Rutgers College, Rutgers University, BA Russian and East European Area Studies

Rutgers Business School, MBA

I teach History, AP Economics, and Business. While I'm a new judge and have a lot to learn, I can already tell you I'm not a fan of spreading and throwing out statistics, data, and vocabulary when it's obvious you don't understand the stats and data, and lack fluency with the vocabulary. Use less data intelligently and make your point. More data thrown out and used poorly won't impress me. It will underwhelm me. Present a cogent and well thought out argument that is supported by your data. Oh, and by the way, please clearly state where your sources are from. If you don't state where they are from or I can't understand you, your support is merely conjecture/opinion to me and holds no water.

A little bit about me: I am the Head Coach of Millburn High School in New Jersey. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Expository Speaking (now Informative), and Duo Interpretation (Congress was my main event). While in college, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Parliamentary Debate. I have a bachelor's degree in Economics and Political Science and a master's degree in International Relations with a focus on International Law and Institutions. Professionally, I work in politics and government affairs, and own my own political consulting and corporate social responsibility consulting businesses in Nevada!

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judges paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to giving you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, one of the things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments is having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds). You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- I am really open to hearing most any type of argument. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to the in the round. Sign posting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you. It's your show, not mine!

- I don't require front-lining in the summary, but if you feel as though it is necessary, do it.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask!

I debated PF for 4 years at Montville, NJ, but I'm now a junior at Wesleyan University.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. If I look lost or if it's an 8am round, probably slow down.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline if you don't want to. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense, but you probably should if you currently have none (e.g. if second rebuttal did a really good job frontlining). For turns made in the first rebuttal, if you want them as offense you should put them in summary, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense.

I won't call any cards unless I'm specifically told to.

In my experience, the team that wins the weighing debate tends to win the round.

Please make yourself comfortable. If you're warm, feel free to take off your jacket. If you're cold, feel free to put on a hoodie. For Zoom debate, I don't care if your camera is on or off.

Please ask me any and all questions before the round!

A bit about me -- I am a history and philosophy teacher. Keep this in mind when you are making historical or philosophical arguments.

***BIGGEST PET PEEVE: I don't know your names. If I ask "who is speaking first," don't say "me" or "us." I am asking for your name(s). Please give it/them to me.

Public Forum:

Above all, I want you to debate based on your style. Don't try to "read me" and change your case mid-round. The best debaters have been people who have been themselves and done what they do best - within reason.

However, I have judged PF more than anything else, and I am a firm believer that PF is designed for the public. Trying to run theory on me/your opponent to intentionally confuse me/them/us is NOT PF. In addition, this isn't LD. Using LD tactics that are not friendly to the public is not good debate.

As I said before, I am a history teacher. Be accurate. Don't make things up. It won't help me pick you up.

Calling cards - In terms of evidence/intervening.... I don't like to intervene in a round. I would much rather prefer you to be able to make things clear. However, I may call for cards if I have to at the end of a round. I generally don't want to do this. To me, having to call cards means that the round was messy and not really productive.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" the turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round, and then difficult for me to pick you up. Weigh your arguments. I don't want to hear the classic "lives v. money" weighing -- be specific! Go deeper with your analysis. Make sure that you use both offense and defense, and interact with your opponent's case. It's always upsetting to sit through an entire round where the cases were argued simultaneously but did not clash.

Crossfire - I really like cross. BUT, make it productive. Arguing for arguments sake, being rude, interrupting, talking over your opponent, not answering questions, or turning CX into another speech will lead to lower speaker points.

The biggest thing... do not be rude. Being rude discourages people from joining this activity and I will decrease your speaker points. Treat all debaters - regardless of gender - with the same respect.

Lincoln Douglas:

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - I am fine with K's in a Lincoln-Douglas round as long as it is topical to the resolution. Running one to be abusive to a younger opponent or purposefully confuse either the opponent/the judge is not good, and you should not do this. If you are running one, be respectful of both my time and the work that your opponent has put in. K's that are not topical are extremely hard to judge and that will be reflected in your speaker points. Besides that, in terms of arguments, I want to see good debate. Make sure you are historically accurate, nonoffensive, etc. I'm a pretty traditional judge, but can be convinced to see some progressive debate. However, again, if I'm missing a crucial point on the flow because you were not clear or you spoke too quickly, you did not do your job as a debater. Weigh arguments, make sure you are actually debating each other (rather than running simultaneously cases that do not clash/interact), etc. Don't just tell me that "X dropped the card" and leave it at that. Tell me how and why they dropped the card, and/or it turns to your case. Above all, be clear in the round.

1. While I am relatively new to the world of Speech and Debate, I have coached Mock Trial/Moot Court for nearly fifteen years. My teams have won numerous state championships, placing in the top ten at nationals on more than one occasion.

2. Given my background, I tend to prefer substance over form. I also believe that how you say something matters. While the content of your argument is paramount (in my opinion), you should consider framing your argument in a way that is organized and easy to follow.

3. I will attempt to flow the round (on my computer), but I am a lay judge. I understand that time is limited, but I am not impressed by fast-talkers. Spreading may be commonplace nowadays, but it’s counterproductive if the judge can’t follow your argument.

4. I also believe that debate should be an exercise in good sportsmanship. As a longtime Mock Trial coach, I support an aggressive cross examination. That being said, I expect both parties to be respectful throughout the round, especially during cross.

I have coached and judged public forum debate for over 10 years. I teach high school history, including various AP courses, and I have master's degrees in History and Education Administration. That being said, I am well versed in most topics. I can handle speed, but prioritize clarity, especially when it comes to speaker points.

The style of argumentation I teach in my classroom focuses on the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Claims/contentions should be supported by grounds and evidence. Warrants should be used to validate evidence and impacts should be used to weigh arguments. I am not opposed to other styles of organization, that is just what I teach in my classroom.

Courtesy to your opponents is highly appreciated. Make sure you do not contradict yourself or your partner. Rebuttals should attack all your opponents' contentions and framework, addressing flaws in their logic and outweighing their evidence.

Off time roadmaps are acceptable as long as they are brief and succinct. A well organized rebuttal that attacks your opponent's arguments in order shows your skills as a debater.

Background - I did PF as my main event for four years at Montville Township High School.

Specifics - I highly appreciate it when teams weigh. Weighing can begin as early as rebuttal. If you guys as debaters make comparisons between your own arguments and your opponents’ arguments by any metric, it tells me where to focus when making my decision. This is far better than a round without any weighing that leaves it up to me to decide where to vote. Other than that, I think it makes a lot of sense to start frontlining in second rebuttal.

Have fun!

I debated locally for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), finishing my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for a couple different programs. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please try not to spread too fast. Weigh your terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is very important, so make sure summary and final focus work well together. If you don't put weight on anything, I will have to subjectively choose how to evaluate the round. I will not vote off of anything said in cx unless its extended in speeches. My absolute biggest pet peeve in round is laughing if you think you're beating your opponent.

I am parent judge. I have only judged a few rounds before.

I prefer when debaters are clear and avoid speaking super fast.

If you speak too fast i will not consider all your arguments in my final decision.

I value the logic behind an argument and not just the quantitative component.

Flay judge, here are my prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending;

2. warrants > blips;

3. no - spreading, Kritik, Theory;

Oakton(HJ)'20 (4 years of PF) UVA '24

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Moonhee Kang and I’m a parent judge from Summit High School. I consider myself as a flay judge, meaning I will flow your cases, but I am not too experienced.

Some things to consider during the round:

1. Please don’t spread. I won’t know what you're saying and if I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

2. Ask useful questions during crossfire, I think the ability to respond on the fly is important. However, I won’t consider anything said during crossfire unless it is said during a subsequent speech. If your opponents concede anything important, bring it up and exploit them. Also, please be respectful towards your opponents, being aggressive is okay, but rudeness is not.

3. You should extend anything important throughout ALL speeches. I won’t flow anything in final focus that wasn’t extended throughout rebuttal and summary. Also please don’t introduce new arguments during final focus, you may respond to new arguments said during second summary, but don’t introduce new evidence.

4. It is highly recommended to respond to EVERYTHING in the round. This includes responding to your opponents warrants, impacts, turns, etc. However, read good arguments backed with warrants and cards from credible resources and authors. Don’t just read some blippy turns, instead implicate your turns and tell me why you prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence.

5. Summary should frontline responses that you will collapse on. Overviews and top-level responses are okay, but line-by-line is also important. It will be hard for you to win the round if you don’t frontline your opponent’s responses.

6. Collapsing is important. Quality>Quantity. It doesn’t matter to me if you have a bunch of bad arguments, but it is much better if you have one really good one that you focus the round on.

7. Weighing is very important. Weighing is not entirely necessarily in rebuttal, but recommended. Weighing in summary and final focus should be clear. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s do.

8. I am mostly tech>truth. This means I will evaluate everything that you tell me if your opponents don’t respond to it, whether it is true or not. However, I do not recommend using fake evidence as your opponents can easily point this out and will negatively impact you and the round.

9. Keep track of your time for speeches, rebuttal, cx, prep, etc. Going a few seconds over is okay, but anything 5+ I will not evaluate.

10. I will most likely NOT evaluate any type of theory, kritik, plan or progressive argument. I probably won’t understand it, and by running it, you risk losing time out of your speeches for something I won’t evaluate. Try not to run theory if possible, unless you believe that actual in-round abuse is present. I don’t consider paraphrasing or disclosing to be abuse.

11. If any false, fake, or misconstrued evidence is run on purpose, I WILL drop you. Debate should be educational, and fake evidence hurts the purpose of this activity. If you believe that your opponents have run misconstrued or fake evidence, please call for the card.

12. As I’ve mentioned, I’m relatively flay, so I don’t understand most pf jargons. I think debate is about persuading normal people with a decent education, so try to make it so even “normal” parents can understand and vote for you.

With everything said, debate should be a fun, educational, extracurricular activity. Try to have fun and please be respectful to your opponents. But most of all, have fun!

I am relatively new to debate. I prefer that you don't speak too quickly so i can follow your arguments. I am a business/finance guy with a general interest in politics and world events.

I have been a coach for about 12 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. This is especially important in this virtual world, when certain computer microphones struggle to keep up with you. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

Relatively new to debate

I am a parent judge

Please make your arguments clear and articulate

I will understand most arguments but sorry if my RFD is not too clear

First-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

Given that I am newer to debate, I prefer traditional debates that focus on the intent of the resolution/topic over technicalities. I've judged Parli, and I work closely with and have observed LD, PF, and Congress.

In my experience, the teams/debaters that perform the best are the ones who set out a clear framework and back up all contentions with evidence and weighing. Almost all resolutions/topics can be answered either way; that's why they are chosen. That means it is up to you to explain to me why it is your framework and evidence that outweighs your opponents.

I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).

I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:

* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same

* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)

* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means

* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.

* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.

* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.

* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's

* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention

* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.

* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.

* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.

* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com

Good Luck!

I debated Public Forum in high school for 3 years so I do have some flowing experiences. However, it has been a while since my last debate round so I would appreciate it if teams clearly articulate themselves and go at a moderate speed since my flowing abilities are a little rusty. Above all, please weigh in your rounds so it will make my life easier when making a decision on who to vote for. The more clearer the weighing mechanism, the better. Thank you!

Please email me your cases prior to round. Normally I wouldn't ask of this, but since we're online and internet connectivity would be spotty, it ensures there is no misunderstandings.

email: dylanpark01@gmail.com

Speak clearly, don’t be rude, win round off of a strong summary, weighing, and clear arguments/voting issues. Big bonus speaker points for signposting. Does not look good when you extend through ink, so please frontline and then extend.

Unique arguments appreciated!

livingston high school '20 | university of california, berkeley '24

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh or else i will do my ishan-weighing™️ and you may be unhappy

squirrelly arguments are fun (im tech over truth but cmon now don’t be too outta pocket like elon with his kid’s name). don’t be afraid to be unique and challenge the squo

i have some experience with Ks and Theory but substance debate means i need less sheets of paper...so take that however you want

debate the way you want! all styles are cool. be your own person and be happy with yourself above all. feel free to speak fast but be clear. if y’all decide amongst yourselves before the round and want me to be a lay judge, just lmk; lay is the way (jk...unless...)

be chill, have fun. this goes without saying but anything “-phobic” of any kind can be grounds for the lowest speaks or even a drop based on how egregious it is. debate is supposed to be a safe, intellectually stimulating space; keep this in mind and it will serve you well. think before you speak but at the same time do not be afraid to be a clown and crack some jokes—debate is most fun when you have fun doing it. also please let me know if there's anything i can do to help you feel more safe or comfortable

i like pop culture and references to it so if u want me to like be happy mention books (any quotes from anything by F Scot Fitzgerald will get u + speaks), movies (mention smth by nolan, tarantino, p much anyone cool and will get u + speaks), sports (if ur a barcelona fan, dont tell me or else i will be sad), songs (jeremy zucker bars will get u + speaks) whatever

giving me a good story that i want to believe + making smart decisions + being chill & j vibing = super high speaks. but keep in mind that debate is also definitely a game of persuasion. i personally as a debater tried to be pretty persuasive in how i spoke and tried not to go too fast. but u do u and i will adapt to u

^speaking of good stories: i really enjoy narrative debate. smartly extend and implicate one coherent, cohesive story and u will do fantastic

good luck folks. y’all rock no matter the outcome of the round.

debate is supposed to be educational so have a good time and don’t stress too much !!!

p.s. this shouldn't even have to be said but: no new stuff in FF please; it'll j annoy me a lot :/

as always, if you have any questions about any of this don’t hesitate to ask me before the round

and ofc ask questions after the round! that's the best way to learn :) but i can guarantee that if ur tryna change my decision after the round, it will not work

also if u need any other advice or have any questions about like anything, reach out after round or on fb messenger

once again: good luck !! enjoy your time in debate—you're never gonna get it back

I am a parent judge with one-year's experience in judging. I have over 40 years of experience as a STEM higher-education professional with about half as a classroom professor and half in senior research leadership roles. Consequently, I am no stranger to grading and quite used to public speaking. By virtue of my occupation, I may be knowledgeable concerning the topic of the debate but that goes into my back pocket when judging - it is all about the quality of the arguments you present, your ability to defend your viewpoints in cross, and to refute the positions asserted by your opponents.

I am not a fan of fast-talkers. I know some consider it an advanced style, but I would rather hear clearly articulated arguments stated with conviction than see one extra point squeezed in with a rapid-fire monotone. If you think you can do both - go for it!

By now you should all be experienced web meeting users, but it never hurts to remind you to mute your microphones when you are not speaking. If you need to confer with your partner, use your cell or text and remember to mute your computer feed during those sessions as well.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude.

3. Please don't spread or go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

I'm a fifth year out public forum debater. in high school i did pf for 4 years at duPont Manual and attended the UK Toc my senior year. in college i compete at Western Kentucky in LD debate, as a two time PKD national champion, and a NFA national champion. Currently I coach at Ridge high school and am familiar with the topics as I do topic research.

I'm fine with speed and prefer it when teams go quickly as long as it isnt used as a tool to exclude people who would be unable to match speed given practice. Additionally because people don't read full cards in PF if you go super quickly be cautious as i may miss stuff if the cards are just blippily read. With that said though i am used to people spreading so i wouldn't worry too much about going to fast.

Weighing is one of the most important things for me in PF because i find rounds often get muddled and lack an easy place to vote so i want to be told exactly what issues are the most important and where to vote. This means there needs to be a clear collapse in summery with that argument well impacted out in final focus.

Clash is also extremely important to me in PF. This means a few things. The second speaking team must cover the ink that was just put on their case in the first rebuttal as it makes the round easier to follow and fosters more clash if you choose not to and then the first summary makes extensions I'm not going to be very receptive to your new responses in second summary. Additionally please avoid only responding to taglines, if you don't give a warrant for your response, or concede their warrant the argument is functionally conceded.

Please give me a clear road map because I'm flowing and hate it especially in summaries when they don't make sense or aren't easy to flow due to lack of a road map. This doesn't mean you can't get creative in your order just have one and make it clear.

Beyond this I'm willing to vote on just about anything as long as it isn't blatantly offensive. I also really like when debaters try new things so step outside of the box, so especially in PF don't be afraid to try arguments that may not generally be the norm.

*For College LD*

I've been competing in the college LD circuit for 4 years, and won the PKD national tournament twice, and the NFA national tournament once. This means im good with just about any policy based argument you all want to run.

One Key thing to note is. DISCLOSURE IS A NECESSARY NORM. I strongly advocate for disclosure and think the community has done an insufficient job at mandating disclosure as a norm as other communities have. As a result, if you aren't disclosed when I judge you I will warn you the first time, after that I will immediately take points off the top of your speaker points. I think a failure to disclose harms community education, and prep; so disclosure is really important to me. I also am very willing to vote on it as a theory argument so read your disclosure theory all day.

As a judge I feel like the most important thing to me is that your reading arguments that are well researched and you can easily explain neuonced details of the arguments. This means reading arguments that you dont understand well with me in the back is not a good decision-- I wont want to vote for it. Also please cut new evidence, evidence quality is very important to me.

GO FAST!! I love spreading. I think debate is a highly competitive activity build upon using skills and tactics to overwhelm your opponent and make them lose. This means I don't think speed bad is a voting issue and have no threshold for speed

Generally I would say, I'm cool with just about any argument if the round isn't close. But when rounds are close and competitive there are a few important things to note

For Theory-- I default to competing interps. I want theory positons to have direct in round implications as they relate to the affirmatives plan-text. This means I really hate 'trolley' theory. for example high school LD rounds about robot theory would be a non-starter for me; or if you read 'go to the beach thoery' i will stop flowing the position and you just wasted your time. Essentially I think T, Spec args, or CP theory-- but don't like random interps that aren't clearly derived from debate norms.

For the K-- I'm pretty comfortable with evaluating the K, however if its a more obscure K then i would prefer you to go slower during the collapse or contextualize it so i know what im voting for. I'm really into philosophy from a person level, especially Marxism and psychoanalysis-- so the odds are fairly high I'm relatively familiar with the literature. However, this doesn't mean I'm the most informed about kritique tricks and strategies you may carry out with your specific K (since I didn't read the K in many rounds), so just be sure not to assume too much from me from a knowledge standpoint.

Non-T AFFs: I'm willing to listen to the debate, and in a round thats a crush I would consider myself a fair judge. However, I definitely lean toward prefering that AFFs are resolutional. I have no issue with non-T affs from an ideological standpoint, but I do really have an issue with non-resolutional arguments because of the sheer impossibility of predicting them. So while I'm not going to hack in these rounds, I do think as a competitor you want to prefer resolutionality when possible

My favorite rounds are a really good policy debate. DA + CP's are great for me. Contrary to the K, it's going to be almost impossible for you to loose me on policy tricks or strategy. I love it when people set NC's up to cleaverly get their opponent for example T to force DA links or other creative policy strategies (doing these things, or generally impressing me with the policy strat is a great way to boost speaks.)

I am a volunteer lay judge. This is my first time judging for speech or debate. I appreciate clarity and clear link chains. The speakers should speak at a reasonable pace, not too fast. I will be looking for a good quality arguments, but quantity will be a secondary supporting factor. Please completely explain your logic and arguments. It is also important to weigh and explain to me the impacts of what you're saying.

Hello,

As a PF judge, I prefer fewer but more detailed arguments over numerous small ones. Hope it helps.

Thanks,

Maggie

I am a new judge and this is my first tournament.

Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. This is my first time being a judge. I have very little debate experience but have been a member of a Toastmasters public speaking club. I would prefer if the speakers speak slowly so I can hear the arguments more clearly.

This is my very first time judging, so please speak slowly! Although I'm a middle school English teacher, English is not my first language. Thus, if I can't understand you, you're not winning my ballot! I will not tolerate any rude or inappropriate behavior, and I expect a respectful debate from both teams. Although I am new to judging, I may ask to see contested evidence after the round. Overall, good luck to both teams, and I'm looking forward to some engaging debates!

Note from her daughter (a two year pf debater):

Hi! My mom is the layest judge you will have this tournament. When she says speak slowly, she means very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very slowly (think max. 650 wpm). She will not flow the round, but she doesn't put up with any bs... so no shady cards!