Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3

I am the head coach at a high school in the Bay Area California. I am a competent judge, but you will take my word for it because I have not had the time to write a proper paradigm. Vote for me!

I'm a first time lay judge, I have not judged any rounds before.

LD:

Make sure to thoroughly explain all your cards and warrants to make it easier to understand. Make sure to impact and explain the importance of those cards as well. I will be expecting you to time yourself during rounds.

Do not spread, I will not be able to catch what you're saying. Make sure you speak slower and enunciate. Always signpost so I know where you are on the flow, and clearly state the taglines and the card names.

Good luck!

Hi,

I want the kids to speak clearly while presenting their cases. Looking forward to the debates!

I'm a lay judge and this is my second time judging.

Please speak clearly and talk slower if possible. I appreciate logic and supporting facts in your speech.

Good luck to you all and enjoy!

Background:

* Parent of a debater (i.e., non-technical)

* Did LD, Extemp, Policy, Parliamentary, Improv Comedy with minor in Theater in HS/college.

* Youth sports coach for baseball, basketball and soccer.

* PhD in Finance.

* Present at conferences about 2x a year.

Guiding Principle: The purpose of speech and debate is to develop useful life skills of critical thinking and effective presentation. Competition is fun, and provides real-world pressure for self-advocacy. I try to judge in a manner that promotes useful life skills (not debate-specific skills).

Notable, subtle differences from other judges:

* Jury instructions (not blank slate): Jurors are instructed to have an open mind and should not independently research the subject--because their personal feelings and research cannot be debated or corrected--but jurors should use their common sense and common knowledge in evaluating testimony and evidence. This is similar to, but not the same as, a "blank slate" of pretending you know nothing. I will not bring any prior opinions of topics into each debate, but will retain my common sense and common knowledge. Please make good, common-sense arguments that would persuade a reasonable person.

* Focus on arguments, not dropped points. Time management is an important skill, and fairness demands that debaters cannot make new arguments late in the round when their opponent has insufficient time to respond. But in boardroom and political debates there is no concept of a "dropped" argument that automatically wins no matter how silly or irrelevant, especially if the "dropped" argument is really just a variation of other arguments already discussed. I will not allow new arguments late in the debate (that's not fair) but I will allow anything that was said earlier in the debate to be cross-applied to supposedly dropped arguments. Please explain why the arguments you are winning or were supposedly dropped matter, and how they fit in the overall debate.

* Evidence matters. Truth matters. I will ask to see important cards.

I admire you for competing. It takes guts. Keep it up.

Background

I run the quality department in a tech company in silicon valley. I judge for Dougherty Valley High School and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Public Forum. I am knowledgeable on the topics for the tournament and take notes during the debate.

Speaker Points

a) Be polite and respectful to your opponents. I will not allow any behavior considered rude or unfair.

b) Speak clearly so that I can process your arguments.

c) Construct a good flow of your arguments (please do off-time road maps) and make sure that your arguments are consistent with your partner's.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and make my decision based on the above criterion. I care about which team is able to persuade me with their arguments. Be confident and make eye contact when you speak. If you read off from your script, then you will not get my vote.

Other

a) Clothing/Appearance: I don't care much as long as you do respect the tournament dress code.

b) Use of evidence: Very important. Make sure that your arguments have reliable evidence to back up your claims.

c) Real-world impacts: You need to convince me why I should care.

d) Cross-examination: Don't fail to show respect to your opponent and ask relevant questions.

e) Debate skill over truthful arguments: Truthful arguments are prioritized; however, they will be highly valued when combined with the skill.

Hi, this is Ayesha Iqbal. I'm a parent judge and am excited and looking forward to being a judge. I have a little experience in judging, as I have been at multiple different tournaments over the past few years. I will be looking for kids who are persuasive with their content and delivery. And not rushing or speaking too fast, as it will help me to understand and judge better.

I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.

Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria

- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).

- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.

- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.

- Quality always trumps quantity.

- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.

- Clarity over speed

- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.

- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.

- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .

- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.

- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds

Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.

Hey there, I’m a former 7 year competitor at the high school and university levels from John Swett HS, Diablo Valley College, and Sacramento State. I am a former national champion in Extemporaneous Speaking at the university level, and have a strong background of LD, Parli, IPDA, Imp, and a functioning knowledge of everything else.

In the debate realm, I allow all theory arguments to be made, however you will have to show me how your shell is tied into the current resolution very clearly if you want to win. I don’t want to hear a Capitalism or Climate Catastrophe K when you don’t actually know how it ties into the res, it’s vague and your opponent has an automatic leg up if you don’t do that work. One thing to keep in mind, is that I will almost never vote on a criterion of "morality". Everyone in the world has their own subjective morality, and for you to impart your own as a voting issue is not convincing. Of course, if your opponent is being clearly racist or something like that, call it out and we'll deal with it, but I would refrain from using it as a voting issue. I can keep up with moderately fast spreading, but i may ask you to slow down. If i do, please do so, I’m a kindergarten teacher now and my spreading ears are a bit rusty, haha. For the 2AR, 1NR, PMR, and all applicable ending speeches, I love collapse and am well persuaded by a snipe shot of 1 or 2 voting issues rather than a shotgun approach, but I am particularly hawkish on dropped arguments, especially if your opponent puts significant work into them. Do your best to link it into your turns or inherency at the end without breaking the new argument rules. Use cross-X wisely, I don’t respond well to sarcasm or arrogance in cross, be respectful and ask relevant questions. I’m not afraid to give out under 25 speaks if you’re going to act out of turn. In general, be clear, concise, and respectful.

In the speech realm, much less to go over. In LP I’ll give 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 30 second, and countdown from 10 seconds hand signals. If you need to time yourself, please ask me first. I like short intros and conclusions, your time should be spent in the main points, and the more relevant sources, the better.

Please remember to have fun. This is an incredible activity, and I’m not handling out college scholarships. Do your best, I’ll give you relevant feedback, and we’ll all hopefully have a great time.

Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.

I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.

This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.

Experience

So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.

Judging Style

So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.

In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.

I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.

Spread

So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.

Kritques

So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.

Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...

(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 1 year. Definitely a lay judge.

I will be judging based on the abilty to convince me. The round will automatically be won based on substance. (debate).

I'm tech>truth.

I like clash and people explaining why they deserve my ballot.

Impact calc is very important. The link has to be crystal clear, no shakey links.

Framework debates are good, because then I know what to vote for.

I'lll buy any arg that makes sense.

I want to see unique args that set you apart.

I'm not gonna understand theory or k's so dont run them.

*Speaks*

Impress me by looking confident and speaking clearly in a way that is understandable.

27.5 speaks is default

29 is a good round

30 is outstanding.

Despite that good luck, I look forward to judging you.

Here is some more info about how you win my ballot. here

I am a second year judge. I will judge off the flow, your delivery, logic, refutation merit, and overall cohesiveness. I appreciate unique and creative arguments. Please do not be aggressive and try to speak slowly. Good luck!

I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.

My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.

Learn from each other and have fun.

1. I have judged speech tournaments since 3 years
2. Please be clear and concise in your speech. Avoid using jargon or technical language. Explain clearly what certain abbreviations mean.
   
3. Things I will be looking for:

• Is the flow of your speech easy to understand.
• Focused (has a purpose)
• Structured (clear beginning, middle, and end)
• Engaging (gets audience attention and drives them to a purpose)
• Supported with relevant examples, facts, etc.
  
  I will take personal notes during the round and try to jot down key points/ statement. For Interp, follow the rules of blocking/ no touching and not going over your time limit, you only have 30sec grace after which you cannot be can you cannot be ranked the best in the round
  
  

All the best and do well!

Hello!

My name is Jen Plitt. I have been working in public and private health care as a Registered Nurse for the last 26 years in various specialties from Emergency to Maternal-Child Health. I am a lifelong learner, and in 2020 I graduated with Honors, with a Master's Degree in Nursing Education. I have always loved to hear the sharing of ideas.

Best of luck in your discussions, ladies and gentlemen!

LAY JUDGE

Just a few things to keep in mind:

* Please talk at a conversational/lecture speed (if you spread I will not understand you).

* Explain abbreviations.

* Be respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

hi! i'm a pf debater at college prep, competing in varsity for 2 years and was a finalist in the toc.

- be respectful!

- i'm a flow judge and value tech over truth in the round, so i enjoy creative arguments, but i am not comfortable with voting on theory and k's

- collapse! i don't want to hear all of your arguments squeezed into your 2 minute final focus, so collapse on the most important arguments in the round and tell me how you evaluated what was most important. also, no new arguments in final focus

- WEIGH! weigh on the link and impact level, telling me why your arguments matter and why i should vote off of them

- extend links and impacts, not just card names

- i listen to cross, but if you want me to vote off of anything said, bring it up in your speech

lastly, have fun and ask me any questions if you need further clarification :)

How I approach judging a debate round is mostly on how well someone delivers their position. It is noticeable when a presenter invested time in research by citing multiple sources and being ready and able to answer their opponent's questions or to counter points. Speaking with clarity and regular speed is helpful to capture all the points.