UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

I have most of my experience with PF, Parli, and extemp. For PF, I do prefer some presentarional speaking, I can follow a quick speaker, but if I can not understood what is said, I can not vote based on it. Rebuttal and clash are key aspects of debate and when deciding on a winner, these sections of a round are where I look. The other key factor is weighing. Make sure each argument relates back to the resolved and is given a clear position in the argument.

Good luck everyone.

Quick summary - don't be offensive, don't be rude, and make sure your case is clear. 

For starters, if your case, language, decorum, or really anything else about the way you debate is in any way racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or just discriminatory against any marginalized group in any way, then you'll lose speaker points and the round.

Also, just don't be rude. Obviously debate can get heated (as an ex policy debater, I know that all too well), but that's no excuse to abuse or bully your opponent(s).

For Policy:

Do you solve the issue presented? Do you solve for harms in the status quo? If you have any negative impacts, do you successfully refute those? Do you outweigh on timeframe and/or magnitude? For a winning ballot, you have to answer yes to all of these. Generally I'll vote on solvency, but I take lots of factors into account.

For Lincoln Douglas:

Properly defend your resolution, have good evidence to back that up, and be prepared with evidence against your opponent and their contentions. For Lincoln Douglas, I will vote on the better value and value criterion and who defends that value and value criterion better in accordance with their resolution.

For Public Forum:

Once again, properly defend your position, be prepared with evidence. I'm not very experienced in public forum, but I understand the basic form of this debate.

Cross-Examination/Crossfire:

Be respectful, don't be rude, and this is a really great way for me as a judge to see how well each of you know your cases. While I obviously won't judge an entire round solely on these, I still think they're very important and they'll weigh just as heavily as the speeches when deciding the ballots. Once again, you lose speaker points if you're blatantly rude. I understand getting a little arrogant, but don't degrade your opponents and their intelligence or anything like that.

Spreading/Speaker Points:

I'll ask for the cases and I'll be flowing, and I'm pretty good at understanding quick speech, but don't go overboard with it. Spreading is good and all, but if you're going so fast that no one could possibly understand what it is you're saying, then you need to make your case shorter and talk slower because your opponent isn't expected to read your entire case while they're also supposed to be flowing and prepping.

If you lose, take it as a sign to improve and work on what you could've done better, not a sign to be sad or get angry. If you win, realize what you did right, and recreate that process and put that same energy into other rounds in the future. And overall, just have a good time. Don't get yourself overworked or too stressed out about anything, because at the end of the day, this is an educational activity that is supposed to benefit you, not harm you.

Hi, I am Ansh

I am a student and PF, BQ, and Parli Debater

General

I am a lay judge and will attempt to be as tabula rasa as possible in all rounds. Also, honestly, just be reasonable and don't be rude to others.

Remember that you are attempting to convince me that your side is right, not arguing with your opponent (s)

Notes/Preferences for PF

I can take fast but please, don't go too fast and absolutely do not spread. I will lose track and miss some of your points

Cross Ex rounds -- I do not flow these and will not evaluate them in my final decision but try to keep it an orderly back and forth between opposing sides

Off-Time Road Maps: I would rather you not use them but signpost all of your speech well as that is a lot easier to follow. If you absolutely have to use one, make it short.

Rebuttals: Clashing in round is great though I would prefer clash on logic and not evidence unless you are discussing the validity of a piece of evidence. Also, arguments like "my case says this so I'm right" are not valid reasons for me to listen to you. Provide logic to back it up and tell me why I should listen to you

Impact/Voters: Throughout all of your speeches, you should address the impact and voter issues at stake for me to choose to vote for you. You need to follow your impacts through the round and should give me a clear reason for me to vote for you. This is primarily how I will be judging your rounds overall.

Notes/Preferences for LD

Mostly the same as for PF but I would strongly prefer you not run progressive LD cases. The major difference though is that I will primarily be judging the round based on who proves their case under the best-supported framework.