to what they're arguing.

Congressional

This one is fairly straightforward: make an argument. Then, after you've made an argument (Aff/Neg), support your argument. This is not exactly the most complicated rocket science. Also, do make sure you're getting into the LARP of it all, especially if I (for some reason) end up as your Parli. The best Congressional debaters are the quick on their feet.

DEBATE SPECIFIC NOTE: I am strongly against the practice of spreading. This is for two reasons: it is unfair to me as your judge and it is unfair to your opponents. If I cannot understand you, I cannot fairly judge you. If your opponents cannot understand you, they cannot possibly debate you. That being said, some speed is alright, but make sure you are still capable of being understood. Regardless, if understanding is an issue, it will be reflected in your Speaks and could be reflected in my overall ballot.

Speech

As a former speech kid myself, a few very quick pointers and things I look for in judging:

1. Organization. This cannot be sloppy and expect to score well. It doesn't have to necessarily be a tight five paragraph essay, but it does need to be enough such that I can follow what you're saying.

2. Support. It doesn't have to be all academic articles or jargon (particularly in Extemporaneous or OO), but the best speeches have decent support behind them from reputed sources and people. I know my way around the world of reputable information, and Iwillcall it out in the comments if you're using something you probably shouldn't. In Impromptu, you have a thesis, what you say needs to be connected to that thesis. It's different "support", but it's still "support".

3. Variety. Perhaps it's just the system I trained in but, especially in Impromptu and Extemporaneous (and somewhat in OO), bring it home for us. Tell me why what you're saying matters. What are the implications (in Extemporaneous)? How can you forge a personal connection to the topic (in Impromptu and OO)? The best speeches not only have that organization and internal support, they also do a good job of making me realize that what they're talking about is important or actually showing a personal impact.

Interp

Caveat: I haven't judged this much competitively, but my program practices this thing wherein we get experience seeing everybody do their piece in every event. So, no, I may not "know" HI like a former competitor, but I know what to look for.

Three big things I'd like to say as key to my judging philosophy:

1. Smooth transitions. This one is quite simple, make sure your cuts between scenes or between characters are clear and defined, not choppy. Each character should bedistinct, as it were.

2. Clear characterization. Similar to the above, make sure that your characters are clearly different. For instance, if your piece has an old woman, a puppet, and a frog, make sure that you have an old woman, a puppet, and a frog in your repertoire, whether this be by different voices, different postures, different cadences, or some combination of things that makes it clear that your characters are distinct.

3. Feeling. Make me feel something. In HI or with a humorous piece, make me laugh. Sam Kennedy's winning 2018 VHSL Class 4A Humorous Interpretation piece is still one of my favorite pieces becauseevery time I saw it I could nearly keel over laughing. Similarly, in a dramatic piece, be sure to bring out the emotive parts of your piece. If it's supposed to be sad, make me tear up. Other emotions...same thing.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for 1 year.