I am a parent judge, I evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

email chains: aadit.agrahara@gmail.com

A little about me:

I debated pf in high school qualifying to the TOC 2x.

I currently am a policy debater at MSU.

I think that debate is a game and that debaters should control the direction of the activity.

In short you as the debater will shape my paradigm. In other words, move me and i shall be moved.-might have to trademark this.

However here are somethings to make my judging experience and your round as enjoyable as possible.(these are things that you must do irrespective of what you read)

1. Everything you do in debate must be backed with a warrant
2. Sign post and interact with the line by line. Frontlining, back lining, etc.
3. Give me solid weighing arguments. I think weighing is underrated and really good comparative analysis often elevates debates.
4. Give clear link extensions.
5. Don't assume im familiar with lit. K or policy explain the warrants of your author dont leave me to figure it out by myself. You should be able to explain the argument without using the words of the author. Judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are important.
6. Reading cards is half the battle, telling how this ev interacts with an argument is what matters.
7. Cross is never that serious R E L A X.

I hate it when judges arbitrarily give me speaks so im going to be very nice and give y'all good speaks unless y'all make me do otherwise

[Paradigm updated for Lewis]

Hello there! I am a student judge from Palo Alto High School. Currently competing in PF, also did one year of LD.

General Stuff:

I flow, so I will take note of dropped/extended arguments and will greatly appreciate it if you signpost your points clearly, i.e. let me know what contention you're talking about or responding to. If you don't it just makes it harder for me to follow you and less likely I will flow your arguments.

I understand debate-specific terms like framework, fiat, solvency, etc. However, you are not off the hook in terms of clearly explaining what you mean and substantiating your points when you make an argument or a rebuttal. i.e. don't just say "they're wrong because fiat" and assume I'll get it. My capacity to not understand things knows no bounds.

Please don't spread or use excessive speed because I'm not going flow arguments I don't understand. If you're not sure, default to going slower.

After time runs out, please finish up. Take up to ten seconds to finish your thought and end the speech. I will not flow individual points that begin after time ends. I will not intervene unless you just keep on going and its clear you haven't realized the speech ended.

I generally don't flow crossfire/cross-ex. It is useful to me as a tool for gauging speaking ability and preparedness, and it is useful to you as a space for clarification and setting up a springboard for your arguments. So, to sum: If something is brought up only in crossfire then dropped in speech I will consider it dropped, but if you set up your argument with a concession and leverage it later, I will note that when evaluating your arguments. Overall rule of thumb: concessions in crossfire are only helpful if you bring them up in regular speeches.

Evidence and logical reasoning are both excellent. If you have solid evidence or solid logical reasoning that is enough to substantiate your argument or rebuttal. In my eyes, both are not necessary. Trying to drop an opponent's argument by saying it has no cards when it is clearly logically warranted is not effective.

I try not to let my personal background knowledge interfere (tabula rasa). If something obviously false is brought up, but you do not rebut it, I will consider it true. So, the falsehood will be considered true for the purpose of the flow and decision, but it will lead to speaker point penalties and I will let you know in the RFD that it was false and whether or not the round would have gone the other way if it was rebutted. I hesitate to say "tech > truth" because truth will impact speaks and I definitely am a big fan of truth, but for the purposes of the round consider me tech > truth.

I am not a big fan of T or K in general. Even if you are trying to make a legitimate point about debate, prog stuff too often devolves into a method for churning out wins. Since I can't judge if you are being sincere or just trying to farm for your college apps, I probably won't consider prog at all unless you do a really good job and shell something unique. If you're not sure if its unique enough, default to not running it. If you think your opponent's T or K is abusive or otherwise useless and merits no further discussion, just say so. If I agree with you I will consider this terminal defense. Also, feel free to toss a voter issue about taking time away from actual educational debate into your last couple speeches. Chances are I will agree with you and it helps bolster your voters when it comes to decision time!

If you really care about the point you want to make with your shell, bring it up after the round in an earnest and gracious manner. People are more likely to change their behavior if you engage with them in an actual discussion instead of forcing it into the debate, in which case they are incentivized to resist you.

Evidence prefs:

Just follow default practices and whatever the tournament specifies. Mention author and year when you present evidence in case. However, if you're discussing this evidence in later speeches, make sure to remind us what the evidence is in relation to. i.e. don't just say "this is false because of Author 2020," say "refer back to my Author 2020 evidence which we brought up in [speech name] that tells you [what the evidence tells me], and because I want to strengthen my rebuttal here are further logical reasons why this argument is false."

If your opponent calls for cards let me know when they are provided so I can keep track of time. I prefer shared documents to email chains because they're more convenient and keep things speedy, but its up to you and your opponent. Chat is a last resort for quick things.

My email for docs / chains is: kabirbhatia04@gmail.com . Feel free to email me after the round or tournament is over for any questions, and I will do my best to answer!

Speaker Points: (if no speaker points read anyway for my speaking preferences)

To get good speaker points, just be confident, know the topic well, be organized and prepared, and don't be overly aggressive during cross or otherwise. Being assertive is good, but not if your assertiveness gets in the way of full and complete answers. Racism, sexism, et cetera will be an instant loss and minimum speaks.

For a speaks bonus: Let me know you read my paradigm either before or after the round by using the very specific secret code phrase: "NSDA Campus do be somewhat of a dank meme doe am I right my homies hubba hubba." You must say all of these specific words in this specific order with proper pronunciation. I will grant you a bonus depending on your inflection and how enthusiastic you are, probably about .2 to .3 points. I will cut this bonus in half if you laugh, so try to keep a straight face. a joke this is not

Not counting the bonus, here is the approximate scale for speaker points (scaled to the event - I'm not going to judge novice on the same scale as varsity):

29.5 - 30 - Literally no faults

29 - 29.5 - Excellent

28.5 - 29 - Very good

28 - 28.5 - Good

27.5 - 28 - Decent

27 - 27.5 - Ok

26.5 - 27 - Some pervasive issues

25 - 26.5 - You done goofed up real bad somehow

PF prefs:

I like it when people weigh impacts under frameworks or do two-world comparisons in summary and final focus. It really helps me simplify my decision. If nobody does this I end up having to make personal judgement calls about individual arguments and impacts, and nobody likes that.

Make sure you respond to both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal. First rebuttals need not defend their own points because they haven't been rebutted yet, but if you have time it's good practice, refreshes the arguments in my mind, and helps reinforce your narrative.

I don't require you to extend your entire point in order to flow it. If, in summary, you frontline defense, then I will flow your points across. Focus mostly on the warrants, links, and clash. You don't need to spend 30 seconds rehashing your impacts. However, definitely mention your impacts and weigh them.

LD prefs:

It's been a while since I've done LD, so make sure your off-time roadmaps / signposting are as clear as possible. Be sure to collapse/crystallize and impact weigh in later speeches to make my job easier. Always remember the goal of LD is to debate broad values and morals through the specific topic, so tie your arguments back to this! I am unfamiliar with the rules around counterplans, advocacies, etc., so tread carefully here.

Other debate form prefs:

I have less experience with non LD/PF. Giving background on the speeches, times, and roles of each speech would help. I'm familiar with the stock issues in Policy but for other forms I'll probably end up evaluating the round like LD/PF on impact weighing unless you specifically suggest otherwise in your speeches.

A final note:

I will try to disclose if you and your opponent both want it and the tournament allows me to, since I think feedback is important. However, an important note:

A focus on winning leads to abusive debate and not-fun rounds. Remember that the purpose of debate is to learn, to grow, and to compete in healthy, fun competition. Good luck and have fun in round!

keep those chill vibes going

I am a former varsity PF debater and Impromptu speaker. I also won the Big Questions Tournament 2022 (as my teammates requested I put in here). I use she/her pronouns. I don't really care about formality (clothes, shoes, setup, whatever, although don't be ridiculous for both our sakes). If you have tech issues, let me know and we can figure it out. Call me dude if you want to, I'll find it fun.

I won't dispute unless you tell me to, be nice, don't make me intervene. I'm fairly flow but I'm also literally a high schooler. Speed is fine, but please organize and signpost well. Have good evidence. Don't be rude. Tech over truth. Theory/K is fine, but needs to be explained thoroughly. Make puns.

I don't have all that much experience in anything other than PF but I have a pretty good gist of the other events.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily in PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

Hey all, I graduated from Mountain View High School in 2022 and octafinaled at silver TOC in PF

ask me for my email when making the email chain please

treat me like a techy flay

---if you're new to debate, read this:

I really like arguments that have clear warranting (why something happens / is true, not just stating that it is true even if it's from a card [unless it's a statistic about the status quo, like something being at some percent]) and I really like when you use magnitude / timeframe / probability to compare your case with your opponents. good luck and have fun!

---otherwise, general:

speed is fine just don't go Grand Prix on me, bring up important things from cx in speeches for me to flow it, I will almost always give an oral rfd so don't leave right when the round ends, wear whatever you want, off-time roadmaps are fine just make them quick, I will only write a few broad takeaways in the specific feedback sections for each team but if you want more feedback just ask me

---tech specific:

tech > truth unless your case is wildly squirrelly, if you do have a weird case there should be good warranting & I'll look at you funny & I'll be susceptible to probability weighing from your opponents but I'll rely on your opponents to call out your wack argument, pls signpost, pls extend, when extending arguments extend uniqueness/warrant/impact/implication/really key cards not just taglines, 2nd rebuttal must frontline, dropped defense is probably terminal and dropped turns probably conceded but your opponents have to a) bring that up and b) properly weigh it, no sticky defense, collapse in summary, numbers are awesome but I can go for any well-explained and well-weighed impact, implicate impacts/responses on opponent's case, when explaining link/impact turns b sure to explain why I should prefer the turn over the opponent's case, weighing is so awesome please do it ideally starting in summary, starting weighing in 2nd FF is too late, be comparative when you weigh, anything in final focus should be in summary, please please please have solid internal links into your impact / have a solid impact scenario, if i don't think either team has offense at the end of the round I intervene and do my own analysis probably on the narrative clash, card with warranting > no card with warranting > card without warranting > no card with no warranting

---

On another note, I would not recommend running progressive debate with me. In my experience, it makes debate less accessible to casual debaters as smaller/newer teams don't know how to respond, it makes opponents feel terrible for arguing against it, and it diverts attention away from learning about the (mostly) cool topics we get to explore in debate. That being said, I understand that sometimes topics aren't the best, so if you really have a strong desire to run theory/K's/etc and have a really good reason to, I will evaluate it. Just keep in mind I will be very lenient to your opponents if it is clear they have no idea what is happening and I will be easily persuaded by a substance > theory counter argument (especially if your opponents run no RVIs).

---speaks: definitions will scale with tournament, general case:

30: you're crazy, what kind of milk are you drinking

29.5: delivery very well done: inflection of voice, signposting, slowing on on key facts and when moving to a new side of the case, etc. overall very easy to follow and understand, the structure is clear and consistent

29: delivery pretty clean, few filler words or gaps in speech, appropriate tactical plays made, posts are being signed

28.5: understand well the role that each speech plays in the round, do well at fulfilling that role as well as setting up later speeches

28: you definitely get the gist of the purpose of each speech

27.5: you understand well how debate works and the purpose of each speech

27: catch-all score for some areas of improvement

-- ONLY VALID IF I AM THE ONLY JUDGE PRESENT --

+.1 speaks if you end both your speeches with "Badabap boomp, POW" instead of "Vote Aff/Neg"

+.2 speaks if you refer to your partner as "Scoob" instead of "my partner" and your partner refers to you as "Shaggy" for the duration of the round. To be clear, one of you should be Scoob and one of you should be Shaggy

+.1 speaks if you have a conversation with your opponents before the round starts about how their day is going / an interesting fact about them / what they do for fun aside from debate (cuz we're all here for fun and debate is so fun...right?...)

+.1 speaks if you include "bingo bango bongo" in your speech in a way that makes sense

I'm a parent judge from last year.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

tldr :

he/him

first year out

read whatever

i love impact turn debates

tab

idk the topic

must frontline in second rebuttal

collapse pls

I like theory debate that is well thought out. Ill vote off anything, but I will be mad if you dont know what you are doing or are doing it really badly.

longer:

did pf for 4 years and world schools at nats, did alright

I debated pf pretty technically ig, lots of soft left affs. theory quite a bit as well and a few sec ks

understand the k, but go slower in later speeches to make sure i am flowing every extension necessary for u to win the round.

if its psychoanalysis or a complicated high theory argument, know that I am not familiar with the lit base, and explain the jargon being used or make it clear what it means in context of the theory

if ur gonna spread, be clear, I am not j reading off a speech doc

u have 2 mins to put a card on a preshared round doc (unless both teams want email chain only) and in this time neither team should be prepping

i hope all those anonymous accounts on the round doc are not being sus

i will disclose obv

do not just read arguments you don't understand copied from someone else

I generally disclosed and like disclosing, but I will obviously listen to disclosure theory like any other arguments

i dont really like paraphrasing but I am extremely receptive to theory arguments as to why it should/ should not be allowed

i think speaks r dumb and will generally give 29s for good debaters and 30s for really good

i think thats it for now

Dear debaters,

To me, a debater with good style is clear, interesting, charismatic, and persuasive in a way that seems more credible, compelling, and their analysis more important.

Effective and logical arguments require speakers to present relevant and compelling examples and have strong rebuttals. They should be aiming to make sophisticated arguments, explaining all of the links that lead from premise to conclusion, and doing so in a systematic and logical way.

Regarding the structure, I am in favor of signposting.

Please let me know your debating structure at the beginning. When you start your argument, please make your points clear first and then approve them one by one, by prioritizing important material over unimportant material.

I also judge your attitude and confidence through your posture and gesture.

I prefer clear sentences over extravagance. Please speak clearly and don't spread.

Wish you the best of luck and enjoy yourselves in the debate!

Ping Fang

As a parent judge, it would be very helpful to pay attention on the following points:

1. speak slowly and clearly
2. emphasize key points

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

I am a parent of two students who participate in debate.

I will usually vote on a few things --- how each case stands by the end of the debate and how each team refutes the other side's case at the end of the debate.

I look for clarity and great speaking. If I can't understand an argument I will not note it and therefore I cannot vote for it.

For timing I expect you all to time yourself, and to keep track of each other's prep time.

Good Luck!

harker 21 -> ucla 25 and did some pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: fondamhu@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

This is my first time judging, I judge for the Quarry Lane School. Please be respectful to your opponents during crossfire and please talk clearly and not too fast. I might take light notes but if anything is crucial please emphasize during speeches. Most importantly, have fun!

Hi, I'm Nupur Kapadia, a senior varsity PF debater at Palo Alto High School.

General:

Add me to the evidence email chain: nupur.kapadia6@gmail.com

For PF debaters, don't worry too much about definitions because I will know your topic pretty in depth. Other events, I am unfamiliar with rules and topics.

I do flow, so I will keep track of which arguments are extended and dropped throughout the round. Please signpost all of your points clearly so that I can follow your arguments.

Talk at a reasonable pace, so that I can flow those arguments. Try not to take more than ten seconds over time to finish your speech. After the ten second grace period, I will stop flowing.

I will not flow cross, but please be courteous.

Most importantly, make sure to very clearly explain your arguments and responses and warrant all of your points. I will not buy arguments if you just assert them without evidence or warrants.

PF:

In summary and final focus, write my ballot for me. Tell me why your argument and impacts outweigh your opponents and why I need to vote for you.

Make sure you respond to both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal.

I don't require you to extend your entire point in order to flow it. If, in summary, you frontline defense, then I will flow your points across.

Speaker Points:

Be respectful throughout the round, especially in cross. Any rude comments will result in an automatic 25. Bonus points if you make a Drake reference in round.

Good luck!

Hello future debaters! I look forward to judging your rounds, but please keep in mind of these few things.

First things first! I've been debating PF since 2020. Had my fair share of lay and tech rounds, but stayed on the lay side for the most part. I don't like non-topical Ks that can be reformatted and regurgitated each topic. That's not what debate is about. I will only evaluate a K if the violation is truly egregious. If you're running theory just to win the round, that's obvious and not nice. Ex. ask your opps to disclose beforehand if you want to run disclosure on them. and only consider running paraphrase/misconstruing cards if it is a crucial point in the debate, otherwise it feels like a cop-out for a good substance debate.

With all things considered, I'm a flow judge who doesn't like theory/prog.

Debate is about education, both for the debaters and the judge, so please make sure you understand your argument and the context around it. Know your evidence, what it says and doesn't say. I'm tech > truth if the card is legit, but if it's vague and y'all extrapolate, that's not cool and won't fly. Additionally, if your opponent questions a specific about your argument, answer truthfully. Don't project your arguments as fact, but rather a logical flow from the evidence. I'm sure you know your stuff, and I'm excited to see your knowledge.

Though I'm tech>truth, I still value the presentation side of debate. I don't want the technicalities to cloud out the PUBLIC in public forum. I won't count it towards the ballot, but I will be looking out for the lay aspect of the debate of who is seemingly "more persuasive" and include it in my feedback just so y'all can reflect. In the real world no one cares if you've dropped an arg if you aren't able to explain it to a general audience.

--

Now for the tech/content bit:

Whoever came up with the idea that defense is sticky was definitely having a bad day. whatever is still hot and fresh by sum/ff is what gets thrown into the ballot.

Weighing to debate is like socks for shoes; without it things are really gross. Weigh your arguments against your opponents and extend your link chain (warranting) in the latter-half speeches. Address any responses to internal links too.

Collapse early(!!!) don't be afraid to >:))) clean up the round in summary. Final focus should be voters/offense and weighing, not covering the entire flow :(

A round without adequate clash is like a war being fought in water: everyone is just flailing around tryna stay afloat. It's not cute. Interaction is the name of the game, people! There are so many ways to interact w your opponents' args and you can be creative w weighing (but not too creative, lol). If there isn't adequate clash, I might as well flip a coin to see who wins. It's a debate, so address your opponent's points clearly (turn, nq, term def, weigh if you have no response).

On that note, having a strong narrative is different than just repeating your arg from case. Be sure to respond to all responses (that are deemed necessary), and make sure each speech is progressing the round forward.

--

Go take a peak at Sarabeth Huang's paradigm. She's pretty insane I'm ngl and I was her backpack for the past couple years (aka she carried me). Ask her if she knows how to speak Korean :D Also, if you're here from her paradigm, let her know that she spelled "speak" incorrectly for +1 speaker pts).

----

Other mumbo-jumbo:

I found the BEST cookie recipe over the pandemic. I modified it to be extra-scrumptious, but I'm also a bit of a cookie-connoisseur (not rly), and I have yet to start a cooking blog, so here goes for now:

• 1 cup browned butter (basically just boil the butter until the milk fat has dissolved and you have little bits of brown stuff floating around)

- I am a parent judge who is new judging

- Be clear and concise when speaking and talk at a reasonable pace

- Be respectful of your opponents

- I will try to flow your arguments. Convince me with quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

- Speaker points are awarded based on how well you speak and your delivery style

- Please time yourselves

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

I am a first-year parent judge, but I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence, as our school institutionally believes it a terrible norm for PF debate.

I will be flowing the whole round. I will be paying close attention during crossfire and that is an important part of my decision making. I would like to see debaters able to think on their feet and demonstrate confidence.

I am a parent judge. My email is saidcomprising@gmail.com

Please speak in a conversational pace.

Stay focused on the merit and substance of your cases, instead of spending a significant amount of time on attacking procedural errors of your opponent's.

I am unpersuaded by existential risk arguments -- there is a very low bar for responding to these.

I expect cameras to be on all the time.

I don't believe "the more" is necessarily "the better." That is, I won't be impressed just by the quantity and speed of words delivered. I encourage you to speak in your normal speed, be calm, firm, concise and highlight your key points repeatedly.

I value logic reasoning, common sense as much as relevancy of the evidence. Hope you can understand that continuous recitation of a large chunk of quantitative evidence can hardly be absorbed in such a short time. I encourage you to be selective for only those strongest numbers.

Counter-arguments and other responses to your opponents indicate the extent and depth of your preparation. I put a lot of focus on those.

For final speeches, please emphasize the points that I should care about.

Bellarmine '24, he/him

I'll flow. Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com.

Speed is fine.

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. Ideologically, I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion.

I don't care how well you can read blocks straight down. Line-by-line arguments, and respond to them in the order presented.

Tech > Truth. No argument is off limits, but don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.

CX is underutilized. Exploit concessions.

Judge instruction is paramount. Debates without comparative analysis explaining what arguments I should prioritize over others are difficult to resolve. Technical concessions matter, but explain why they implicate my ballot. Be concrete and comparative.

Case debate is a dying art. Doing it well - on either side - will be rewarded.

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Hi everyone! My name is Xiaoli Lu and I will be your judge for the next round.

I am a new judge, so please talk clearly (not too fast!!) and be respectful to each other. I also expect you to keep your time for each other.

Make sure you have viable evidence as well as strong impacts, since I want to be able to see why your contention matters, and how your evidence connects to the overall resolution. I will not be interfering during the round, just flowing. I also will most likely not disclose at the end of the round unless it is elims.

But since you all are novice, remember that this is a learning experience, so make sure to try your best and have fun!

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I appreciate speaking slowly and clearly laying out the points. During rebuttal be sure to signpost (e.g. "On their second contention/C2 about ___"). Good luck.

The nature of any debate form is civil and powerful persuasion. In the case of Public Forum debate, it was said to have been created to make debates understandable to the average person - think the U.S. presidential debates. The word “public” in Public Forum debate is noteworthy for this reason.

As in any debate, clear delivery is key. I encourage all speakers to pay attention to enunciation and speed in their speech. The popularity of Public Forum debate is rooted in its accessibility. The best speeches are constructed and delivered to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I am a parent judge and I have judged for 2 years. I prefer logic in debates with clear understanding of the topic.

I am a parent judge, please speak at an understandable pace, and please articulate your words. Discourage Debate jargons. Don't be rude keep it professional, refrain from mocking and other criticizing movements. Present your evidence properly and expand on why it matters. Good luck!

I'm a former varsity PF debater from Los Altos High School, CA and current college student.

Read the entire paradigm, please! This is also a paradigm aimed towards PF, so if this isn't a PF round, ask me for a verbal paradigm beforehand.

- Virtual Debate Stuffs

Email: shah.aman.a@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain or evidence sharing document.

Cameras: Unless you are having a tech issue, I expect cameras to be on.

Tech Issues: If either you or I have tech issues and I miss part of your speech, we will do our best to determine how much extra time you would need and I will allow you to repeat that section of the speech.

- Please don't ask me when you want to take prep. Tell me. Claim your prep with confidence because it's YOURS.

- Absolutely NO SPREADING at any point!! Your speaks will sink like the Lusitania (If you do not know what the Lusitania is, shame on you). I need to understand what you're saying. I am also a sleep-deprived student who does not have the mental capacity to be flowing a round where you are spreading (speed-reading). Also, Zoom audio is not conducive to spreading, so don't shoot yourself in the foot.

- You must SIGNPOST! It is totally okay for you to use off-time roadmaps and I encourage them. Please also signpost during your rebuttals and summaries especially to make sure I know what to flow and where to extend my flow. Also, number your responses!

- Please debate a PF Round: No kritiks, theory, counter-plans, etc. It's Public Forum, not Policy or Parli.

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits. For all other debate events, you tell me.

- Kindness: You need to be kind to your opponents. Do not be condescending towards your opponents or call their arguments silly, etc. I will call you out and tank your speaker points. Debate requires a certain decorum and if you cannot follow that, debate is not for you.

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

- Speaking Point Method: My standard speaking points will start at 27.5.

Speaks will go down if you use a lot of filler words (like, um, uh, etc.) or go over/under time (It is fine if you are within 10 seconds of the time limit on either side).

Speaks will go down more if you go over time than if you are under the time limit (especially with 3 minute summaries). Your speaks will go up if you show exemplary sportsmanship and are nice but firm during crossfire/cross-ex.

If you get 30 speaks from me, it means I believe you have descended as a deity (of whatever belief you may subscribe to) and speak like an angel.

Please ask me if you do not understand something in my paradigm or need some more clarification! Good luck!

If you need clarification regarding your RFD, please email me. If you are argumentative with me about my round decision and RFD, I will ignore you. So don't argue.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

As a parent judge for the LD tournament, I would like the participants to be respectful, and behave in a cordial manner. This means not interrupting or talking over your opponent, along with using a strong, commanding voice. I value the research of the topic and evidence, as well as facts to support your arguments, however I want the participants to use credible sources for gathering information.

I would like participants to center their arguments around the value and define the value criterion. Arguments should be well organized and rebuttal should be well constructed. Lastly, I want the participants to be mindful of the time provided.

good luck have fun

don't worry

Former Parli debater at Los Altos High.

Scroll down for event specific stuff. Parli is broken up into Case/Theory/K if you're curious about anything specific.

General Philosophy:

1. I will flow everything and am fine with speed. I do protect the flow but will flow after time until opponents call it out. You can ask me to refer to my flow or cross apply arguments.

2. I am fine with jargon in Parli and LD. Probably fine in PF as well but I may ask you to explain.

3. I will try to give as much feedback as possible at the end of the round/provide a detailed RFD and don't hesitate to ask questions.

Speaks:

1. I don't really care about speaks and won't take them super seriously. Unless I see an amazing performance I'll just give the winning team 29s and the losing team 28s.

2. Speak clearly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. I'm fine with speed but make sure your opponents are as well.

PARLI

Case:

I was mostly a flow case debater when I competed. I guess I'm "truth > tech", but I really just mean you have to properly explain and warrant out your arguments for me to buy them. I try not to intervene unless it's a very messy round, and I will vote for arguments I hated.

1. Collapse in your rebuttal speeches please. I prefer you to weigh impacts as well as it makes my job easier as a judge. Frame the round if you have time as well.

2. Have internal links please. I had seen a lot of people not have internal links even in open.

3. Tabula rasa. I won't bring previous opinions into the round to a degree. Obviously my previous political opinions won't influence a round, but I will accept obvious truisms (the sky is blue) as not doing so forces one side to have to do unnecessary warranting.

4. Net benefits is my default weighing mechanism for the round regardless of type (fact, value, policy, etc) if the affirmation does not specify a weighing mechanism.

5. I assume presumption flows neg unless someone tells me otherwise (which I am open to buying) , but I don't really want to vote on this.

Theory:

1. Theory is fine. Competing interps > reasonability. I definitely buy reasonability if you have a clear brightline and can argue for it.

2. I don't buy dress theory.

3. Put all interps in chat.

K:

I'm fine with K debate in general if you must, but I have read very little critical literature so just keep that in mind. I'm probably not familiar with your lit base. Don't spread your K's and take POIs.

CP:

1. Counterplans are fine.

LD

1. I "did" LD for six months about four or five years ago so am very very vaguely familiar with the format.

2. Read the Parli paradigm and cross apply anything that would apply here.

3. I don't expect you to have your case memorized.

4. I do understand jargon - don't define.

PF

Just gonna quote Aman Shah's paradigm here, but I AM open to theory/K/CP so knock yourself out:

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits.

- Type "Jordan Poole is the greatest basketball player of all time" in chat at the start of the round so I know if you read this .

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I am a senior, have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

Lay judge! Please be slow and clear. Your arguments should not be overly complicated in the round. Be respectful to your opponents.

Hello there!

I know Tabroom says my name is Jia He, don’t call me that. Use Cindy instead. (or judge, that works to)

I’m a current debater in PF and did some CNDF a while ago. Treat like flay judge.

email: jiahe.xia@gmail.com

General Stuff/TLDR:

Don’t spread and speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying, I will hold up my hands and stop flowing.

SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST! I need to be able to follow your speech

If you're calling for cards, make it as fast as possible. I advise setting up an email chain or a google document and including me on it.

I’m not great with Ks, Theory, etc. so if you run them I’ll probably have no idea what I’m doing.

If you are excessively rude and/or a bigot I will not vote for you.

Rebuttal:

I don’t care how you go about this as long as it is clear, and easy to follow. Front lining preferred but totally fine if you don't do it.

CrossFire:

I don’t flow cross. If something important gets said, bring it up in one of your speeches.

Cross tends to get heated, that's fine as long as you respect your opponents (no rudeness, bigotry, personal attacks etc.).

No new stuff in grand cross (preferably no new stuff in the other crosses as well).

Summary/Final Focus:

When in doubt weigh and collapse.

Only bring new evidence or arguments during summary if it is defense only (and do this sparingly).

Absolutely no new stuff in final focus or I will be very grumpy and dock points.

PLEASE WEIGH AND COLLAPSE, tell me what to vote for and why, make my life easier.

Online Tournaments

If someone experiences a tech issue, I expect everyone else in the round to keep their cameras and microphones on so we know you’re not using this time to prep.

Don't use the room chat to send cards, it's a pain and ruins all your formatting. 

Will give bonus speaker points for making How to Train Your Dragon references in round.

I am a parent volunteer judge. My feedback is subjective.

I don't have any particular preference for the debating style. I noticed from previous tournaments that fast-talking doesn't help to win the debate. An argument with strong logical reasoning and supporting evidence is more convincing. Additionally, if possible, I would prefer to avoid using "off-time roadmap", which sometimes takes 30second and does not add much value to the argument. In term of time management, sharing files and cards may help but also take up prep time. The debate should be focused on making logical argument and thus requesting for card can be minimized.

3rd year flay parent judge