General: Debate is a game that is played for the purpose of winning, but it may also be a game with very personal elements. So, in the round, remember to be respectful and inclusive. Tell me the weighing mechanism to employ when deciding who should win, dispute which weighing mechanism is superior, and explain why you win using that weighing mechanism. It's also always better to have more structure and signposting. Unless otherwise instructed, I evaluate the round using the technical components of the flow.

Theory: I can handle anything. I prefer it when it's utilized to really check for abuse in the round rather than just as a time waste, but I'll vote on it regardless. I'm not a fan of the debate around standards vs. voters.

Speed / Speaker Points: I don't mind if you speak quickly, but be clear and use great word economy. Don't use your speed to exclude other teams from the debate; it will cost you speaker points, and I am open to theoretical and critical arguments against it. Otherwise, go at your own pace. Instead of persuasiveness, speaker points are granted based on the quality and competitiveness of the arguments presented.

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

Hi, I'm Amit and I'm a lay judge. I like to see debaters be respectful and have a clear collapse. Enjoy debate!

• Low judging experience
• I look for the candidate to be knowledgable in what they say, please know what you're saying and support it with logical evidence and reasoning. Do your due diligence on the topic during prep.
• I also look for your articulation and communication - concision is key.
• Show me that you're listening to your opponents; refute their points but also acknowledge them.
• Brownie points for members who acknowledge facts from the opponents and keep an open mind while still arguing their own points. Keep in mind that the point of debate is to be educational - so actually listen to what your opponents say and be open-minded.
• POIs are useful WHEN used properly. 2 POIs per round are okay(less than 30 secs each), but please don't be intrusive.
• Good luck! Stay calm, you got this :)

I am a parent judge and have only judged a few prior debate tournaments. I value well-reasoned logic more than the presentation style, although both count. Speaking slow will help me follow your arguments. Correspondingly, speaking too fast could be to your detriment. I expect the debaters to stitch together their rationale and not leave it to me to connect the points. Roadmaps are helpful. None of the debates I judged used theory, so I'm unfamiliar with it.