Hello! My name is Akshaj and my pronouns are he/him. I have debated for about 6 years in a variety of debate formats. I like to see lots of reasoning and impacts in addition to your evidence. Do not just give evidence and assume that everyone understands the reasoning! Also, be sure to explain to me why your world wins OVER THE Opposition world if you are Government as you have the burden of proof. Make sure that you are providing lots of clash to the other team to create a better and more educational debate. Try not to make abusive definitions or frameworks as it doesn't make the debate fun or educational.

Hello!

My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).

Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.

Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.

Greetings! You have stumbled upon my very quickly thrown-together paradigm. I'm a former high school (mainly parli) and current APDA debater. Here are the highlights of what you might be interested to know about my debate preferences:

• If you speak quickly, I'll be able to follow you, but quality over quantity always
• If you give me a framework/metric/weighing mechanism, I will listen to you & judge based on that (if there are competing frameworks, tell me why yours is better or you win under both)
• If you weigh impacts in your rebuttal (or for PF summary/final speeches), you will make me very happy
• If you don't give me models/examples/very sound logic, I probably won't buy your argument
• If you speak for longer than your grace period, I stop flowing
• The more signposts the better!

Solid weighing, and put the words in my mouth assume I don't know how to think anything that isn't basic linking weight and impacting needs to be done for me to put it on my flow.

Hello! My name is David and my pronouns are he/him. I have been debating for about 3 years in a variety of debate formats. I like to see lots of reasoning and impacts in addition to your evidence. Do not just give evidence and assume that everyone understands the reasoning! Also, be sure to explain to me why your world wins OVER THE Opp world if you are Prop as you have the burden of proof. Make sure that you are providing lots of clash to the other team to create a better and more educational debate. Try not to make abusive definitions or frameworks as it doesn't make the debate fun or educational.

Unless I forgot to change this, you're reading this for the novice scrimmage. Don't worry about adapting to different paradigms for this debate, it's your first time and there's really no need. Just speak clearly, win on the flow (if you don't know what that means just respond to what your opponents say) and you'll do fine.

PS: I give speaks with a 25.5 being what the average speaker in that tournament ought to get. Your speaks will be around that distribution.

I think a few simple things can easily lose you a round, so I will caution people to avoid them but don't feel pressured by a paradigm to debate a certain way. I think paradigms only make people pander to judges rather than actually consider their style, but I'll still write a few for those who would like one. I am heavily experienced in parliamentary, presidential, and most extemporaneous debate, I can judge LD and PF but try to not box me out of the round with confusing metrics, sign posting is the first thing a judge considers.

- Do not spread, the point of debate is to be understandable by the public and a general layperson to judge an argument it should not a barking competition. Maintain a reasonable speed for anyone to understand, even if I'm a naturally fast speaker.

- I know how to flow tech terms but preferably don't run Kritiks, T-Shells, or any form of Theory for the sake of my sanity, if you need to please spell it out for me very clearly and don't linger on it for too long

- Please time yourself; I will also be timing, don't run too over time but I do allow a bit of grace

- I will run heavily on flow and speaks will vary based on quality of argumentation and speaking ability, the better speaker will not always win, however being a clear and intelligible speaker will make your arguments easier to follow and vote for

- Do not speak in absolutes, one of my biggest gripes is when someone spats on about uniqueness for 30 seconds and says "their entire case is absolutely disproven we win", what was the point of debating if your opponent just loses like that, try to keep your language to not sound so certain, "And because of x, y, and z we win this debate judge and urge you to vote for x" it's much better than saying "judge we win so you must vote for x" just a general gripe because often debaters who speak in absolutes strawman and only hit the surface level of arguments

- My scoring range for normal 30 point is pretty standard,

- 22: (extremely rare) awful and probably inappropriate

- 23: (rare) really bad, barely spoke

- 24: bad, not speaking for full time

- 25: average, not good but decent enough

- 26: good, nothing fantastic but good

- 27: I really enjoyed you as a debater, very good

- 28: (rare) fantastic, clear, well argued, and extremely efficient

- 29: (extremely rare) phenomenal, no real critiques and offered flawless argumentation and speaking ability

- 30: (never going to be given, but try and prove me wrong and earn it) felt like Churchill was in the round

Generally I just like a debate where each team gives their all, is civil, and acts human. Best of luck to anyone I judge and I hope this was helpful!

Extemporaneous Policy Debate

-I appreciate humor and I will laugh at your jokes

-Don't call your opponents racist (can't believe I have to say that )

-Clash is important and addressing your opponents refutations

-NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN YOUR LAST SPEECH (I will not flow new arguments)

-Don't be monotone

-You should ask at least 3 questions during cross ex

-In your rebuttal, tell me why you win and your opponents' arguments fall flat

-Please be civil, I do not tolerate overate aggression. There is a difference between being firm and being a rude

-Fill time in for cross ex, if you don't that's an automatic loss

-No abusive definitions

-If a question takes longer than 20 seconds to ask, you probably shouldn't ask it

-Please do not use parli jargon when debating

Parliamentary Debate

-Stress impacts

-Allow a POI once or twice

-Weigh

-Don't call your opponents racist

Public Forum Debate/Lincoln Douglass

-I do not tolerate anyone calling their opponents racist, if you do that, you will get substantially lower speaker scores

-Speak at a level of comprehension

-No spreading under any circumstance

-Do not be monotone

Now before we get into the specifics of my judging preferences, I'd like to say that my goal as judge is to emulate John Bercow, the former Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. So if, for example, you say something offensive, I may just stand up and yell 'ORDER' at you until you stop talking. So, for my sake and yours, let's try to avoid that.

With that out of the way, let's get into what exactly I accept or enjoy as a judge.

First, I will not accept, nor try to interpret, spreading or even speaking at an unreasonably quick rate. This activity is called "Speech and Debate" for a reason, and if your speech is so impossible to understand, I cannot vote for you.

On that note, if you use terminology that seems deliberately chosen to make a point more confusing for either myself or your opponents, I will also not consider that. For example, if you are debating first time debaters and use terms like "utilitarianism" or "deontology" when it feels obvious that your opponents will not get it, I will penalize you accordingly.

I do enjoy speakers that go out of their way to make their speeches more enjoyable, however. If you make your speech funny, witty, or do something out of the ordinary that adds to your speech, I will reward you with more points.

Finally, remember this is an activity with relatively little bearing on your life. Please do not approach this as the make-or-break opportunity for your success. Have fun, be civil with your opponents, and have a great time!

P.S.

If you can make an effective cap k, I might just give you the win because it's funny :)

Debate good and you will get more speaker points. Debate bad and you might get less.

If you mention my paradigm that's metagaming and you will autolose with a maximum speaker score of 24

I've competed in Parli, BP, and World Schools debating through 4 years of HS, and currently compete in the American/British parliamentary circuits for Johns Hopkins University.

1. Try to refrain from theory, if you do please explain it in extremely lay terms.
2. Do signpost, or at least flag each independent argument; would be a lot easier to flow. I am also open to off-time roadmaps.
3. Be very explicit with weighing. I will drop arguments that are not brought up in PMR/LOR, the best weighing I've seen will guide a judge through the RFD and explain why they take the ballot.
4. Well-warranted arguments will be regarded highly in the round. Explain why "x impact" is likely to happen through various mechanisms/reasons.
5. Evidence can be good, but will almost never be the sole reason as to why a team wins. Use evidence to prove why "x leads to y, which causes a,b,c impacts to occur," don't just stop at "this is bad because there's historical precedent" and name the specific court case you're referring to. I honestly don't care about your extensive trivia knowledge if I can't see its relevance in the round.
6. I can flow speed (parli speed) reasonably well
7. Do not try to win based on "rhetoric" and "style points," it won't work

For more specific/individualized feedback feel free to email at jwu209@jh.edu