I have been a coach for four years and I have worked as a guidance counselor for 21 years and teach communication skills. I am looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please speak at a pace that allows me to keep up. I will put down my pen if I can't follow you. Please emphasize your points so I know that they are important and remember to pause on occasion so that I can take in your ideas.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position and I will be listening for how you support your position. Roadmaps are appreciated.

You can keep your own time, or I am happy to time and give you cues.

Be kind, be professional, and have fun!!

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

1. Speak at a normal conversational speed

2. Roadmap and signpost

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

• I am Parent Judge and have been judging debate tournaments for 3 years and I enjoy judging Public Forum and Parliament Debates
• I take Notes, and will look for quality and strength of the argument and ability to defend that during crossfire.
• Please slow down to ensure you are making and conveying your point

All the Best!

Please consider me as a "Lay Judge". I am also a parent judge. I will most likely not follow S&D jargon and speed speaking.

Things I look for to be able to score and judge well are:

1. Convincing me on your points on the topic. I promise to pay my utmost attention but speaking clearly and slowly will help me follow.

2. Empathy towards your opponents.

3. Confidence in your arguments and counter arguments.

4. I'm open to DAs, CPs and Ks. However, I'm not familiar at all with K literature. As long as I can clearly understand the arguments you're making and they are convincing, I will vote on them.

5. I will judge stock issues.

Have fun and give your best!

PS: Put me on the email chain: arun.eachambadi@gmail.com

Parli is intended to showcase a debater's ability to think on their feet with an emphasis of logic. It is not intended to be an evidence war like the other formats of debate. When on-line access is allowed in Parli, avoid the temptation to "out-evidence" your opponent. In fact, you will not win because of a piece of evidence, or pieces of evidence. They're nice to illustrate a point, but the win goes to the team that significantly defends the logic, likelihood, and pragmatism of their claims while sufficiently clashing with the same of your opponent's claims.

Add me to the chain: dmh285@georgetown.edu

Background

Call me Daisy, pronouns are she/her.

I debated for Oak Hill School for 4 years (2 on the nat circuit) and qualified to the 2020 TOC. Currently taking a gap year before I start school at Georgetown.

FOR MEADOWS! I haven't really engaged with debate since mid April. For you, this means a couple things:

1. You can spread, but you probably shouldn't go top speed. About 70% of what you'd normally go should be good. Be clear, especially on tags and analytics. I will tell you to slow/clear if I need, though, so don't worry too much about this.

2. I'm unfamiliar with the current high school topic. Don't use super topic-specific acronyms. For T and framework debates I'm gonna need both sides to invest a bit more time explaining what the topic looks like under your interpretation and why that's preferable - don't just give me a list of affs because I likely won't be familiar with them and won't know what to do with that absent more explanation.

TL;DR

- Tech > truth.

- Dropped arguments are true, BUT an argument must include a claim, warrant, and impact/implication for it to matter.

- Debate is a game.

- Good judge for pretty much all types of policy args (I will be quite annoyed if I have to judge death good or spark, though).

- Not the best judge for the K. If you're going for it anyway, identity-focused Ks are probably your best bet, (what I'm most familiar with) and weird pomo stuff is probably your worst.

- Good judge for framework, I will vote on procedural fairness as an impact.

- I am pretty expressive with my face - use this to your advantage.

Non-Negotiables

- I will not adjudicate debates based on issues that have occurred outside the round.

- You must adhere to speech times and speech order. During your speech, I will only flow what I hear you say, and I will not flow your partner.

- Prep includes everything other than attaching the doc to the chain, making a marked copy, or taking a reasonable amount of time to deal with tech issues.

- No double wins or losses.

- If you make blatantly offensive statements I will drop you.

- If you accuse your opponents of clipping or another serious ethics violation, know that you are staking the outcome of the debate on that accusation. I will stop the debate and go to tab.

DAs

- Pretty straightforward here. Totally fine with politics and more generic topic DAs. Specific evidence on the link level is always important, though.

- DA turns case arguments are super important for framing the debate - make them and answer them!

- I do think zero risk exists, but it's hard to establish.

CPs

- I love clever, well-thought-out CP strategies! Ultimately the theory debate determines what is legitimate. I'm predisposed to think of most process CPs, PICs, international actor fiat, and 2NC CPs as fairly legitimate. Consult and delay CPs seem more iffy, as do CPs without solvency advocates that fiat super inconcrete things (i.e. "China shouldn't attack Taiwan"). If you have more specific questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

- Write your perms in a way that is explanatory. "Perm do both" isn't sufficient.

Theory

- Unless it is dropped or handled very poorly, theory other than condo will be treated as a reason to reject the argument.

- I lean neg on condo. Go for it if it's mishandled or you feel you're undeniably losing on the substance debate.

T

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Limits are only useful insofar as they're predictable - prove your interp sets the most predictable limits and you'll probably win.

- The amount of interp cards that don't even remotely say what they're tagged as is kind of astonishing. Take the time to read through and rehighlight your opponents' cards, and I'll be happy.

Ks on the Neg

- I tend to believe the aff gets to weigh the plan. I can be convinced otherwise by good framework debating, but it will be an uphill battle.

- I want to know how the K implicates the aff. Stolen from the wonderful Julian Bellavita: "if you read Ks and have me in the back, your best bet is using the K to prove the hypothetical enactment of the plan would be bad."

- Specific links, please. You're really unlikely to win in front of me using links of omission.

- Don't assume I'm familiar with your theory and/or jargon.

K Affs

- I'm really not a great judge for K affs. If you're reading one in front of me, it should be clearly related to the resolution, and you need to have an interp that makes it possible for the negative to sufficiently engage with the affirmative.

- Procedural fairness is an impact, BUT aff teams can certainly win that it's not as important as other impacts in the round.

- TVAs (preferably carded) are super helpful for the neg in terms of mitigating aff offense.

- Neg, engage with the case! Having indictments of the aff's theory and offense against whatever alternative method of institutional engagement they propose can also really help mitigate their offense on the framework page.

- If there's a link, the neg going for DAs or impact turns vs K affs is totally cool with me.

Speaks

- To raise your speaks: be clear & efficient, do evidence comparison, and give judge instruction. Being assertive in cross-ex is good, but don't repeatedly interrupt your opponents or let it cross over into a place of meanness.

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, unique perspectives, honesty, and kindness. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and be exposed to many different perspectives! In the late 70's/80's I debated in Arizona--high school and at ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success. I follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or the event rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate. Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

Real World Policy Maker

Teacher and Coach

speech and debate coach 47 years

Member of National Speech and Debate Association (NFL and NSDA) since I was 14.

I am a lay judge, this is my first time judging (although I did high school debate 35 years ago and dimly remember something about aff and neg and warrant) and I will probably not be a tech>truth judge. I am a tech entrepreneur/venture guy (I know, my kids run cap on me everyday).

If there is an email chain please use: rick.michaux@gmail.com

I am okay with flowing. Try not to get too caught up in debate lingo in round so that I can keep up. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing you as well. I will stop flowing when you go overtime. I will also time prep but you should too.

Evidence: I need to see both data and impact in evidence. Data points without connection to impact mean little to me.

Speed- please speak slowly enough for a first time lay judge. Maybe a fast conversational speed is okay? I value persuasive speaking but prefer evidence and logic and will vote on that if it is clearly much better.

Ks- I am told this is a good motto: If they’re lay, don’t run a k. I do not want to have to vote off the toss of a coin because I do not understand any of your arguments. I will keep one handy just in case.

Framework- I am open to almost any framing as long as you can explain it thoroughly and in a way that I can understand. As with Ks, please do not run anything that will make me have to vote off the toss of my trusty coin.

Topicality -Perhaps a little nuanced for me unless it is pretty clear but I understand the concept of linking to the resolution. Do with that what you will.

Counterplans- I am okay with counterplans (even in LD) as long as you explain why it is competitive with the aff.

Try not to introduce any new arguments in the last speech.

Have fun.

- respect people's pronouns and identities. Debate is not the entire world, but a part of it, and giving folks respect so that they can engage on terms that fit with them is critical. When making an argument, humanize the folks who are being impacted, ground that reality into a story, and use that to advance position.

- please no spreading. i am an old lady with old lady ears, i will flow but if you go too fast for me I will start to lose what you're saying and I think what you're saying is important and wanna hear and understand!! I can keep up with quick speeds but if your argumentation isn't succinct and impacted out clearly you'll lose me.

- in terms of experience and who I am, I was a competitor through high school and college, later years of college transitioning to primarily judging both high school and college level. I'm fine with theory or jargon but if it isn't for something earnest I won't be happy about it.

My feedback will attempt to pose you questions neither of us may have the answers for, but are what I'm left thinking about at the end of the round. My goal is to engage your critical thinking because I am a firm believer there is no bad debater, poorly constructed topics and lack of resources/support is one thing, but there's no reason anyone deserves to be shamed in a journey of growth.

Introduction to topic and event

Clear delivery

Emphasize on impacts

Being polite to opponent teams

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

Hi! I'm a fairly standard judge with a history mainly of Lincoln-Douglas and Parli debate.

I am mainly looking for well-developed, politely presented argumentative structure and refutation regardless of debate, but I have a few more specific clarifications pertaining to LD in particular:

I consider winning VC usually as Wmech for the round. This suggests that the winning V/VC framework will usually, but not always win the round, as their own case usually, but not always, better fits their own framework.

I am receptive to more progressive-style LD structuring, presumptive that the opponent feels comfortable, with the caveat that I expect the same developed, polite argumentation.

I have been involved on and off since 2013 as a parent judge, originally in Debate, more recently in Extemp and Impromtu Speech.

There are a few things that I appreciate from speakers.

1. Organization is very important to me. Clearly labeling your contentions and any other points will make it easier for me to follow your arguments. I do flow to the best of my ability, and if you signpost during your speech, I will have an easier time flowing and your arguments will be more clear. A final wrap up that pulls it all together is always appreciated.

2. Your last speech should be focused on why you have won the debate basically writing the ballot for me. Do not rehash arguments that have already been made. For debaters to be successful they will explain how they are winning what has already been presented by clarifying and comparing impacts.

3. Speed is not something I am comfortable with yet. Speaking clearly is helpful.

4. I will do my best to keep my own biases out of the round, but there are generally accepted truths that should be followed. The more outlandish your argument, the more you need to back it up. I like evidence, and am willing to be convinced, but it is your job to convince me.

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.