I prefer quality of arguments over quantity of arguments. Talking fast and throwing information doesn't move me.

I need real justification and concrete evidence behind your arguments. I will not take assumptions or unjustified extrapolations.

I stress again, anything you put out, in a POI, in a rebuttal, in an emotional argument, etc.

Hi, I'm a parent judge.

Likes:

- signposting

- clear speaking

- off-time roadmaps

Dislikes:

- spread

- running theory

Good luck!

Hello all!

I think that being respectful is most important in debate. I will not bring any personal biases or prior knowledge to the debate, and expect debaters to present arguments and respond respectfully.

Speaking at a moderate pace and roadmapping well will help me flow and follow your speech better. Focus on which arguments matter and why they matter.

Looking forward to a fun and educational debate!

Quality of arguments. No intimidation tactics. As debate progresses want to see quality of counter arguments. Facts can be presented but not basis to win argument (more about logical flow and follow through). Talk at a pace that is understandable and short summary at the end always helps.

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

I listen closely for precision in language that clearly expresses the debater's ideas. I’m also listening for an overarching story supported by individual contentions, which are in turn further supported and explained.

In a debate format where citing specific evidence is not required, debate that is persuasive still must be informed. Sweeping generalizations are generally not persuasive. Supporting evidence needs to be based on generally-accepted truths.

I value debate where it’s clear that debaters have listened to one another closely and address arguments in a reasonable manner.

In awarding speaker points, I care most about clarity and speakers that use their own voice in an authentic, persuasive manner.

I’m a retired high school English teacher. I spent the last five years of my career teaching speech and debate in addition to AP English.

Hi my name is Matthew Gouyer, pronouns are he and him. I’m currently a college student but I was very involved in debate club, debate team, and speech & debate in high school.

I am looking for clear and concise language from the debaters. I am also looking for a narrative paired with contentions. In Parliamentary debate, I am valuing overall persuasiveness and that the debater is well informed in the topic. In forms of debate with evidence requirements, the sources need to be reputable. I am looking for debaters that take the oppositions view into account with respect, not malice. And that each side has listened to one other and addresses each contention respectfully. I award speaker points for those who use their own voice and are concise. Overgeneralizations are not persuasive in my book.

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

Hello! :D

I generally prefer logic and technicality, so make sure your arguments clearly flow from one to another (organization!). If space exploration leads to global warming, then explain step by step as to how they're linked. If you claim your opponent is abusive during a round, be clear what was abusive and explain.

Link and weigh impacts explicitly. Tell me what to cross off and highlight on my flow, and tell me why. You can point out voting issues or whatever, but please always elaborate.

My experience is mainly derived from LD, but I have knowledge of parliamentary debate as well.

Aff:

- Explicitly mention your impacts and frameworks - tell me why I should vote for you

- Road mapping is encouraged, helps with my flowing

- you can spew a sporadic of eloquently sounding words, but I will vote based on what I find sounds more logical in the end

Neg:

- You can read DAs, CPs, whatever - just make sure you have links to your arguments

General:

Please be respectful to your opponent, but aggressive clashing is always entertaining. If I pick up anything racist or homophobic, your speaker points won't look pretty.

Spreading is fine, but still try to articulate everything.

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

I have 1 year Congress debate experience from high school and have judged college debate last year.

I like thorough, structured arguments that are followed through. This means that I don't just want to see you blast through a bunch of warrants and move on. Please explain why what you're arguing matters, even if it's seemingly trivial and obvious.

If a point goes unaddressed, I will usually reward whoever brought it up, unless it's utterly irrelevant.

no longer active in debate

Heyo! please feel free to contact me at any time by email: madiejmorgan@gmail.com

IE: I am most comfortable in speech and have competed in DI and IMP. I do not care if you sit or stand (especially online) please feel free to time yourself. I am flowing while you speak and will most likely forget to give you signals.

Original or impromptu events (EXPOS, IMP, OI, etc.)

I vote on the structure. Make every point of your speech clear. Use links and please road map your main arguments. Show your personality in the speech through jokes, soft evidence, and your hook!

For interpretation events (DI, HI, DUO)

I vote on character. DI I vote on the arch from point A to point B. HI I vote on how you change between different characters throughout your piece. DUO I vote on the character arch shown with your partner and how you move together.

Please block and move around - the room is yours! I am fine with any profanity but, please NO derogatory terms.

Debate: I have done LD in the past but, it is not my strong suit. However, I am familiar with most debate formats! I do not care if you sit or stand (especially online) please feel free to time yourself. I am flowing while you speak and will most likely forget to give you signals.

I will vote based on the framework.

I like framework clash. If there is no mention of a framework I will just apply Utilitarianism or Patient-Centered Deontology (depending on the topic) since they apply best to policy debates in my opinion.

Tell me what to cross off and highlight on my flow, and please tell me why. Road mapping is preferred so I can keep track of your arguments.

Feel free to read DAs, CPs, Ks, or theory if you want but, please make it clear and have links to your arguments - no abuse.

Please be respectful to your opponent, clashing is always fun but, please keep it clean. If I pick up anything racist, homophobic, or sexist during any clash with your opponent, I will stop flowing and default the win.

Please be respectful, no hateful or discriminatory comments will be allowed.

Please state your pronouns.

Do not spew only facts but rather make sure to link with analysis and be detailed enough for one to follow you through your train of though and arguments.

Make sure to define your terms in the beginning.

POIs speak out loud, not in the chat.

I dont require cameras on but i prefer it if you can!

Give a few seconds before each speech to allow the judge to re-adjust timing.

I will give the winner (OPP or GOV) but not the rankings.

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

I have 4 years of experience in high school debate, mostly in the world schools style though also some BP, as well as a year of college BP experience. Racism, sexism, classism, and any such language will not be tolerated in this round and I expect you all to act respectfully. I also expect you to frame the debate within the spirit of the motion and to properly engage with the other team's arguments, as well as to weigh these. Take at least one POI per speech if you can.

I have done LD Debate for four years and BP Debate for one and tend to flow individual arguments and responses made to them. I expect debaters to be professional, so no personal insults, sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks, and please refrain from cursing.

Please do your best to signpost and have an order to your arguments. I prefer case debate over theory debate, but if theory is used it must be well-explained and relevant to the debate. I am alright with topicality arguments, just be sure to elaborate as to why you are making that argument. With that, I would prefer it if you did not spread (speak really fast). I do not like to see kritiks during round.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have some public forum experience, but not that much. Make sure you clearly tell me what your impacts are, otherwise i probably won't value your argument much even if you win on clash. Don't just vomit out a card, be sure to tell me WHAT the card means, what the logic is behind it, and how it links up with the rest of your argument.

PARLI:

I don't much parli judging experience but have judged LD and Public Forum for a few years. I'm pretty flow, so if new arguments are made in rebuttal i won't consider it. I can handle a bit of spreading as long as it's articulate. I want to hear arguments with clear WARRANTS AND IMPACTS. If you do not provide impacts I won't consider the argument valid. Meme cases are fine, if there is enough warranting. I love unique arguments. I value POIs relatively highly so if you provide a really fire one I'll be more inclined to vote for you. Tag-teaming is chill.

I am a lay judge. I prefer arguments that have solid logic to back up evidence. I would like you to speak clearly, and clearly outline the reasons why you win the debate.

Debate Background: 3 Years, BP/WSDC/Asian Parliamentary

Etiquette: Please respect your fellow debaters! You should not feel afraid to discuss the intricacies of important issues, but digressing into discriminatory or intolerant is absolutely unacceptable.

Delivery Preferences: Clarity is certainly preferred over speeding through points or spreading of any kind. You can deliver your arguments in a free-flowing/narrative style or use a more traditional thematic structure, but the hierarchy and flow of argumentation should be evident in your team's delivery.