Hi!

Some quick context: I did public forum debate in high school and was the PF Captain for a year as well. I know what's going on in a round but judge in a "lay style" with no thorough notes.

When the round starts approaching final focus, please narrow things down and make it clear for me. Lay out both worlds and pick your top arguments. I always tell people, make the decision simple and obvious for the judge.

Excited to watch you debate :)

This is my first year judging PF; however, this is my 3rd year in Speech and 6th year in Model United Nations. Thus, I value a concise and clear line or reasoning.

Generally speaking, I will vote for any kind of argument. Do not speak too fast that I cannot flow, also do not use lingo.

I will award speakers with higher points to those who make an effort in presenting. For example, eye contact and slowing down. However, I will not award a speaker that is all emotion and no logic.

Lastly, please be respectful to me and the other speakers. I will not deal with screaming, eye rolling, or blatantly rude comments.

First year college student. Little debate experience. I value presentation and having logical arguments. If there is a problem with evidence, say it in your speech.

I'd prefer to be on the email chain. My email is alexanderhan353@gmail.com and I'd prefer if cases were sent right before the constructive since sometimes debaters can go too fast for me.

Have fun and be respectful.

Lani Hollingsworth | UC Berkeley '24

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me @lanih444@gmail.com.

General Preferences:

Any speed for speaking is suitable so go at your own pace, but make sure that your opponent and I can understand your arguments. Theories will be taken into consideration, however they should be fairly straightforward. I prefer if you signpost your arguments as it makes it easier for me to follow, but it is not required.

A winning debater will clearly state their win condition and thoroughly explain why they have met it with sufficient evidence and detail.

Any disrespectful or inappropriate comments towards myself or an opponent will result in the deduction of speaker points or loss of round.

Hi

About me: I'm Rachel Huang, I was a high school speech competitor, and now a college student. I am not very familiar with the format of Debate. I will accept all sides of the topic, and try my best to be fair and objective. I will prevent my background knowledge from influencing my vote. I am not religious. Current events are not my strong suit.

Style: Being clear about your topic and argument is very important. The way you are presenting your argument may affect my judgment. It is important to let me understand what you are talking about, pace yourself accordingly. Please use presentable language, and BE RESPECTFUL to your opponent.

Rate: I focus more on the way you are presenting your side and the evidence you use to make your side stronger. I would like to see your passion for your topic. The quality of your argument is more important than the quantity.

Note-taking: If I look down or loos distracted, then I'm taking notes on your performance to help with my judgment.

It's okay to be nervous and you got this:) Have fun!

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

Kimberly Kim

St. Margaret’s Episcopal School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

This is my first time judging public forum. In the past, I have judged Lincoln Douglas and parliamentary debate under an alternative league. My main occupation is high school English teacher.

Speed of Delivery: I am not a fan of speaking too quickly and disregard anything as unsaid that I cannot discern because it came out faster than any attentive listener can follow.

I value argument over style, although style does matter.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? No

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

I'm Jennifer Lee, an undergraduate student at UCLA.

• I am not religious. I am updated on current events.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to the truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents' main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• I will dramatically lower speaker points for excessive interrupting, stealing prep (doesn't include tech issues but does include asking "Is anyone not good" approximately seventeen times), and general disrespect to your opponent. Let's be nice!!!

• "Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out — i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact [unless a debater makes clear that they do not want the round to continue]. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is, is entirely up to me." — adapted from Truf

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. Feel free to ask any more specific questions before the round.

I am currently a student at Harvard College. I dabbled in debate while in high school (if it matters to you, I debated under University Irvine Independent or University High School, Irvine Gupta & Moudgalya).

I would certainly not consider myself an incredibly technical judge. To that end, however, I will do my best to flow the debate; you'll give your side of the debate the greatest presence on my flow if I can write down everything and hence, I recommend speaking either slow or only moderately quick. You win my ballot if you can: 1) explain your arguments clearly and with strong evidence and warrants and 2) explain why your opponents arguments are wrong and explain why your arguments matter more than your opponents arguments. I am very expressive – if I agree with what is being said, I will likely be nodding along and if I am confused, I'll likely express my confusion.

In regards to weighing, I think that weighing is an incredibly important aspect of debate. However, simply throwing around buzzwords like 'magnitude', or 'risk of offense' will not carry you far in the debate. Weighing is best delivered when it is early, warranted, reasonable, and contextualized.

Since I am a few years removed from the activity, I am unsure about what the 'meta' of the activity is; when I left, theory was starting to gain steam and paraphrasing was commonly frowned upon. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and hence, I do not have any preconceptions about rules or norms in debate. Apart from an argument (and of course, behavior) that is discriminatory or hateful, I am open to hearing any argument, provided it is clearly explained and well warranted.

Lastly, I love snark/sass but hate disrespect. The line is incredibly fine. Be careful, respectful, and most of all, have fun. Debate is not worth it otherwise! You are welcome to post-round me (respectfully); I view my job as a judge to adjudicate debate to the best of my ability and to that end, I don't mind questions.

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

I am an experienced parent judge.

Public Forum:

1. Clear speaking that is not too fast.

2. Evidence is clearly explained to support your arguments and don't forget to highlight your impacts.

3. Incrementally advancing your idea, while invalidating/outweighing opponents ideas.

4. A good cross examination is key.

5. The deciding factor for me is the cross examination, wrapping up with a clear explanation on why you outweigh your opponent.

6. I flow the arguments and I'm listening carefully, so if you drop an arguments, I will know :) In other words, check your flow before saying your opponent dropped something.

7. Come prepared!

8. Speak assertively, but don't yell :)

Have fun!

I competed for 4 years, primarily in PF and a bit of policy. When it comes to Public Forum I don't want you to just read evidence at me, stop trying to make PF policy! Explain your evidence and warrants, give good analysis. Also I really enjoy Framework debates, if you're going to read framework carry it through the entire round. Care about FW arguments because thats how i'm going to end up voting if i'm not given an alternative FW. Make sure there is actual clash, dont just tell me why your positions are important.

Since im fairly new to CX I dont have a ton of preferences, just dont expect me to understand super high theory off the bat, and if you do run it, make sure to explain it really well. Other than that just do your thing and be kind to each other. I am generally a laid back person, however i have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to being purposefully cruel or bigoted to your opponents or otherwise. Lets have fun and learn from each other, thats what this is all about.

I am a parent judge with limited judging experiences.

I have only judged Parli debates so far.

It's gonna help me understand your flow and reasoning with the following tips:

- Please speak at conversational pace, don't rush; especially on the key points and evidence;
I can only judge based on how much I understand, not on how much you speak

- I will try to track the flow, but when your rival's point or argument is critical to your argument, please repeat them and make it explicit

Peninsula '20, UC Berkeley '25 | Ailun (pronounced Allen)

email: ailunshi@berkeley.edu

Background

I have 4 years of speech experience and 1 year of PF experience, and I know a bit about the other debate formats. Bear in mind the brunt of my debate experience was freshman year of high school, so it has been a while.

Judging Preferences

1. Keep jargon to a minimum. I believe debate should be for the many rather than a few. Whatever contentions and rebuttals you bring up should be easily understandable regardless of whether I have debate experience or am a lay judge.

2. Keep spreading to a minimum. I'll understand you and keep up if you talk fast, but if you're gasping and spitting everywhere, you're going too far. I also value quality of speech over quantity, so your speed should not come as a detriment to your eloquence. Additionally, I expect you to slow down if your opponents ask you to.

3. Be clear with your framework. I enjoy framework arguments, if you choose to take it that way. Make sure you refer back to the framework, especially toward the closing of the debate. If only one team offers a framework, that will be the basis by which I judge the round. If there are opposing frameworks, I expect that you address your opponent's framework. If neither team offers criteria, I will default to net benefits.

4. Concise arguments. I'm not a fan of long, circuitous arguments that seek to jump through several hoops to make a singular point. If it takes you that long to prove something, then it's not a good argument and likely moot, and I will be more skeptical of your claims. Your goal is to convince me of your argument, not lead me on a wild goose chase with a slippery slope fallacy. Keep in mind that long, circuitous arguments are not the same thing as using all the time and words you need to fully explain a point and its impacts.

5. Explain why it's important. Not all contentions are equal. Explain to me why your contention is important and how it relates to the issue at hand. Same thing for rebuttals. Convince me that your opponent's contention is problematic or wrong. Similarly, if you argue that a point is not relevant, whether it be during rebuttals or cross-ex, make sure you explain why it's not relevant. All claims should have a basis.

6. I value common sense. Debates should be realistic. Don't bring up nonsensical points that don't have a real world basis and evidence in hopes that your opponents will drop the point. For example, if you tell me fish can fly as one of your contentions and your opponent does not address it, I still won't vote the contention in your favor (see 5). That said, any points that can be backed up with evidence and statistics should be.

Other Notes:

Off time roadmaps and signposts. I'll flow along, but if you give me an outline and also tell me where you are, I can make sure I'm keeping up with you and getting everything down in the right places.

Dropping arguments. Try to avoid dropping arguments, as it means you've conceded the point (unless it relates to 6).

Evidence. Miscommunication can happen, but don't distort evidence or distort your opponent's arguments. If you believe this has occurred, make sure you bring it up in your speech, and I will judge accordingly.

Self Time. Go ahead and self time. You can finish your sentence if you're out of time, but anything after that I will drop.

Topicality. I like topicality arguments as well, but make sure you include a counter interp.

Be respectful. This really shouldn't need to be said, but I've seen this all too often on the debate stage and in speech and debate overall. I won't take kindly to constant interruptions and talking over your contestants. There shouldn't be any personal attacks, towards either me or your opponents, whether it be blatant verbal/physical attacks or more minor offenses such as belittling.

Hey everyone!

I'm a parent ("lay") judge based in Tennessee.

I would prefer if all competitors within the round kept their own time both in speeches and prep time.

Good luck to all!

I'm Angeline Sutandinata, a junior at Peninsula High School. This is my third year in Speech and I have the most experience in interpretation events.

I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team debated better, not which team is closer to the truth. I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches, be sure to summarize the main points of your argument and why that outweighs your opponents' main points/argument. Completely new arguments cannot be brought up in rebuttals, both sides need a chance to develop an argument in speeches beforehand. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them. Treat each other with respect, have fun, and good luck!

In High school I competed in JV Public Forum and Varsity Lincoln Douglas debate, I also competed in congress on occasion. On the speech side I competed in high school HI, Duo, Info, DI, and Poe.

On a collegiate level I competed in Parli, Info, Persuade, Duo, Poetry, POI, Extemp, and Impromptu.

I appreciate competitors who are kind and supportive of one another, we are all here to learn, so lift one another up, we can be nice and competitive, its possible!

In debate the most important thing for me is organization, flow your own case, don't drop arguments, bring up new warrants throughout to strengthen your case, and give us a roadmap or signpost. Don't tell me to drop one of your opponents arguments without adequate warrants. If you have card make sure you properly cite it.

For speech I expect you to be in time and to connect with your audience as much as possible. In interp I don't want to see black books being used as props, make each character distinct, and remember your sight-lines. LP's I expect souce citation and a well organized speech structure with compelling argumentation, don't rely on your notecard too much. PA engage your audience, don't overdue it with gestures, and remember your sight-lines.

Overall in forensics I want to see every competitor respect each other, learn something new, and have fun!

Hello,

I am new to Speech and Debate, and I like to hear good arguments that are respectful and intelligent. I speak English and Espanol.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

I am a new parent judge so please remember to speak slowly and clearly. Remember to weigh and clearly state your impacts. It would be appreciated if you do not use too many technical terms. Lastly, Have strong reliable evidence to support your claim. Most importantly, be respectful and have fun.